NDP vs. NDP on Deficit Spending

55 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2018-03-20 18:45

Mighty Middle

So in 2015 Peggy Nash was the NDP Industry Critic who went after Justin Trudeau for pledging to go into deficit saying

"Justin Trudeau’s economic plan has a hole so big it could be a tourist attraction. His deficits keep growing faster than the Bay of Fundy tides come in and out."

Fast forward 3 years and Ontario NDP Leader Andrea Horwath has pledged to go into deficit if elected, but she would not provide any further details.

And to add irony to the situaton, Peggy Nash is part of Andrea Horwath policy team who crafted her platform. And Nash will be pitching Horwath deficit spending plan as an NDP pundit on political panel. Touting the virtues of deficit spending. Already she was on Power and Politics last night talking about dental care.

In fairness Jagmeet Singh has come out in favor of deficit spending, saying he doesn't believe in austerity. So is there anybody here who opposes deficit spending? I doubt it but would interested to see if anyone is.

Tue, 2018-03-20 19:04

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So is there anybody here who opposes deficit spending? I doubt it but would interested to see if anyone is.

It's not the rock on which I make my stand, but I have suggested in the past that a balanced budget is not some tool of the right wing. Sooner or later, any government needs to only spend what they have (or, less than what they have, in order to pay the bills for the last round of deficit spending).

There will ALWAYS be things that want funding. There will never, ever be a budget year where everyone says "we can make do with nothing this year... everyone who wants funding wants it now.

At the same time, we can't say "but their wish for funding is important, so we have to borrow AGAIN, darn it!" every year. Someone tell me how that's sustainable? Someone tell me which specific year we'll say "OK, this is the year to pay the bills"? Next year? Year after? "Some" year, but not this one or the next??

Tue, 2018-03-20 20:30

JKR

It seems to me that if the rate of growth of the economy is greater than the rate of growth of deficits, the government could run deficits continuously and still reduce their overall debt. So what's important is not the nominal amount of the deficit but ratios like debt to GDP and deficit to GDP.

Tue, 2018-03-20 20:42

Mr. Magoo

Seems reasonable, but is that how it is right now? I'm not throwing down here, just asking.

Tue, 2018-03-20 20:53

(Reply to #4) #5

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
It seems to me that if the rate of growth of the economy is greater than the rate of growth of deficits, the government could run deficits continuously and still reduce their overall debt. So what's important is not the nominal amount of the deficit but ratios like debt to GDP and deficit to GDP.

Actually this is not true.

The resaon running a deficit for a period can allow repayment is the growth allows a surplus in the future. If not surplus, it does not get paid.

The reason a deficit lower than the growth of the economy can work is the debt to GDP goes down. But this does not pay back the debt or reduce overall debt. It only reduces the debt to GDP ratio only -- both increase.

Tue, 2018-03-20 21:07

(Reply to #5) #6

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
It seems to me that if the rate of growth of the economy is greater than the rate of growth of deficits, the government could run deficits continuously and still reduce their overall debt. So what's important is not the nominal amount of the deficit but ratios like debt to GDP and deficit to GDP.

Actually this is not true.

The resaon running a deficit for a period can allow repayment is the growth allows a surplus in the future. If not surplus, it does not get paid.

The reason a deficit lower than the growth of the economy can work is the debt to GDP goes down. But this does not pay back the debt or reduce overall debt. It only reduces the debt to GDP ratio only -- both increase.

I agree. I should have wrote "debt to GDP ratio" instead of "debt." It is possible for the debt to increase while the debt to GDP ratio decreases. It seems to me that was is most important for economic growth is that the economy becomes more productive. It should be remembered that social programs increase productivity which increases economic growth and reduces debt to GDP. Social democratic governments seem to have figured this out.

Tue, 2018-03-20 21:25

(Reply to #6) #7

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Seems reasonable, but is that how it is right now? I'm not throwing down here, just asking.

Our debt to GDP ratio has been creeping up. I think modest tax increases would fix this. Canada would be in much better fiscal shape if Harper had not cut the GST by 2 percentage points. With those two extra pointd we could have had a lower debt to GDP ratio and more social programs. The social democratic countries have higher rates of value added taxes and income taxes.

Tue, 2018-03-20 22:00

Mr. Magoo

Well, "woulda, shoulda, coulda". I was only asking whether we are, in fact, ahead of our debt.

Are we ahead of our debt?

Tue, 2018-03-20 22:30

(Reply to #8) #9

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, "woulda, shoulda, coulda". I was only asking whether we are, in fact, ahead of our debt.

Are we ahead of our debt?

According to chart 3a, the federal debt to GDP ratio is currently at 30.1% and projected to go down to 28.4% by 2022.

https://www.budget.gc.ca/2018/docs/plan/overview-apercu-txt-en.html

Tue, 2018-03-20 22:36

#10

Mr. Magoo

OK. So that means we're taking in more than our debt?

Or the amount by which we're taking in less than our debt might decrease? Which?

Tue, 2018-03-20 22:58

#11

JKR

Roughly speaking, I think it means that Canada's federal debt should be a smaller portion of Canada's overall income in 2022 than it is now. It should be noted that this statistic does not include Canada's provincial governments debts.

