• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada's Place in the Global Economy

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomahawk6 said:
China devalued the yuan by 70 basis points and is expecting growth next year of 7-9%.


Continued Chinese growth is good for Canada - China needs resources to grow and we remain a resource based heavy economy.

Our dollar has fallen a whole helluva lot more than 70 basis points (about 2,000 basis points actually!) so Chinese products have, effectively gone up in price here - making them somewhat less attractive relative to whatever homemade alternatives exist.

 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report on a conference at Carleton University that may have some good advice for PM Harper – or whoever is PM in the coming months:

--------------------​
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wconference09n/BNStory/politics/home
Get close to Obama on economy and security, paper says

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 9, 2008 at 5:19 AM EST

OTTAWA — A group of influential foreign-affairs experts wants Prime Minister Stephen Harper to develop a close friendship with president-elect Barack Obama and forge deeper ties between Canada and the United States.

The belief that Canada should not get too close to its giant neighbour is the "mantra of elites," and most Canadians do not share such fears, says a blueprint for engagement between the two countries that was released yesterday by the Canada-U.S. Project.

"Stephen Harper and Barack Obama should work quickly to develop a strong personal relationship," it says, quoting a paper contributed to the project by Robin Sears, who was a member of Bob Rae's staff when Mr. Rae was leader of the Ontario NDP.

"For Mr. Harper, becoming the first Canadian prime minister to have a real friendship with an American president since Brian Mulroney, the risks are smaller than they may appear. Barack Obama is widely popular among Canadians, even Conservatives."

After the terrorist attacks of 2001 and amid the economic meltdown of 2008, the concerns on this side of the border should be that "the United States, battered and bitter, humbled and apprehensive, may retreat into Fortress America," the document says.

Time should not be squandered trying to find trilateral solutions to North American problems if they can more easily be resolved without the input of Mexico, it says.

"The addition of Mexico as a partner could, on some issues, muddy the waters," the blueprint says. "This is especially true on matters of defence, border security, the environment, Arctic development and regulation - issues which are either of limited concern to Mexico or where our own national interests are arguably more closely aligned with those of the United States ... "

The group is chaired by Derek Burney, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States who was part of Mr. Harper's transition team, and Fen Osler Hampson, director of the school of international affairs at Carleton University.

It began last spring to request papers from people such as Mr. Sears, who have a deep interest in Canada-U.S. relations. Those 16 papers and the resulting blueprint were presented at a conference in Ottawa yesterday. The document will be vetted to reflect yesterday's discussions and presented to Mr. Harper before Mr. Obama's January inauguration.

Canada must be ready, early in 2009, to deploy a strategy aimed at persuading U.S. political leaders of the need to pursue mutual homeland security and domestic economic objectives, the blueprint says.

"We think it's a unique opportunity when you have a change of administration of this kind," Mr. Burney said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. "We think it's a great time to be recalibrating the relationship on a whole host of issues."

Gordon Giffin, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada who participated in yesterday's conference, said of the blueprint: "Put that on the table; that will get the attention of the next United States government."

-----------------​

Two items certainly reflect my views:

• "The United States, battered and bitter, humbled and apprehensive, may retreat into Fortress America" – this could be disastrous for Canada. For a generation and more we have put almost all our trade eggs in America’s basket. No matter what happens (almost) that market remains close, big, vibrant and friendly. We need to keep it that way; and

• "The addition of Mexico as a partner could, on some issues, muddy the waters ... This is especially true on matters of defence, border security, the environment, Arctic development and regulation - issues which are either of limited concern to Mexico or where our own national interests are arguably more closely aligned with those of the United States" – NAFTA is not terribly important to Canada, nor, even, is the much discussed but still remote Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. Our vital interest is trade (and security) with the USA. We must focus on that. Mexico is a sideshow.






 
Here is a link to the Centre for Trade Policy and Law/Norman Patterson School of International Affairs' Canad-USA Project referred to just above.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Our dollar has fallen a whole helluva lot more than 70 basis points (about 2,000 basis points actually!) so Chinese products have, effectively gone up in price here - making them somewhat less attractive relative to whatever homemade alternatives exist.

That's a fact.

I got a quote for some equipment manufactured in Europe but sold via the US four monthe ago: $239,000  Cdn

It was approved 2 weeks ago.

Just got the udated price prior to submitting the final PO: $289,000  Cdn

Project Status?  Uncertain.
 
Not all Americans are protectionist or isolationist; Canada's unlikely champion is (none other than) the Governor of Alaska!

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/who-can-canada-count-on/environment

Who Can Canada Count On?
December 9th, 2008 Posted in environment

CTV:

Just a few days after signing a historic agreement that will see a Canadian company build a massive pipeline to flow natural gas from Alaska to Alberta, Gov. Sarah Palin says she is working to strengthen relations with Canada, and Barack Obama should too.

Palin spoke to CTV’s Canada AM from Fairbanks, Alaska, just after signing the deal with TransCanada pipeline.

She granted the company US$500 million to plan the pipeline, with construction set to begin in 2011.

“I want to grow the relationship we have with Canada,” Palin said.

“I know Alaska is doing all we can to grow that relationship and we’ve gotta have faith that the newly elected administration will see the light on that and work very hard to increase and strengthen the relationship between our two countries.”

She said Alaskans and Canadians have much in common, from a shared love of hockey to an appreciation for the outdoors, hunting and fishing.

Palin predicted the newly signed 2,700-kilometre pipeline project will boost U.S. domestic energy supply by 7 per cent and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil sources.

“This has been long hoped for, prayed about, wished for, for really about 50 years here in Alaska,” Palin said.

She said Alaska has vast reserves of oil and natural gas that are virtually being “warehoused” at the moment.

“It’s time to tap those, throw them into our own hungry markets so we can be less reliant on foreign sources and less beholden to some regimes that control energy that we import. Some of those regimes don’t like America,” she said.

Obama was ‘wrong’

... discussing the suggestion from the Obama team during the campaign that he would make changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“I think he was wrong to send a message that he would unilaterally want to go in and renegotiate,” Palin said.

