Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yes, but data is better than idle speculation.

This is true, but I doubt data from the inflation of a bubble is much use when that same bubble has burst. That being said, I'm not familiar with current Canadian economic numbers.

Still, the benefit of infrastructure spending is that even if the stimulus isn't needed, you end up with something that is useful long-term.

[KrazyHorse]

1980-2001 contains 2 recessions (1982 and 1990) along with a slowdown in 2000/2001

[KrazyHorse]

Still, the benefit of infrastructure spending is that even if the stimulus isn't needed, you end up with something that is useful long-term.

???

If an infrastructure project is not justifiable on micro grounds then even with equal fiscal multipliers it is by definition better to use that money on a tax cut.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Still, the benefit of infrastructure spending is that even if the stimulus isn't needed, you end up with something that is useful long-term.

???

If an infrastructure project is not justifiable on micro grounds then even with equal fiscal multipliers it is by definition better to use that money on a tax cut.

But then you lose the political benefits from selecting tghe contractor appeasing unions, putting your name on it, etc.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Still, the benefit of infrastructure spending is that even if the stimulus isn't needed, you end up with something that is useful long-term.

???

If an infrastructure project is not justifiable on micro grounds then even with equal fiscal multipliers it is by definition better to use that money on a tax cut.

I'm working from the premise that there are infrastructure projects that are justifyable on micro grounds long-term. Generally, I suspect democracies underfund infrastructure project due to short-term thinking prevalent. Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to remember the ADQ making an issue out of the woeful state of Quebec's infrastructure last election.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Victor Galis



Still, the benefit of infrastructure spending is that even if the stimulus isn't needed, you end up with something that is useful long-term.

Exactly.

KH can go on about his multipliers but we need infrastructure spending in many areas. The freaking bridges are falling down in Quebec and roads caving in in Ontario.

The "infrastructure deficit" is well known.

[Wezil]

.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil

KH can go on about his multipliers but we need infrastructure spending in many areas. The freaking bridges are falling down in Quebec and roads caving in in Ontario.

Then justify them on their own merits, not on their macroeconomic effects.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Then justify them on their own merits, not on their macroeconomic effects.

Yes, but normally the obsession with keeping a budget surplus would mean that funding those projects must be offset by cuts elsewhere and tax hikes. The point of justifying them in macro terms is to suggest that you might want not offset the extra spending.

It's entirely possible for the sum of all spending which makes micro sense to be different from the level of spending that makes macro sense .

[Sharpe]

Conservatives are now in nearly full retreat mode - seems they realize that they are in severe jeopardy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081130.wflaherty1130/BNStory/politics/home

Wouldn't be surprised to hear talk about removing Harper as leader soon start or some talk from Red Tories about splitting from the Conservatives. If the Conservatives are removed from power, all bets are off to the situation with that party.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

It's entirely possible for the sum of all spending which makes micro sense to be different from the level of spending that makes macro sense .

No we/you are mixing things are.

Your argument was: that roads and bridge are in bad shape so we should have an infrastructure programs.

It could be a valid argument, but here in our discussion, for this thread, we take for granted, that the roads and bridges are at a level security that is equal to the marginal rates of the social value that we give to a human life.
And right now, canadian seems to give a higher value to the health of our economy.

You as an individual you said: "My preference is to save human life".

But what we are saying is: "The sum of all preferences of Canadians, right now, is to not go into recession"

So if our preference (goal) is not to go in recession, the infrastructure programs is a bad idea; in microeconomic terms(I don't know if it make sense, but maybe I could say as the sum of all opportunity cost) & in macroeconomics terms.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
It's entirely possible for the sum of all spending which makes micro sense to be different from the level of spending that makes macro sense .

Duh.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil




Exactly.

KH can go on about his multipliers but we need infrastructure spending in many areas. The freaking bridges are falling down in Quebec and roads caving in in Ontario.

The "infrastructure deficit" is well known.

So you are in favour of finance minister Jack Layton and public works minister Duceppe to facilitate getting your street fixed?

Harper was irresponsible with the party funding bomb. The Liberals are being irresponsible in pushing ahead with plans to form a government that would be hijacked by people whose plans are to throw billions blindly at automakers (NDP) while trying to engineer the destruction of the country (PQ).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sharpe
Conservatives are now in nearly full retreat mode - seems they realize that they are in severe jeopardy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081130.wflaherty1130/BNStory/politics/home

Wouldn't be surprised to hear talk about removing Harper as leader soon start or some talk from Red Tories about splitting from the Conservatives. If the Conservatives are removed from power, all bets are off to the situation with that party.

Wet dreams.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CrONoS

No we/you are mixing things are.

Your argument was: that roads and bridge are in bad shape so we should have an infrastructure programs.

It could be a valid argument, but here in our discussion, for this thread, we take for granted, that the roads and bridges are at a level security that is equal to the marginal rates of the social value that we give to a human life.
And right now, canadian seems to give a higher value to the health of our economy.

You as an individual you said: "My preference is to save human life".

But what we are saying is: "The sum of all preferences of Canadians, right now, is to not go into recession"

So if our preference (goal) is not to go in recession, the infrastructure programs is a bad idea; in microeconomic terms(I don't know if it make sense, but maybe I could say as the sum of all opportunity cost) & in macroeconomics terms.

You seem to be saying that additional spending on infrastructure could push us into recession.

If so, may I ask why?