Wed, 2018-03-21 01:31

#12

Sean in Ottawa

The problem with this debt to GDP idea is that it creates an economy addicted to consumption and inevitable corrections. It means that people have to consume more and more or break the economy. Of course this breaks the environment.

The reasons governments run deficits is not becuase of social programs, it is due to an unwillingness to make the people with the money pay for the government. It is also caused by significant military spending in some countries, out of balance with the economy.

Now have a look at social democratic countries -- they generally do not have a high debt to GDP compared with other countries.

You can have an economy and spending more in balance if you have the political will to do so. Countries that have less of a problem taxing to pay for themselves tend to get to this place. You will also notice that social democratic countries lead in this - perhaps becuase they deliver much more to the people who do not resent the taxes as much due to the value they get. Countries that offer some social democratic characteristics without actucally being social democratic by tradition, like Canada tend to do badly because they generate this spending without a culture willing to pay for it.

The key to getting this culture is often found in providing more rather than less to citizens in order to satisfy them rather than provide next to nothing, when the state will still need to tax.

It is also true that some countries have low debt to GDP becuase they cannot get credit -- that is another matter.

Wed, 2018-03-21 02:31

#13

JKR

I agree that emulating the social democratic model of many northern European countries would be in the best interest of Canada. That is basically my political philosophy. Almost everything the NDP aspires to do has already been done in social democratic countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, etc....

Wed, 2018-03-21 19:18

(Reply to #13) #14

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
I agree that emulating the social democratic model of many northern European countries would be in the best interest of Canada. That is basically my political philosophy. Almost everything the NDP aspires to do has already been done in social democratic countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, etc....

As much as people fight here, I think this is the position of most people here. There are good reasons why those countries do so much better given what they have.

Thu, 2018-03-22 11:56

#15

Pondering

Unlike people governments don't die and the economy is designed to require perpetual growth. Immigrants help to achieve that goal.

Like people, there is wasteful spending and there is investment spending.

On a personal level buying a house and borrowing to pay for higher education are expected to produce financial gain over the long term.

For government useful infrastructure programs and a healthy educated population are ideally an investment in the future.

As pointed out elsewhere we wouldn't even need to run a deficit if corporations and the wealthy were paying taxes at the levels of the 70s.

Massive tax reductions not overspending is at the root of our deficits.

Surely you have not missed the pattern of cutting taxes then complaining there is too little money to sustain programs, then cutting taxes again.

Thu, 2018-03-22 16:41

#16

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Massive tax reductions not overspending is at the root of our deficits.

Overspending means spending more than you have, or can afford.

If your hours at work are cut, that will mean you earn less money. If you continue to spend the way you did when you worked more hours, you'll probably be overspending. It can be the same exact amount, but now it's "over"spending because you have less money.

Quote:
Surely you have not missed the pattern of cutting taxes then complaining there is too little money to sustain programs, then cutting taxes again.

Doesn't this imply that the electorate would rather pay less to the government and get less from the government than the other way around? It's not like tax cuts have to be forced on Canadians.

Thu, 2018-03-22 17:30

(Reply to #16) #17

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
I agree that emulating the social democratic model of many northern European countries would be in the best interest of Canada. That is basically my political philosophy. Almost everything the NDP aspires to do has already been done in social democratic countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, etc....

As much as people fight here, I think this is the position of most people here. There are good reasons why those countries do so much better given what they have.

It seems to me that naturally there is a lot more infighting within the left than within the right because the left supports political pluralism. This is especially problematic within an FPTP system like ours that rewards loyalty to a big tent political party. I think the primary reason the right loves FPTP is that they suppprt top-down politics. FPTP is tailor made for top-down politics. That being said, NDP party insiders like Bob Tieleman also support top-down FPTP politics.

Thu, 2018-03-22 17:34

#18

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It seems to me naturally there is a lot more infighting within the left than within the right because the left supports pluralism.

That does seem a bit contradictory. How can the left both fight pluralism and also support it?

That's like saying that the reason some youth sports league fights over unisex teams is because they support gender equality. Why would they fight it if they support it?

Thu, 2018-03-22 17:48

#19

JKR

It seems to me that the right is much better than the left at putting their differences aside and uniting in the common cause of reducing their taxes. Social conservatives here in Canada are willing to marginalize their social conservative causes within the Conservative Party for the overriding cause of reducing taxes. People on the left don't seem to marginalize themselves for electoral political success like people on the right do.

Thu, 2018-03-22 17:58

#20

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
It seems to me that the right is much better than the left at putting their differences aside and uniting in the common cause of reducing their taxes.

I partially agree, but I think they're an order of magnitude better at putting their differences aside and uniting in the common cause of removing sex-ed from schools, ensuring that equal marriage and reproductive choice are never dead issues, and hating on the Liberals.

TBH, I think that they really only have to make an effort to marginalize the elements that are effectively marginalized anyway -- the "Freemen on the land" types and the "Send the blacks back to Africa" types and the "sterilize Muslim" types. The rest can probably find themselves well represented by Scheer or Ford or whomever.

If they have an advantage, it's that they never seem to feel any shame or embarrassment about "going there".

Thu, 2018-03-22 18:08

(Reply to #20) #21

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Massive tax reductions not overspending is at the root of our deficits.

Overspending means spending more than you have, or can afford.