“I do not support that, but I think…he’s going to see some conditions that will allow him to temper his position even on that.”

NAFTA, she said, has resulted in jobs in both the U.S. and Canada, and must be protected in order to keep both countries’ economies “revving.”
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is a report on the likely Canadian and world situations:

--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Synchronized+global+recession+hard/1058543/story.html

'Synchronized global recession' to hit hard

BY ERIC BEAUCHESNE

DECEMBER 10, 2008 5:04 PM

OTTAWA - Canada's economy will continue to contract until mid-2009, pushing the jobless rate above eight per cent and robbing Canadians of more than $50 billion in income, TD Bank projected Wednesday, abandoning a previously favoured more optimistic scenario.

"We are witnessing a rare instance in history of a synchronized global recession," it said in its grim forecast, issued in the wake of the Bank of Canada's acknowledgement this week that Canada is entering a recession. "At the heart of the global recession is the ongoing difficulties in credit markets, which know no borders."

The pessimistic forecast sees the U.S. economy suffering its severest recession since the the 1980s, shrinking by nearly two per cent next year, and the global economy expanding only 0.5 per cent, its weakest performance on records going back nearly half a century, it noted.

"Tumbling commodity prices will have a unique impact on the real Canadian economy . . . the equivalent of shaving $51 billion from domestic income," noted the forecast, which projects a 1.4 per cent contraction here.

According to a separate survey, the loss in income will be especially steep for a growing number of workers who will lose their jobs.

The survey by international consulting firm Watson Wyatt found that 44 per cent of employers have made or are planning layoffs or staff reductions, a finding that suggests last month's loss of 71,000 jobs, the worst in more than a quarter-century, was merely tip of the iceberg.

The November survey of 138 Canadian-based companies from various industry sectors also found that four in 10 will also freeze new hires, while nearly one-third have already made or will be going through organizational restructuring, though less than 20 per cent of those consider the staff changes significant.

"Although there is a high level of uncertainty in the market, employers are cautiously moving forward to deal with the challenges of the economic downturn," said Liz Wright, a compensation expert at Watson Wyatt Worldwide.

And according to the TD forecast, it's a downturn that will continue to deepen through this and the first two quarters of next year, pushing the national jobless rate, now at 6.3 per cent, to 8.2 per cent by the end of 2009. That's a rate that, despite the start of a recovery, will rise further to a peak of 8.4 per cent by mid-2010.

The fall in commodity prices, meanwhile, will continue to weigh heavily on investment income as well as employment earnings, it said. It projected that Canada's benchmark S&P/TSX composite index, which had already fallen 46 per cent by late last month, will sink another 20 per cent as the global recession deepens.

OPTIONAL END

That concern, however, was not evident on Bay Street Wednesday, as investors bid up the TSX to a triple-digit gain of 236.44 points to 8,634, and where one analyst projected a 20 per cent gain in the index to 11,000 by the end of next year. The gain here overshadowed a more modest 70.09 point rise in Wall Street's blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average.

However, the projection for the TSX by CIBC World Markets economist Jeff Rubin was far from a vote of confidence, and was couched in uncertainties.

"An increasingly challenging economic environment compels us to trim our market target for the TSX by 1,000 points to 11,000 next year," Rubin said. "While the implied 20-per-cent plus return warrants a full weighting in stocks, the near-term risks to the market from a contracting North American economy stand in the way of overweighting stocks at this point.

"We continue to expect the North American economy to contract over the first half of the year, with near-term punitive consequences for earnings," he said.

Still, Rubin projects that world oil prices, which closed at $43.52 US a barrel on Wednesday - less than a third of the $147 US peak reached last summer - will rebound to the $100 US level by the end of next year once the global recovery begins to take hold.

CNS 12/10/08 16:50:58

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

--------------------



The forecast that the TSX will hit 11,000 by the end of next year is cold comfort when one remembers that it hit 15,000 in the summer just past. There’s a loooooong way to go on the road to recovery.



 
This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, gives us some indications of what’s happening in the rest of the world:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081222.wglobalfin1222/BNStory/Front/home

Japan recession deepens, China cuts rates

TOMASZ JANOWSKI AND RALPH BOULTON

Reuters

December 22, 2008 at 7:15 AM EST

SINGAPORE/LONDON — China cut its benchmark lending and deposit rates on Monday and Japan warned it was sliding deeper into a recession that is encroaching on the global economy, closing factories and throttling trade.

British central bankers said interest rate cuts alone would not cure growing global economic ills that began with a crisis in the U.S. housing market.

But figures showing the deepest plunge on record in euro zone industrial new orders were sure to fire expectation of more rate cuts in Europe.

The People's Bank of China announced its fifth cut in lending rates since mid-September, underlining the scale of problems facing the world's fourth-largest economy and the only major one that is still growing

The cost of one-year bank loans would fall to 5.31 per cent from 5.58 per cent, while the benchmark one-year deposit rate falls to 2.25 per cent from 2.52 per cent.

The world's second biggest economy Japan, which slashed interest rates to a rock-bottom 0.1 percent last week, reported the biggest ever drop in exports in November.

Compounding Japanese gloom, the world's top carmaker, Toyota Motor Co forecast its first ever group operating loss — of 150 billion yen ($1.7 billion) — due to a collapse in global demand and a crippling rise in the yen.

Interest rates were lowered almost to zero in the United States and Japan last week, but British central bankers — who have cut rates by three percentage points since October — warned that policy alone would not solve the financial crisis.

Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir John Gieve said Britain needed some form of new policy tool beyond the “blunt instrument” of interest rates and his colleague, Tim Besley, said monetary policy was not enough to bring Britain's flagging economy back to life.

“We need to develop some new instruments, which sit somewhere between interest rates, which affect the whole economy ... and individual supervision and regulation of individual banks,” Mr. Gieve told the BBC, without elaborating.

Traders and analysts polled by Reuters believe the Bank of Japan will early next year return to a policy, which it abandoned only in 2006, of flooding banks with cash to inflate the economy.