If your hours at work are cut, that will mean you earn less money. If you continue to spend the way you did when you worked more hours, you'll probably be overspending. It can be the same exact amount, but now it's "over"spending because you have less money.

Quote:
Surely you have not missed the pattern of cutting taxes then complaining there is too little money to sustain programs, then cutting taxes again.

Doesn't this imply that the electorate would rather pay less to the government and get less from the government than the other way around? It's not like tax cuts have to be forced on Canadians.

Problem is, Magoo, that doing what you seem to be advocating-that is, having social democratic or socialist parties accommodate the low-tax/balanced budget fetish-means asking social democratic or socialist parties to cease being, in any sense, social democratic or socialist. Egalitarian values and perpetual austerity can never co-exist. All austerity is the same-it doesn't matter whether it's the left or right doing the cutting. We can't just turn every NDP government into the Romanow years in Saskatchewan an still have any reason for the NDP to exist at all.

Thu, 2018-03-22 18:12

#22

Ken Burch

What the Left SHOULD be doing is challenging the low-tax/balanced budget at all cost fetish-neither low taxes or an obsession with balanced budgets serve the actual needs of most people, and the point of the Left is to argue for another way to run life-NOT to try to make neoliberalism, an intrinsically barbaric model, slightly less barbaric, so long as reducing the barbarism doesn't reduce the profits of our corporate masters.

Thu, 2018-03-22 18:41

#23

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Problem is, Magoo, that doing what you seem to be advocating-that is, having social democratic or socialist parties accommodate the low-tax/balanced budget fetish-means asking social democratic or socialist parties to cease being, in any sense, social democratic or socialist.

OK. But I wasn't so much saying "this is how I think we should conduct our affairs" as suggesting that this seems to be what the electorate wants. At any rate, it's only government policy if the electorate chooses it over the other options.

Thu, 2018-03-22 19:43

#24

cco

That seems to me to be a rather simplistic view of the electorate as one coherent individual whose views have turned irrevocably conservative over the years and who must be appeased, not persuaded. Parties, governments, and even court decisions have enormous power to change public opinion, often fairly quickly.

It's also assuming that the electorate has to be in any way consistent. California with its referenda (and more recently Kansas, indirectly) demonstrate that many voters are quite happy to check:

1. Do you want spending? [x] Yes [] No

2. Do you want to pay for said spending with taxes? [] Yes [x] No

Harper wasn't just the man of his times who coincidentally happened to ride the bubble of a massive rightward shift among Canadian voters. He exploited a scandal and carefully massaged messaging to create his own changes in public opinion. If that can be done rightward, it can be done leftward. Perpetually chasing the electorate's shadow as expressed in opinion polls makes for bad policy, as well as eviscerating any credibility the NDP has.

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:00

(Reply to #24) #25

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But I wasn't so much saying "this is how I think we should conduct our affairs" as suggesting that this seems to be what the electorate wants. At any rate, it's only government policy if the electorate chooses it over the other options.

The electorate seems to want low levels of taxation and gold plated programs. The political party that does the best at convincing the electorate that they can have their cake and eat it too, usually wins elections. A.K.A, the Liberals. Being the party of the centre makes it easier to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:02

#26

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

It's also assuming that the electorate has to be in any way consistent. California with its referenda (and more recently Kansas, indirectly) demonstrate that many voters are quite happy to check:

1. Do you want spending? [x] Yes [] No

2. Do you want to pay for said spending with taxes? [] Yes [x] No

FWIW, I find California and its electoral rules fascinating, for exactly the reason you mention: the electorate is totally permitted to be logically contradictory, and the government must find a way to square the circle anyway.

Surely it's not LESS logical when a Canadian political party -- even if they just won! -- says "we cannot do what you want us to do without the money you don't want to give".

But what's stopping the electorate from choosing the party that is most likely to tax them more and give them more? Isn't that party on the ballot?

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:06

(Reply to #26) #27

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But what's stopping the electorate from choosing the party that is most likely to tax them more and give them more?

The party that says it will give them more and tax them less?

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:21

#28

Sean in Ottawa

I do not think that the right are better at uniting. I think they ahve an easier question Here is the logic:

Do you beleive government should be involved in making a difference for people's lives and creating more equality?

If no -- vote Conservative

If yes then fight about how to do that.

The left have a much more complicated set of arguments becuase they ahve to not only say the government can make a difference but how this should be done.

There is no how with the argument that governmetn cannot do these things.

Just like there is a simple argument on taxes: should you raise them?

Answer no -- then it is easy to support the conservatives.

Answer yes, and you have to explain what you will do with the money and why it would work and why you are choosing this priority over another.

The right -- is by definition a series of simpler arguments than the left.

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:39

#29

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
The party that says it will give them more and tax them less?

That trick should only work once.

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:45

(Reply to #29) #30

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
The party that says it will give them more and tax them less?

That trick should only work once.

Not if all the political parties engage in that practice.

Thu, 2018-03-22 20:52

(Reply to #30) #31

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not think that the right are better at uniting. I think they ahve an easier question Here is the logic:

Do you beleive government should be involved in making a difference for people's lives and creating more equality?

If no -- vote Conservative

If yes then fight about how to do that.

The left have a much more complicated set of arguments becuase they ahve to not only say the government can make a difference but how this should be done.

There is no how with the argument that governmetn cannot do these things.

Just like there is a simple argument on taxes: should you raise them?

Answer no -- then it is easy to support the conservatives.

Answer yes, and you have to explain what you will do with the money and why it would work and why you are choosing this priority over another.

The right -- is by definition a series of simpler arguments than the left.

Under proportional representation
there would be no electoral advantage to uniting people with different viewpoins within a single big-tent party such as there is under FPTP.

Thu, 2018-03-22 21:11

(Reply to #31) #32

Pondering

Quote:
Massive tax reductions not overspending is at the root of our deficits.

Overspending means spending more than you have, or can afford.

Quote:
Surely you have not missed the pattern of cutting taxes then complaining there is too little money to sustain programs, then cutting taxes again.

Doesn't this imply that the electorate would rather pay less to the government and get less from the government than the other way around? It's not like tax cuts have to be forced on Canadians. [/quote]

I'm talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and tax havens.

The deficit was created through tax cuts not over-spending because income was deliberately reduced.

"Overspending" is a result of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

I put overspending in quotes because it can also mean paying too much for something or paying for things you don't need.

If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded.

Thu, 2018-03-22 21:53

#33

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Not if all the political parties engage in that practice.

So it's the same as saying "The xxx party! For a bigger, better, brighter future for your childrens!"

Quote:
If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded.

I see. "the NECESSITIES". I'm sure we can all agree on them.

Fri, 2018-03-23 01:29

(Reply to #33) #34

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not if all the political parties engage in that practice.

So it's the same as saying "The xxx party! For a bigger, better, brighter future for your childrens!"

and for granny too!

Fri, 2018-03-23 05:08

#35

progressive17 progressive17's picture

People who use a "household budgeting" attitude to government spending obviously missed the 20th Century. Ask any American politician, left or right, about paying off their national debt, and they will just laugh in your face, and for good reason too. Since about the 1930s, American military spending has been a constant kick-starter for "free enterprise". (I consider NASA to be an Air Force operation). That military spending caused the microprocessor computer you are using to be invented. Military spending against the Nazis was the reason the computer itself was invented.

Considering government to be a "household" is one step even more inaccurate than considering it to be a "business". Oh yeah economics (oikonomia) comes from "house management" in Greek. However these days, when it comes to government, we don't call it "economics" but "public policy". A household earns money, either from its labour, its capital, or both. The government earns nothing. They collect the money through source deductions from most of us through the force of law. Then they spend it. When government spends money on things like social services provided by a prosperous civil service, infrastructure provided by prosperous construction workers, and income supports to make economically disadvantaged people slightly more prosperous, this spending has a huge knock-on effect to the rest of the real economy. Not only do we get more spending in the general retail economy from all these people, but we also get the added value that they provide making our lives better through health care, transit which works better, etc.

"But we are all the deciders of our own destiny, and the government should be too!" This does not make sense on many levels. The government is not even the sum of all Canadians. It doesn't need to eat, and it has no emotions. It is an artificial European creation based on monarchy and the Estates. It is there to govern us, hence the name government.

If anyone hadn't noticed, there has been an economic depression in the real economy for quite some time now. All the usual suspects are to blame. Automation. Competition from the developing world. Trickle up economics, and hoarding of money in tax havens. Small businesses failing because of operations like Wal*Mart and Amazon (as predicted quite neatly in the Communist Manifesto). You get less money, so you want stuff cheaper, so they have to pay their workers less, so you eventually get your $25 an hour job replaced by $12.50 an hour. Be careful how much cheap you want, because you might get your wishes answered in more ways than you expected.

There has been some talk here about how GDP growth covers the debt. That which does even more so is inflation. Inflation of prices means more sales tax. Inflation of wages means more income tax. In turn, the value of the debt is also eroded in constant dollars. Inflation is kind of like a bottle of good cognac. A couple of shots will give you a glow, but drink the whole bottle and the next day will be somewhat dismal. Ask the traditional post-war non-Tory-Blairite British Labour Party. Its next day was Margaret Thatcher.

So given the economic boom for the wealthy and the depression for the rest of us, the solution has to be in government spending, as it was in the 1930s and much of the post WW-II period.

The only concern is whether the bottomless pit of the international financial markets will refuse to buy the debt. Even under an NDP government, Canadian sovereign debt will be snapped up like hotcakes. If any rich person asks what you are doing, you give Keynsian explanations and not socialist ones. In a capitalist economy with a large public sector (what we used to call a mixed economy), we disagree that a retreat by government will mean an increase in demand. We have much proof of exactly the opposite.

Conservatives voted for Justin Trudeau because he made a Keynsian case. Unfortunately, he is now subject to ridicule for whatever reason, which is doom for his political career.

The NDP can honestly say they will continue with real Keynsian economics for the prosperity of local business, unions, the civil service, and the people as a whole.

By the way, if you are on an interest-only mortgage, what business do you have telling anyone else they have to "pay off the debt"?

Sheesh!

Fri, 2018-03-23 11:00

(Reply to #35) #36

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not think that the right are better at uniting. I think they ahve an easier question Here is the logic:

Do you beleive government should be involved in making a difference for people's lives and creating more equality?