The U.S. Federal Reserve already ventured into that territory last week, slashing its benchmark funds rate to a range from zero to 0.25 per cent and promising to supply banks with unlimited cash and keep rates low over an extended period.

In Ireland, shares in the three main banks soared following a 5.5 billion euros ($7.7 billion) government injection that leaves one of them under state control.

The government announced late on Sunday it would make an initial investment of 1.5 billion euros in Anglo Irish Bank, giving it 75 per cent control of the lender.

Dublin will also invest 2 billion euros each in market leaders Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Banks.

Pessimism about the global auto market, as well as banks and oils, prompted a 1.3 per cent fall in European shares.

European Union statistics office Eurostat said October euro zone orders fell by 4.7 per cent from September for an annual fall of 15.1 per cent — the deepest year-on-year fall on record.

The main reason was a 9.4 per cent monthly and a 33.3 per cent annual fall in orders for transport equipment.

Adding to the malaise, a Reuters Tankan survey showed business sentiment at the lowest in its 10-year history and Bank of Japan Governor Masaaki Shirakawa said worse was to come.

“The Japanese economy is deteriorating and for the time being its conditions are likely to become more severe,” he told business leaders.

The government's monthly economic report summed it up in a similar vein. “Economic conditions are worsening,” it said, the first time it used such an expression since February 2002.

Japan's November exports plunged 26.7 per cent from a year earlier, hit by a strong yen and sagging demand for its goods in key U.S. and Asian markets, including China.

(For a graphic on Japan's exports, click on https://customers.reuters.com/d/graphics/JP_EXP1208.gif )

Nonetheless, Tokyo stocks bucked the downward trend, rising 1.6 per cent, encouraged by the government's spending plans and Friday's $17.4 billion bail out of U.S. car makers.

A source said China's mammoth $1.9 trillion reserve stockpile shrank in October, which some economists say may mark a potentially worrying reversal to capital outflows.

Frantic global efforts may still fall short of what was needed to stave off the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned.

“Our forecast, already very dark ... will be even darker if not enough fiscal stimulus is implemented,” he said in an interview with BBC radio on Sunday.

--------------------

Flooding the economy with cash, as this report suggests the Japanese intend to do, might help in countries (especially Japan but also, to a much lesser extent, Canada) where the savings rates are very high but it would be the worst thing to do in the USA where far too many people are already badly, dangerously overextended on their various and sundry credit lines. But Canada needs people, especially the nearby Americans, to buy our resources to build and buy new stuffroads and bridges and houses and cars. And buying Canadian stuff requires cash.
 
But according to many reports I read, Canadian Banks are going to put this country in a world of hurt, unless they stop hoarding all the $$ made available to them and start lending big time. Yeah, they'll lose some, but at the rate they are withdrawing back into themselves, we might as well have done what the US has done, because we're reaping the (NON)benefits......
 
GAP said:
But according to many reports I read, Canadian Banks are going to put this country in a world of hurt, unless they stop hoarding all the $$ made available to them and start lending big time. Yeah, they'll lose some, but at the rate they are withdrawing back into themselves, we might as well have done what the US has done, because we're reaping the (NON)benefits......

But who are they supposed to lend to?

The government's rushing around with "stimulus" and "bailout" packages means there is no way to know who will be a good credit risk unless you know who is politically connected: the State is picking winners and losers. Your company might get government money, or it might be forced out of business because the government gave money to your competitors. Your customers might benefit or suffer because of the flood of government monies, making your business planning moot.

Incidentally, this is what happened during the "New Deal" in the depression of the 1930's, US production essentially collapsed in 1937 due to the endless uncertainty the New Deal created and the vast amounts of capital being sucked up in taxes. The "New New Deal" looks set to replicate the uncertainty effect and destroy capital by pouring it into failing business.
 
Excellent point regarding businesses, but does that justify the massive cutback of overdraft, credit line access to normally credit worthy customers?
 
GAP said:
Excellent point regarding businesses, but does that justify the massive cutback of overdraft, credit line access to normally credit worthy customers?

Maybe not (although since your employer and hence employment is potentially at undefinable risk, the bank might say this is justified), but the other factor is the banks are limiting their exposure to risk by pulling  access to credit. Since the true cause of the financial crisis is the imbalance between debt and wealth, banks are prudently rebalancing in the only way then can. Unfortunately, this may be moot as politicians start increasing inflationary pressures on the economy through stimulus and bailouts while demagogues use State power to force the banks to start giving out loans again (even though political manipulation of the mortgage market through Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae is one of the triggers of the current crisis).

Other business entities are also taking rational action to the increasing politicizing of the US economy. There are opportunities if we Canadians play our cards right:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/12/has-flood-of-fleeing-capital-begun.html

Has the Flood of Fleeing Capital Begun

Are we already seeing a flood of capital leave America? Are corporations reading the writing on the wall, and moving to more hospitable locations?

IBD seems to think so:

    Much political hay has been made in Congress about "unpatriotic" corporations that move operations abroad. Weatherford International is the latest, taking its headquarters from Houston to Switzerland. The oil services company said that it wants to be closer to its markets. But what it really meant was that it no longer saw the future in the U.S.

    In a political atmosphere of blaming corporations, it's no wonder. Halliburton fled to Dubai in 2007. Tyco International, Foster Wheeler and Transocean International all went to Switzerland. As a pattern emerges, America's global standing diminishes, in part because it's based on the willingness of companies to invest. It's an especially bad sign when domestic companies flee.

    "The U.S. is an important market," Weatherford CEO Bernard J. Duroc-Danner told the Houston Chronicle Thursday. But, "it's just a market. It's not the primary market."

    How does that sound for a loss of global leadership? If that's not clear enough, try this: "In the hierarchical pecking order, (Houston's) not going to be Rome anymore."
 
Will Canada start seeing economic refugees from New York and California? (If we have the right mix of taxes and regulations, Canada might be considered a better safe haven for the next four years)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-22/what-if-new-york-go-bust/

What If New York Goes Bust?

by John Avlon

Forget the car companies and Lehman Brothers. Two of the biggest states in the country are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, thanks to ridiculous union agreements that can’t be changed.

If California and New York State were businesses, they'd be going bankrupt. If you're among the nearly 20 percent of Americans who live or work in these two states, the fiscal crisis is coming home for the holidays. And the worst is still on its way.

California, the world's eighth largest economy, will run out of money in March if the deadlocked legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can't come to an agreement on tax-hikes and spending cuts. Its bonds have been reduced to near-junk status after decades of borrowing and spending. State Treasurer Bill Lockyer summed up the situation in terms unhelpful to the tourist industry: "California's fiscal house is burning down."

We're not facing a cyclical downturn; we're facing a fundamental alteration of the facts of financial life in New York.

In New York, Gov. David Paterson is trying to control a deficit, which has doubled to $15 billion since August. He proposed a potpourri of taxes and fees totaling $4 billion, ranging from non diet soft drinks, taxis, and iTunes purchases to high-end luxury items like fur coats and boats.

Soon after assuming office, Paterson said, "The era of buy now, pay later and later is over." To his credit, he is trying to walk the fiscally responsible talk, proposing $9 billion in spending-cuts and resisting a rise in state income taxes. But government budgets have become a beast that is almost impossible to tame. Paterson announced a hard line hiring freeze in July, only to find out in October that 31,684 new employees had been added to the state payroll.

Here's the really bad news: the full impact of the financial crisis in New York has yet to be felt.

The dirty secret of Empire State budgeting is that New York City depends disproportionately on Wall Street for its budget and New York State depends on New York City.

In the last four months, the financial landscape has changed dramatically. Investment banks that have been the engine of the city's tax revenue for decades have disappeared entirely or morphed into restricted new entities. According to E.J. McMahon, my colleague at the Manhattan Institute, between 1980 and 2007 the securities industry's share of wages in the state rocketed from 3 percent to 18 percent, with the average Wall Street salary and bonus rising to $379,000. Wall Street revenues made up 20 percent of the state's budget. So the 40,000 local jobs lost in the financial sector are only the beginning. We're not facing a cyclical downturn; we're facing a fundamental alteration of the facts of financial life in New York. And the 20 percent unemployment in some upstate counties will not help ease the squeeze.

But New York is playing Ford to California's GM at this stage of the crisis. While the Golden State economy is comparatively diversified, its financial meltdown is further along, with entire cities and towns throwing in the towel and declaring bankruptcy.

The city of Vallejo—population 120,000—declared bankruptcy earlier this year because it was locked into spending 74 percent of its $80 million general fund budget on public-safety salaries. Police captains were entitled to receive $306,000 annually in pay and benefits, while 21 firefighters earned more than $200,000 a year, including overtime. After five years on the job, all were entitled to lifetime health benefits. Now two smaller towns north of San Francisco, Isleton and Rio Vista, also appear on the brink of bankruptcy.

In a preview of political fights to come, both New York State and California budgets are being crippled by outsized public sector union pension obligations that are now coming due in a perfect storm—a combination of an aging population, a declining tax base, and a fiscal crisis.

The Democrats who narrowly control both state legislatures have a notoriously cozy relationship with unions and they will be unlikely in the extreme to bite the hands that feed. But the unsupportable absurdities of the current arrangement are becoming evident.

The average state and local government employee now makes 46 percent more in combined salary and benefits than their private sector counter-parts, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute—including 128 percent more on health care and 162 percent more on retirement benefits. New York City, for example, not only spends 10 times more on pensions than it did ten years ago, it now spends more on pensions and benefits for firefighters than it does on firefighters' salaries.

These tax-payer sponsored paychecks cannot be renegotiated in tough times to balance a budget. They can only go up, never down.

The Alice in Wonderland absurdity of the current budget debates was nicely illustrated by the president of the United Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten. She was quoted without irony in The New York Times saying, "We understand there will be cuts. The real question, will there be cuts, not just cuts against growth, but real cuts that will turn back the clock."

A close reading reveals that for union leaders like Ms. Weingarten, the only acceptable "cuts" are not cuts at all, but rather reductions in the rate of increase for public spending. She is willing, in effect, to receive a reduced bonus this year, but not the cut in pay or benefits that would constitute shared sacrifice in a financial crisis.

From East Coast to West, we've all become addicted to living beyond our means over the past decade. Members of Congress are all Keynesians now, and there doesn't seem to be a deficit hawk left in D.C. Wall Street's dizzying fall from inexcusable excess has left some investors decimated and wondering whether the entire financial industry was a self-serving fraud to begin with. But the real reckoning for tax-payers is still to come.

John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. Avlon also served as Director of Speechwriting and Deputy Director of Policy for Rudy Giuliani's Presidential Campaign. Previously, he was a columnist for the New York Sun and served as Chief Speechwriter and Deputy Communications Director for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He worked on Bill Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CTV News web site, is a pretty broad, general assessment of what some economists think might be in store for us in 2009:
-------------------
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081225/Economic_forecasts_081227/20081227?hub=TopStories

Economists grim in their forecasts for 2009

Updated Sat. Dec. 27 2008 7:37 AM ET

Josh Visser, CTV.ca News

Can 2009 be as bad, or even worse, than 2008 for the global economy? The bad news is that yes, it's going to be a very bad year, but the good news is that Canada is expected to be better off than most countries.

The World Bank was dour in its 2009 forecast, projecting that global GDP growth of 2.5 per cent in 2008 will drop to a mere 0.9 per cent in 2009.

Even worse for North Americans is that the World Bank expects most of the GDP growth to be in developing countries, with high-income countries likely to experience negative growth.

The Institute of International Finance, which represents 70 of the world's biggest banks, is even more grim. The institute says that it expects the world's economy will shrink next year, the first time that has happened in 50 years. The group says the global economy will shrink by 0.4 per cent.

Halfway through December, even the usually-optimistic Finance Minister Jim Flaherty finally admitted that Canada was headed for a deficit and a recession.

"2009 is going to be a difficult year for Canada and for Canadians," Flaherty said in Saskatoon on Dec. 17.