If no -- vote Conservative

If yes then fight about how to do that.

The left have a much more complicated set of arguments becuase they ahve to not only say the government can make a difference but how this should be done.

There is no how with the argument that governmetn cannot do these things.

Just like there is a simple argument on taxes: should you raise them?

Answer no -- then it is easy to support the conservatives.

Answer yes, and you have to explain what you will do with the money and why it would work and why you are choosing this priority over another.

The right -- is by definition a series of simpler arguments than the left.

Under proportional representation there would be no electoral advantage to uniting people with different viewpoins within a single big-tent party such as there is under FPTP.

This was not the kind of uniting I was talking about. I agree but what I mean by unifying message is that Conservatives can go in with less government is better and reducing taxes as a simple message whereas if you are making an argument for a role for government then you ahve a more complicated mesage that is less unified as you then have to agree on what government should do and how taxes need to be spent. This rarely fits the soundbites. It is a profound disadvantage for the left compared with the right.

Fri, 2018-03-23 11:12

(Reply to #36) #37

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Quote:
Massive tax reductions not overspending is at the root of our deficits.

Overspending means spending more than you have, or can afford.

If your hours at work are cut, that will mean you earn less money. If you continue to spend the way you did when you worked more hours, you'll probably be overspending. It can be the same exact amount, but now it's "over"spending because you have less money.

Quote:
Surely you have not missed the pattern of cutting taxes then complaining there is too little money to sustain programs, then cutting taxes again.

Doesn't this imply that the electorate would rather pay less to the government and get less from the government than the other way around? It's not like tax cuts have to be forced on Canadians.

I'm talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and tax havens.

The deficit was created through tax cuts not over-spending because income was deliberately reduced.

"Overspending" is a result of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations.

I put overspending in quotes because it can also mean paying too much for something or paying for things you don't need.

If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded.

[/quote]

This is very true on a number of points. It is one of the reasons the left has to win the tax and spend argument and why they are vulnerable to it.

Ultimately the left is forced into the us and them class argument becuase that is where the problem lies: one group are seeking economic advantage over another. If people see themselves as all in one class then left parties become much more vulnerable to tax and spend arguments. This is true because when people consider that they are the ones benefiting in tax reductions from loss of programs, sadly they will consider it. When they realize that it is people with much more money than them who will get the benefits that gives pause.

This is one of the reasons why the success of social democratic governments can become an electoral threat -- as the society becomes more equal, benefits are paid more uniformly from broader taxation. In some respects it is obvious to see that mre conservative governments in countries that have less inequality remain more responsive and less dangerous. While the right tendency may come from having to pay for the program the welfare of the public is also more balanced in terms of benefits.

So behind your very good argument about spending there is this truth about the corossive effect of inequality.

At the same time there ius a second reality that further supports your point and that is that it is much easier to vary income for a government than expenditure. in most cases. I can explain if needed but I think many poeple already understand this. The main exceptions relate to aggression and military expenditure which can vary based on a government's posture and attitude. For a country like Canada where the majority of expenses are direct benefits to Canadians changes are more difficult.

Fri, 2018-03-23 13:02

(Reply to #37) #38

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Not if all the political parties engage in that practice.

So it's the same as saying "The xxx party! For a bigger, better, brighter future for your childrens!"

Quote:
If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded.

I see. "the NECESSITIES". I'm sure we can all agree on them.

Food, shelter, water, clothing(other than luxury wear). The things you need to stay alive.

Do you ALWAYS have to do this "talk me through it point-by-point...I'm not going to admit that I know what you're talking about...prove to me you guys aren't full of shit" thing? When you do that, it presumes that you and you alone have some special claim to personal and intellectual superioity over the rest of us, as well as some singular claim to be "the only grown-up" and the only perso who knows how "the real world works".

If you truly feel you're entitled to take that attitude towards everyone who argues for anything to the left of your personal comfort level(and if you truly feel entitled, as you've done in at least one recent thread, to imply that other posters support "Communism") could you kindly explain WHY you feel entitled to take that approach, rather than to actually just engage any of the discussions here?

Fri, 2018-03-23 17:34

#39

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
If you truly feel you're entitled to take that attitude towards everyone who argues for anything to the left of your personal comfort level(and if you truly feel entitled, as you've done in at least one recent thread, to imply that other posters support "Communism") could you kindly explain WHY you feel entitled to take that approach, rather than to actually just engage any of the discussions here?

Because, well, not to generalize, but everybody does it. :)

But really, Ken, you make this same criticism of my style over and over and over again, but what you're really mad at is my content. If I agreed with you on everything, I genuinely don't believe you'd give a rat's ass how I say it (nor try to read my mind, put words in my mouth, or tell me what I'm "really saying").

Fri, 2018-03-23 17:45

#40

Michael Moriarity

Re: post #35.

P17, I often disagree with you, but that is one righteous rant, and I salute you for it.

Fri, 2018-03-23 20:00

(Reply to #40) #41

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
If you truly feel you're entitled to take that attitude towards everyone who argues for anything to the left of your personal comfort level(and if you truly feel entitled, as you've done in at least one recent thread, to imply that other posters support "Communism") could you kindly explain WHY you feel entitled to take that approach, rather than to actually just engage any of the discussions here?