A report from RBC Economics says that it does not expect to see any growth in the Canadian economy at all in 2009 and that Canada will enter a technical recession.

"We expect the slowdown in Canada not to be as severe as in other countries since the imbalances plaguing other countries are more pronounced," Craig Wright, chief economist at the Royal Bank of Canada, said in the report.

TSX to recover .. but when?

On the Canadian stock exchange, CIBC forecaster Jeff Rubin, expects to see 20 per cent growth for the Toronto Stock exchange, but for most of those gains to take place in the latter half of 2009.

"While the implied 20-per-cent-plus return warrants a full weighting in stocks, the near-term risks to the market from a contracting North American economy stand in the way of overweighting stocks at this point," he said in a message to clients.

Falling oil prices particularly hurts the TSX in the short-term and the expected, though not guaranteed, positive response of a massive stimulus package from Washington may not be felt until summer 2009.

Wright said in the RBC report that Canadian economic recovery should begin in the latter half of 2009.

Ottawa's full response to the economic crisis is still an unknown, but the Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said his next budget will include a massive economic stimulus package and may go as far as $30 billion into deficit.

Obviously, the biggest unknown for Canadians is what will happen to the auto sector. Billions are being allotted to automakers by both Washington and Ottawa, but there are no guarantees that the Detroit 3 will survive in their current form.

Even with the massive amount of bailout cash from the U.S. government, Chrysler only has enough cash to make it through March, at which point its future veers into the unknown. Its parent company Cerberus has said that its wants to turn the company around, but it has also shopped Chrysler to General Motors.

A report prepared by the Ontario government suggested that Canada could lose almost 600,000 jobs if the Detroit 3 go out of business, although it's highly unlikely that all three could go under in 2009. Ford says it has enough cash to stay afloat for all of 2009, though not much more.

Retailers are also expected to be in a tough year, especially for shops in high-end electronics or those selling products seen as superfluous. However, budget friendly megastores like Wal-Mart are expected to thrive in the 2009 economy.

Even the videogame industry, which was widely considered recession-proof, appears to be limping into 2009, with gamemaker giant Electronic Arts announcing plans in December to lay off 10 per cent of its workforce.

2008 was all downhill and 2009 will no doubt continue that trend. It's merely of matter of when in 2009 does the economy finally hit rock bottom and how deep that will be.

--------------------

There appears to be an emerging consensus that America and Asia will find the “bottom” in 2009 and, therefore, will be ready and, hopefully, able to begin a turn around. Europe appears to be in deeper trouble and may not find “bottom” until later – 2010, even 2011.

A prediction of a 20% growth in stock market values is weak but welcome news; markets have shed very nearly half of their value since the TSX hit 15,000 in Jul 2008. Twenty percent brings us to 10,000 – there’s still a long, long way to go before individual investors and big pension plans have regained anything like their mid '08 values. Look for two or three “lost years.”

 
If the Obama administration carries out their agenda, then they can look for this. Our economy will tank along with theirs (but if we can reverse course on our own excessive taxes and regulations, then we have a better chance.) This is in distinct contrast to what the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are calling for (along with the pundits and other talking heads):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123059756486341161.html

New Jersey Is the Perfect Bad Example
Obama should look here to see what high taxes do.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

When Barack Obama makes his New Year's resolutions, at the top of his list ought to be the following: "I will not allow America to become New Jersey."

Think of it as our gift to the nation. Other states offer promising experiments in areas such as Medicaid, taxes, education and regulatory reform. In contrast, the People's Republic of New Jersey offers America something truly unique: the perfect bad example.

As harmful as this has been for our own prosperity, our example could be invaluable for President-elect Obama. That's especially true given that his team appears to be considering some of the same things that have long been popular in Trenton. For years, the solons in our state capital have operated on the assumption that you can have high taxes everywhere -- on income, on property, on business -- without suffering any consequences.

Well, Gov. Jon Corzine is now dealing with those consequences, and his budgets show it. Earlier this year, he pushed through a budget that was one of the few in New Jersey history to be less than the one that preceded it. With revenues now running $1.2 billion short of what was expected, the next budget will undoubtedly be tougher still.

Not all of Mr. Corzine's choices have been good ones. In fairness, however, he is dealing with huge problems that have been years in the making. In some ways, we are a mini-California. That is to say, where New Jersey was once a national leader in terms of economic growth and job creation, more recently we have become a national laggard.

It seems not to have dented the consciousness of our political class that New Jersey's dismal economic performance might be linked to the state's tax policy. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, New Jersey is home to the most hostile tax environment for business in the nation. We also bear the nation's highest burden of state and local taxes. And on the list of the 10 counties with the highest median property tax, we claim seven of them.

During the last recession, we began to feel the full weight of these burdens. Other states responded by cutting back on spending and getting their houses in order. Not New Jersey. Then-Gov. Jim McGreevey added to the burden by borrowing and spending and raising the corporate tax -- including the imposition of an alternative minimum tax on business. And we've been paying for these bad choices ever since.

Mr. Obama might pay special attention to what these measures have meant for jobs, especially given his expressed concern for the struggling middle class. Though the state did ultimately emerge from recession in 2003, private-sector job creation since then has been a pale shadow of what we enjoyed after the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s.

Of course, there was one area where jobs did grow. From 2000 to 2007, says the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, the government added 54,800 jobs. To put that in proper perspective, that works out to 93% of all jobs created in New Jersey over those seven years.

So how do we respond to these new hard times? Beginning New Year's Day, New Jersey workers will see even more money taken from their paychecks. The money will support a new mandate offering six weeks of paid family leave to almost all New Jersey employees -- right on down to those working in very small operations. In itself, the family-leave tax will not be the ruin of the state economy. But the imposition of yet another new tax at this moment bespeaks a lack of seriousness about what both New Jersey workers and businesses can afford.

For the moment, Mr. Corzine, like Mr. Obama, is putting his faith in public-works spending. Indeed, he has even called on the president-elect to expand his own plans for an infrastructure stimulus to $1 trillion. And it would be hard to deny that our tired infrastructure could use some attention.