Because, well, not to generalize, but everybody does it. :)

But really, Ken, you make this same criticism of my style over and over and over again, but what you're really mad at is my content. If I agreed with you on everything, I genuinely don't believe you'd give a rat's ass how I say it (nor try to read my mind, put words in my mouth, or tell me what I'm "really saying").

No...it's your attitude. You don't really offer much content. It's not "content" to say "I don't follow you...I don't follow you...I don't get it" over and over and over again.

I'd respect it if you engaged with the discussion, if you'd talk about what you support and what you think should be done. You don't do that. You don't seem to feel any real obligation to say what you'd support instead of what is suggested.

It's not discussion to just keep acting like everybody else is a delusional idiot and any idea presented here is bullshit.

If nothing else, could you at least explain WHY you use this "style" and what the hell it is you support that you are utterly certain is intrinsically superior to the ideas of all the rest of us?

This is a discussion board. You owe it to the rest of us to treat the discussions and the ideas presented in the discussions with respect. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, but it does mean it would be really helpful if you would stop already with the tactic of pretending you don't understand what the rest of us are saying and that what other people say is so intrinsically silly that you don't need to even say why you reject it.

And I guess what I'm really wondering is this: Why are you ON a radical discussion board if you truly feel-as you seem to-that the very idea of working for any sort of radical change is some sort of pathetic joke and that everybody else here is too far beneath your dignity to actually have a real discussion with?

What, exactly, do you feel about the issues of the day? What do you support as policy ideas or the way the NDP is run, compared to what most people here support? And why is your choice, over and over again, to be derisive and contemptuous towards others rather than actually engage?

BTW...if you did agree with me on everything-again, it's hard to measure whether we agree or not, given that you never go into any detail about what your own views are-I'd STILL say it was out of line for you to post like this. Nobody-other than maybe Zombie Hitler-could possibly deserve it.

Fri, 2018-03-23 20:44

#42

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
You owe it to the rest of us to treat the discussions and the ideas presented in the discussions with respect.

Do you feel like each and every one of them is worthy of that respect, Ken? Each and every one?

I'm hoping you won't say "yes, they are" because I'm cooking dinner and I don't have time to find the last time you contradicted that.

Quote:
it would be really helpful if you would stop already with the tactic of pretending you don't understand what the rest of us are saying

Oh, I know what the different words mean. It's not a vocabulary issue.

If I seem to be hoping someone will flesh out what they're asserting, it's because I'm dying to know how they'll flesh out what they're asserting. If someone uses the word "necessities" then I don't mind playing dumb if it means they actually have to defend what they think are necessities rather than just choosing the word.

Quote:
what other people say is so intrinsically silly that you don't need to even say why you reject it.

And I guess what I'm really wondering is this: Why are you ON a radical discussion board if you truly feel-as you seem to-that the very idea of working for any sort of radical change is some sort of pathetic joke and that everybody else here is too far beneath your dignity to actually have a real discussion with?

I think that's all your imagination "informing" you about how my mind is working. I don't say any of those things, Ken, so why say them FOR me?

Quote:
What, exactly, do you feel about the issues of the day?

To bring this back to the thread topic, have I not suggested that I think a balanced budget is a good idea? Has nothing I've said indicated that? How many different ways am I supposed to say that spending what you have, rather than what you don't have, makes good sense?

I'm not demanding that you agree with that. But does it not seem like maybe I've been forthright about that, about a hundred times? If not, please tell me when you first got all confused about what I think.

Fri, 2018-03-23 21:23

(Reply to #42) #43

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

To bring this back to the thread topic, have I not suggested that I think a balanced budget is a good idea?
...

How many different ways am I supposed to say that spending what you have, rather than what you don't have, makes good sense?

But isn't it good that people take out mortgages to buy homes and student loans to obtain post-secondary education? Isn't it smart for businesses to take on debt to buy efficient machinery?

Isn't it debt that allows us to invest and create greater prosperity? Don't savings and debt go hand in hand?

Fri, 2018-03-23 22:26

#44

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
But isn't it good that people take out mortgages to buy homes and student loans to obtain post-secondary education? Isn't it smart for businesses to take on debt to buy efficient machinery?

Of course.

But when people feel like maybe they just helped buy someone a $16 glass of orange juice (when they know a jug of it is, like four bucks) then they start to wonder whether the borrowing is really to buy a house they can live in (that also appreciates in value) or a baccalaureate degree (which will help their career in the long run) or a more efficient machine (we're probably not going to talk about whether it put a human out of a job, are we?) or whether it's just so someone can have that orange juice they want.

This goes right back to the whole "necessities" thing. We can debate for days what constitutes a necessity, but is it reasonable to suggest that the government shouldn't need to put any NON-necessities on the credit card? Can we agree on that, at least? No borrowing for non-necessities? And I'll even include among "necessities" those things that aren't in and of themselves necessary, exactly, but that (like investment in real estate, a degree, or more efficient machinery) will show a clear and measurable return on investment. But what about the OJ?

Fri, 2018-03-23 22:30

#45

Ken Burch

How much debate is there about the concept of "necessities"? For the vast majoity of us, it would be the things I listed: food, shelter, water, clothing. Those things are absolute necessities-things without which we cannot survive as human beings-things no one should have to struggle to simply acquire on an as-needed basis.

Secondary necessities might be the means of communication and the means of creation-ranging from a pen and paper to access to the Internet, on the one hand, to paintbrushes and paint, a musical instrument or microphone, a chisel and a slab of marble or whatever else you might need to create. These are soul needs...you can survive from time to time without them, but at some point you need them. They are also social needs, in that society needs to have those living within it to communicate and to create as they would wish to create, because society cannot be alive, cannot be anything but a random collection of people inhabiting a relatively common space, if creativity and the ability to communicate are restricted to a tiny few. A society in which creativity is being restricted is a society that is dying, a place no one would really WANT to live.

Terciary necessities would be validation and respect. Those are not needs which can be met through any form of state or community provision, but collectively, by a group of people around you who value your existence(and whose existence is valued by you as well) and who wish to help you live as your best self(as you would wish for them).

Fri, 2018-03-23 22:52

(Reply to #45) #46

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
You owe it to the rest of us to treat the discussions and the ideas presented in the discussions with respect.

Do you feel like each and every one of them is worthy of that respect, Ken? Each and every one?

I'm hoping you won't say "yes, they are" because I'm cooking dinner and I don't have time to find the last time you contradicted that.

Quote:
it would be really helpful if you would stop already with the tactic of pretending you don't understand what the rest of us are saying

Oh, I know what the different words mean. It's not a vocabulary issue.

If I seem to be hoping someone will flesh out what they're asserting, it's because I'm dying to know how they'll flesh out what they're asserting. If someone uses the word "necessities" then I don't mind playing dumb if it means they actually have to defend what they think are necessities rather than just choosing the word.

Quote:
what other people say is so intrinsically silly that you don't need to even say why you reject it.

And I guess what I'm really wondering is this: Why are you ON a radical discussion board if you truly feel-as you seem to-that the very idea of working for any sort of radical change is some sort of pathetic joke and that everybody else here is too far beneath your dignity to actually have a real discussion with?

I think that's all your imagination "informing" you about how my mind is working. I don't say any of those things, Ken, so why say them FOR me?

Quote:
What, exactly, do you feel about the issues of the day?

To bring this back to the thread topic, have I not suggested that I think a balanced budget is a good idea? Has nothing I've said indicated that? How many different ways am I supposed to say that spending what you have, rather than what you don't have, makes good sense?

I'm not demanding that you agree with that. But does it not seem like maybe I've been forthright about that, about a hundred times? If not, please tell me when you first got all confused about what I think.

I can see a balanced budget as possible long-term goal, in ultimately optimum conditions-and if it is to be balanced, it should be balanced as much or more from taxing the wealthy than from reductions in benefits or spending on things li e the arts or the protection of working people and the environment.

We should, however, put it in the context of balancing ALL the budgets:

It should be as important to avoid a social deficit(increases in poverty, higher unemployment, homelessness) as it is to avoid a fiscal deficit-because social deficits ultimately increase fiscal deficits by increasing drug use, domestic violence, attacks on people of color, women, immigrants and the LGBTQ community and violent crime in general, all of which cause massive increases in spending on militarized police equipment, jails, prisons, shelters for battered people and safe injection sites.

It should be as important to avoid a climate deficit-the increases in pollution that naturally occur as a result of environmental deregulation, which produce increased climate variation and its associated effects such as the loss of polar ice, increased forest fires, toxins in the air from increased mining and oil drilling, among many other effects-which will force increases in government and personal spending on healthcare, fire prevention, hurricane and tornado cleanup and recovery efforts from mudslides and other consequencs of excessive rainfall and excessive clearcutting

And it's as important to avoid running a human deficit-increased depression, despair and even suicide-all of which are consequences of the tendency of modern capitalism to treat increasing numbers of people as valueless and discardable-which will cause increased resources to be spent either on dealing with the greatly increasing incidents of what I would describe as "socially-induced depression", with either trying to provide services for the increasing numbers of people who are made homeless by all of the above or on law-enforcement methods intended to drive homeless people from town to town until they eventually die somewhere of starvation-and of the costs of all the police equipment that will be used to put down the inevitable mass uprisings caused by all of the deficits I listed above.

The goal should be to balance ALL of those budgets-because the fiscal budget can't be balanced in isolation to everything else.

Fri, 2018-03-23 23:08

#47

Ken Burch

If there are discussions I don't respect, I generally stay out of them. I haven't seen many discussions like that on Babble. Occasionally, I've posted jokes in discussions, but those were simply meant to lighten the mood or make some sort of a point through comedy.

I'm not sure why you don't respect this particular thread...nobody has said anything intrinsically stupid within it, and I'm not sure whose definition of "necessities" you're even calling bullshit ON.

As to balanced budgets, the reaction you've received on them is a reflection of the fact that, in most instances, balancing a budget means giving up on doing anything remotely connected to social or economic justice.

Fri, 2018-03-23 23:33

(Reply to #47) #48

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But isn't it good that people take out mortgages to buy homes and student loans to obtain post-secondary education? Isn't it smart for businesses to take on debt to buy efficient machinery?

Of course.