But amid all the debate over jump-starting the economy through public works, we risk losing sight of a larger truth: What governors and citizens alike need most is a growing economy that is creating jobs for the people and sending revenue to the capital. Over the long run, the only way to have a healthy and growing economy is to do exactly what New Jersey has not: Trust the people with their own money, and create an environment where initiative and enterprise are rewarded rather than penalized.

Absent a thorough-going revolution in Trenton, New Jersey may be lost for some time to come. But if Mr. Obama can learn from our bad example and do the opposite, New Jersey's loss might yet be America's gain.
 
There’s a flaw in the “let the people keep their money” argument: the people want, indeed demand social services and they believe – with considerable good evidence – that governments can provide “better” social services (than the private sector) at acceptable costs.

The particulars (e.g. government is a “better” social services provider) are arguable but the basic fact that people want publicly funded services is not. Public funding of social (and other) services requires taxes.

I have argued and still do that, generally:

• Income taxes on businesses are counter-productive. The company is, simply, forced to perform – at some considerable cost – a bureaucratic function: collecting a consumption tax from consumers and then sending the tax revenues to the government;

• All income taxes are counter-productive because they are, essentially, taxes on savings which means that they are taxes on investments which means that they are taxes on jobs;

• If all income taxes are bad and corporate taxes are worse then all that’s left are poll taxes, property taxes and consumption taxes;

• A poll tax has the advantage of being ‘fair.’ It says if you’re here, alive, in this political jurisdiction (city, province country) then you pay an equal share for the ‘common’ services all those in this jurisdiction enjoy: the national defence, for example, that is provided, equally, to all, rich and poor, citizen and visitor, alike;

• Local property taxes are a useful way to pay for local services. The problem with most property tax regimes and most local services is that the former are poorly designed and even more poorly administered and the latter are, too often, most often poorly provided at far too high a cost due to uncompetitive practices – consider, just for example, ‘public transit’ in Japan which is cheap, efficient and, generally regarded as amongst the world’s best, and is provided by a mix of competing public and private corporations;

• Consumption taxes are simple, easy and, when sensibly administered, fair, too. They have one great advantage: after a certain point (a “basket” of essential goods and services), they are discretionary – you can avoid paying taxes by saving (and investing and creating jobs) rather than by consuming above a sensible, comfortable level. Properly administered consumption taxes also ‘catch’ the rich as efficiently as the poor – something most other taxes fail to do.

As long as people want, nay demand public services and as long as they insist on having public services that are inefficiently, uncompetitively (often even corruptly) provided the there must be taxes – often substantial taxes. What we – and New Jersey - can do is:

• Recognize that there is only one taxpayer – the individual. The only question is: how are taxes collected from individuals?

• Collect taxes as efficiently and effectively as possible;

• Design tax regimes that do not punish the poor and do not allow the rich to avoid their ‘fair’ share of taxes;

• Design tax regimes that do not damage the economy by punishing those who create jobs – savers and investors; and

• Provide public services in an efficient, effective (which usually means competitive) manner.

In New Jersey, like e.g. Ontario, and in the USA, as in Canada, almost all tax regimes punish both the productive and the poor and waste the money that is collected on ineptly provided services. The people want services, they get waste and corruption.

Lowering taxes doesn’t help much; it addresses one symptom, not the real problem. Providing effective services efficiently helps, so does using a sensible tax regime. Do those two things and taxes will lower themselves.

 
Not sure if this belongs here or in another topic but an interesting read.

NEWS FROM Globeandmail.com 

Comparative costs and the U.S. sinkhole, er, bailout
NEIL REYNOLDS
00:00 EST Wednesday, Dec 31, 2008
 

Ottawa -- What's a billion? What's a trillion? What's $8.7-trillion (U.S.)? What's $10.4-trillion? James Bianco, president of Chicago-based Bianco Research Inc., provides specific answers to each of these questions - helping, in the process, to make these numbers comprehensible.

Mr. Bianco calculated the contemporary cost of a number of historic U.S. events, adjusted these costs for inflation and compared them with the combined cost of the U.S. bailout of financial institutions - either spent or pledged in the autumn meltdown of 2008.

This much becomes crystal clear: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal was (in comparative terms) downright cheap.

Here's are some of the key calculations in Mr. Bianco's analysis.

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson paid France $15-million for land that now forms 25 per cent of the United States. Adjusted for inflation, the Louisiana Purchase cost $217-billion in 2008 currency.

From 1932 through 1939, President Roosevelt's expenditures on the New Deal consumed $32-billion - or $500-billion in today's currency.

In the years following the Second World War, the U.S. spent $12.7-billion on the Marshall Plan reconstruction of war-torn Europe - or $115-billion in today's currency.

From early 1950 through 1953, the U.S. spent $54-billion to wage the Korean War - or $454-billion in today's currency.

From 1961 through July 16, 1969, the U.S. spent $36-billion on President John F. Kennedy's race to the moon - or $237-billion in today's currency. (President Kennedy had promised to put an American on the lunar surface "before the end of this decade.")

From the late 1980s through the early 1990s, the U.S. spent $154-billion to compensate the clients of 747 bankrupt S&L (savings and loans) institutions - or $256-billion in today's currency.

In the Vietnam War (1955-1975), the U.S. spent $111-billion - or $698-billion in today's currency.

In the Persian Gulf war (1990-1991), the U.S. spent $550-billion to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from Kuwait - or $597-billion in today's currency.

Add the costs of all these events together and you get a total - in today's currency - of precisely $3-trillion, which is close to the actual deployment of bailout money in the economic meltdown thus far: $2.8-trillion. But this $2.8-trillion is only a small part of the $8.7-trillion that various U.S. agencies and institutions have pledged. To accumulate enough historic spending to match this higher number, you would need to throw the most costly enterprises of the country onto Mr. Bianco's list. Arbitrarily, let's add the global cost of the First World War ($2.6-trillion in today's currency) and the U.S. costs in the Second World War ($3.6-trillion in today's currency). Total: $9.2-trillion.

These expenditures now exceed U.S. bailout commitments by $500-billion - an amount, incidentally, that would cover the cost of putting a human colony on Mars and of meeting all of the UN's millennium goals (among other things, eradicating extreme poverty from the Earth) by 2015. But the $8.7-trillion, thus far, in meltdown commitments - such as liquidity directed to financial institutions - does not include the stimulus package already approved by Congress - known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - which exceeds $700-billion, or the expenditures that will be approved early in 2009 when president-elect Barack Obama takes over the White House. The Obama team has signalled its intention to enact a stimulus package worth $1-trillion. Combined with the stimulus package already enacted, the combined bailout costs rise to $10.4-trillion ($8.7-trillion in tranquilizers for Wall Street, $1.7-trillion in stimulants for Main Street).

There's yet another global expenditure that helps put the U.S. bailout program in perspective. In his celebrated warning on global warming, British economist Lord Nicholas Stern put the future cost of controlling climate change at $9-trillion - expressed in 2006 dollars, though expended over the next hundred years. In other words, the U.S. Federal Reserve could apparently finance the global-warming expenditures of the entire world, for the next hundred years, simply by printing precisely the same quantity of cash it has casually printed to thwart deflation in the last three months.

The U.S. response to a deflationary recession appears excessive. The size of the American domestic bailout now approaches U.S. GDP itself ($14-trillion). What happens when your bailout costs exceed your GDP? Mr. Bianco answers with the suggestion that economists "use the number infinity" in calculating final bailout costs. "No one understands these numbers," he says, "and I include the Treasury Secretary [Henry Paulson] and the chairman of the Federal Reserve [Ben Bernanke]."

As for Canada, we look thrifty - yet still modestly heroic - in comparison. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty talks up a stimulus package worth $30-billion (Canadian). This compares historically to the costs Canada incurred in the First World War ($1.6-billion in 1918 currency, $22-billion in today's currency). Yes, there were only nine million of us in 1918, and there are 30 million of us now. But it's wise, strategically, to hold something in reserve. We are probably in the first skirmish of a protracted war

 
E.R. Campbell said:
There’s a flaw in the “let the people keep their money” argument: the people want, indeed demand social services and they believe – with considerable good evidence – that governments can provide “better” social services (than the private sector) at acceptable costs......

Mean Tendency:

When companies conduct surveys to determine whether or not their product is acceptable they offer panelists choices rated on a scale of 0 to 10.  They seldom get 0s and they seldom get 10s.  People tend to recoil from extremes and cluster around the middle, or the mean.

In North America you usually hear the term Middle Class used in conjunction with those that work for a living.  And everyone considers themselves Middle Class.

Myself, I occassionally finding myself feeling sorry for myself as I am short, fat and ugly - but a walk through a mall quickly clears that misconception up because I rapidly determine that there are those that are shorter, fatter and uglier (although perhaps not in such exquisite combination).  I can convince myself that I am not far off the norm.

Everybody wants to believe that they are the norm. Everybody sees themselves as being Middle Class.

Governments survive by appealing to this Mean Tendency.



At the same time individuals, acting out of self interest, are always looking for the best bargain available - and yet they don't want to appear to be self-interested (a common cover is "I'm doing it for my kids.")


What the Government offers to the Majority of the population is a sweetheart deal that they can't refuse.  It is the promise of services that they can't afford on their own income.  At that point we are all only too happy to chip in a dime for a dollars worth of services secure in the knowledge that it won't be us that are covering the other 90 cents.  And most folks don't much care where that money comes from.

It can come concurrently from other subscribers that don't currently need the service (the basis of an insurance plan).
It can come from the historical contributions of yourself and other subscribers (a combination of savings and insurance)
It can come from future contributions of yourself and other subscribers (debt financing).

But ultimately, the expectation of the individual is that they will get out of the Government more than they put in.  The unacknowledged truth is that we expect those that have more than us to pay for our services.  This is pure self-interest at work.  Other folks would call it greed.

The problems arise when your dime doesn't get you a dollar return. 

As the demand for services goes up.  As the cost of the service goes up.  As the number of claimants goes up then your dime only buys you a half-dollar of services.  Pretty soon the government comes looking for a quarter  from you to cover the pot.

At that point your 10:1 return is reduced to a 2:1 return.

Soon enough you're sending the government a quarter and getting a dime's worth of services as your money is directed to the more deserving cases and the bureaucrats that administer the schemes - and then you discover the value of doing things for yourself.

In Canada that is the point we have acheived in Health Care.  The Americans have yet to learn their lesson.  They still think there are rich people to soak.  And that is even more true of the Third World.


The problem is not "letting the people keep their money".  It is "forcing people to keep their money".  Or, more commonly expressed, live within their means.





 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s Ottawa Citizen, is an article reflecting the views of one of Canada’s premier financiers, Claude Lamoureaux:
--------------------
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/Claude+Lamoureaux+think+people+greedy/1129174/story.html

Claude Lamoureaux: 'I think people got greedy'

BY BARBARA SHECTER

DECEMBER 31, 2008

Claude Lamoureux is former president and chief executive of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board. Before his retirement in 2007, assets in the Teachers' pension had grown to more than $100-billion. Previously, Mr. Lamoureux was a senior executive with Metropolitan Life in Canada and the United States, rising through his 25 years with the company to lead MetLife's Canadian operations.

In 2002, Mr. Lamoureux co-founded the Canadian Coalition for Good Governance to push for improved corporate governance practices at Canadian companies. After the dotcom meltdown, he was on a committee that studied analyst standards and proposed recommendations to avoid conflicts of interest. A fellow of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and the Institute of Corporate Directors, Mr. Lamoureux is now an active board member on companies including Maple Leaf Foods, and is co-chair of a C.D. Howe Institute advisory panel on pensions. He spoke to Barbara Shecter, the Financial Post's securities industry reporter, about bailouts and personal responsibility in investing.

Q: Is this downturn the worst you've ever experienced?
A: Obviously the market is pretty bad. But when you look at the economy, at least in Canada, unemployment is still not at a record high. Clearly there will still be demand for oil and gas, and even though the prices are low, I've actually seen the price of oil below that.

What we're all afraid of is what will happen today, what will happen tomorrow. To me, you have to stay positive and ask: How are we going to get out of this?

Q: How are we going to get out of this?
A: I'm not a big fan of the government bailout.

Q: What's the alternative? Should companies such as big banks and GM and Ford be left to fail?
A: There's CCAA, these laws worked 20 years ago. That's the beauty of the capitalist system. If a company doesn't have demand for its product, it has to go out of business. Bailouts remove discipline from the economy. This even [applies to the frozen market for] asset-backed commercial paper, if you look at it. People took high risk [and] there has to be a discipline. Why is the government responsible at the end when people lose money? These people took risks and didn't do their homework.

Q: What about the argument that the government and regulators failed to protect investors by making sure investment products were appropriate?
A: I think I blame people more than governments.

Products were over-complicated and people should have stayed out of it. Why should the country bail out people who tried to get slightly more interest than government paper. I have a cottage in the Eastern Townships. [Why should] people there who are doing honest, hard work have to bail out people who were taking risks and probably should have known what they were doing. When I look at investments, keeping it simple is probably the thing most people should do.

Q: It sounds like you're saying that failing to keep it simple got the markets and economy into the current predicament. Is that the case? How did we get here?
A: One word: Greed. And lots of it. I think people got greedy and we tended to believe stories that didn't make sense. When somebody comes in with something that can't be explained on one sheet that's 8 1/2" by 11" stay away from it. The problem with investments [tied to sub-prime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations] in the U.S. -- you could see it coming -- it didn't make sense but nobody wanted to stop it. A lot of it was driven by greed, the greed of management who wanted a huge payout. They were gambling with shareholders' money and we know what happened. They got paid out and the shareholders got nothing... and the board [of directors] didn't ask enough questions.

In the end, we are where we are. When Goldman Sachs sells a product to people that they themselves short, there's a problem.

The question in the financial services sector [should be]: Would I sell this to my parents? My brother? My sister? I don't mean to pick on Goldman Sachs, but there should be laws against that.

Q: But there were willing investors in these complex products because everybody was chasing yield, especially with interest rates so low for so long. Wasn't this inevitable?
A: There's nothing wrong with bonds and stocks. That's where most people should be. I'm [also] a big fan of i-shares and exchange- traded funds. But now they're selling products that pay double if the index goes up, or lose double if it goes down.

Why? Because the one in between makes more money. The intermediary is trying to extract more than their share.

Q: So how do we break these bad habits? What should people focus on?
A: We're all benefiting from low interest rates when we borrow mortgages. We all want to borrow at low rates but we want to invest at high rates. We have to go back to fundamentals. One, keep things simple and two, don't try to be too greedy when interest rates are low. I've lived through the 1980s when interest rates were 18% and that's not fun either. Inflation is also low, and a low inflation rate protects value.

So if you're a saver, you should be grateful of that.

And let's go to an area I know: pensions.

How many of them use realistic assumptions to value their liabilities? It's not popular [even among regulators and politicians].

When the markets are good, everybody wants to value at market. When they go against... people always want to change the rules. We all believe in the tooth fairy -- someone will come later to sort it out.

I think there was always some element of this, but it's pushed here to the extreme. I don't think, in the end, people worry about the future. The motto of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries is: We worry about the future. It's not a bad motto.

bshecter@nationalpost.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

--------------------


No matter what one thinks about the aborted takeover of Bell Canada Enterprises,* M. Lamoureaux is one of Canada’s most successful businessmen and his views should help us all to understand what went wrong – ”One word: Greed. And lots of it” -  and where we ought to be headed – ”We have to go back to fundamentals. One, keep things simple and two, don't try to be too greedy when interest rates are low.”


---------------
*Organized, we’re told, by Lamoureaux’ protégé (and former CF officer) Jim Leech (son of the late Brig George Leech (Comd 2CIBG/Petawawa, circa 1960 - when I was a young soldier) and younger brother of MGen (ret’d) John Leech (Signals)

 
Kirkhill said:
At the same time individuals, acting out of self interest, are always looking for the best bargain available - and yet they don't want to appear to be self-interested (a common cover is "I'm doing it for my kids.")


What the Government offers to the Majority of the population is a sweetheart deal that they can't refuse.  It is the promise of services that they can't afford on their own income.  At that point we are all only too happy to chip in a dime for a dollars worth of services secure in the knowledge that it won't be us that are covering the other 90 cents.  And most folks don't much care where that money comes from.

But some people do, and when they are demanding payment the entire house of cards is coming down. The imbalance between wealth and debt is the true cause of the financial crisis, so regardless of "demands" by the voter, things will have to be scaled back to something that can be afforded one way or another.

The smart choice would be a controlled drawdown of State expenditures, with a concurrent reduction of the tax burden (and ideally the restructuring of the tax system along the lines Edward has pointed out).

The bad choice is to try to sweep the problem under the rug or organize wealth destroying bailouts. The "invisible hand" can wrestle the "grasping hand" of government to the ground, and a string of collapsed programs and government bankruptcies (as is beginning to happen to American municipalities and may actually happen to the States of New York and California) will be messy and unpleasant to all. The ripple effects will be much greater than allowing private firms like General Motors to file Chapter 11, and if the chain reaction happens fast enough, the effects could be devastating and far beyond anything that we have seen to date.
 
Thucydides said:
But some people do, and when they are demanding payment the entire house of cards is coming down. The imbalance between wealth and debt is the true cause of the financial crisis, so regardless of "demands" by the voter, things will have to be scaled back to something that can be afforded one way or another.

That's a true story.

And, as you say, failed governments (national corporations) are not failed companies (private corporations).  If government fails then we can hope that the transition to another, acceptable regime is handled at the ballot box.  Otherwise you risk trading bullets for the last can of baked beans at WalMart.

So the question is how much pain can you inflict before the body politic cries "enough"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top