But when people feel like maybe they just helped buy someone a $16 glass of orange juice (when they know a jug of it is, like four bucks) then they start to wonder whether the borrowing is really to buy a house they can live in (that also appreciates in value) or a baccalaureate degree (which will help their career in the long run) or a more efficient machine (we're probably not going to talk about whether it put a human out of a job, are we?) or whether it's just so someone can have that orange juice they want.

This goes right back to the whole "necessities" thing. We can debate for days what constitutes a necessity, but is it reasonable to suggest that the government shouldn't need to put any NON-necessities on the credit card? Can we agree on that, at least? No borrowing for non-necessities? And I'll even include among "necessities" those things that aren't in and of themselves necessary, exactly, but that (like investment in real estate, a degree, or more efficient machinery) will show a clear and measurable return on investment. But what about the OJ?

I agree that the government should not put non-necessities on the credit card. And yes orange juice is not a necessity; but I'm not sure about vodka!!

I think the necessities that the government should provide to all its citizens should include basic levels of food, clothing, shelter, transportation, health care, recreation, and education. Something to that effect should be written in our constitution as guarantees the government must provide all its citizens. I think the term "basic levels" in my definition of necessities is the levels required for citizens to be able to participate fully in society.

Fri, 2018-03-23 23:42

#49

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
How much debate is there about the concept of "necessities"? For the vast majoity of us, it would be the things I listed: food, shelter, water, clothing. Those things are absolute necessities-things without which we cannot survive as human beings-things no one should have to struggle to simply acquire on an as-needed basis.

So the government only goes into deficit spending after it's spent all of its revenues on those four things, but needs to pay for more of those four things?

The question is isn't whether humans need shelter or food.

But when someone says "If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded." then I don't think it's inappropriate to wonder whether the government ran out of money to pay for necessities because they spent it all on necessities, or whether maybe they might have spent some of it on non-necessities. I'm sorry but it's just too trite to say "we only borrow because we have to pay for things that people will die without". That's what I was responding to, not the idea that some things actually are necessary.

Sun, 2018-03-25 16:05

(Reply to #49) #50

Ken Burch

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
How much debate is there about the concept of "necessities"? For the vast majoity of us, it would be the things I listed: food, shelter, water, clothing. Those things are absolute necessities-things without which we cannot survive as human beings-things no one should have to struggle to simply acquire on an as-needed basis.

So the government only goes into deficit spending after it's spent all of its revenues on those four things, but needs to pay for more of those four things?

The question is isn't whether humans need shelter or food.

But when someone says "If you can't afford to pay for necessities then you are not overspending. You are underfunded." then I don't think it's inappropriate to wonder whether the government ran out of money to pay for necessities because they spent it all on necessities, or whether maybe they might have spent some of it on non-necessities. I'm sorry but it's just too trite to say "we only borrow because we have to pay for things that people will die without". That's what I was responding to, not the idea that some things actually are necessary.

As to that...nobody is arguing that no government in history has ever spent money on things it shouldn't have spent money on. That would be absurd.

Most of what government has spent funds on that was NOT necessary was spending on matters that the Left didn't want it spending that much money on...on war spending-which Canada could pretty much stop with now, given that there's unlikely to ever again be any wars involving "The West" that won't simply be fights to seize control of non-renewable resources and hegemony over peoples of color-on massive contracts for infrastructure programs that were not built for the public good, such as school construction or expansion, healthcare, or mass transit-on the construction or expansion of prisons at a time when we've long known that mass incarceration does nothing to reduce crime-or were lost through massive and unjustified tax cuts to the wealthy.

There's very little that the Left has had or would have had the state spend money on that could really be called totally friviolous. Spending on the arts, including spending on the National Film Board of Canada;,spending to alleviate or actually eradicate poverty and in so doing challenge the capitalist idea that there has to be a certain number of people kept unemployed or underemployed to "discipline the work force"; spending to help create sustainable economies in areas left poor due to historic group oppression; spending to retrain those put out of work and support them financially as they go through retraining, are ALL just examples of what a decent society should simply automatically do. None of them are even all that radical.

Sun, 2018-03-25 17:16

(Reply to #50) #51

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:

People who use a "household budgeting" attitude to government spending obviously missed the 20th Century. Ask any American politician, left or right, about paying off their national debt, and they will just laugh in your face, and for good reason too. Since about the 1930s, American military spending has been a constant kick-starter for "free enterprise". (I consider NASA to be an Air Force operation). That military spending caused the microprocessor computer you are using to be invented. Military spending against the Nazis was the reason the computer itself was invented.

Considering government to be a "household" is one step even more inaccurate than considering it to be a "business". Oh yeah economics (oikonomia) comes from "house management" in Greek. However these days, when it comes to government, we don't call it "economics" but "public policy". A household earns money, either from its labour, its capital, or both. The government earns nothing. They collect the money through source deductions from most of us through the force of law. Then they spend it. When government spends money on things like social services provided by a prosperous civil service, infrastructure provided by prosperous construction workers, and income supports to make economically disadvantaged people slightly more prosperous, this spending has a huge knock-on effect to the rest of the real economy. Not only do we get more spending in the general retail economy from all these people, but we also get the added value that they provide making our lives better through health care, transit which works better, etc.

"But we are all the deciders of our own destiny, and the government should be too!" This does not make sense on many levels. The government is not even the sum of all Canadians. It doesn't need to eat, and it has no emotions. It is an artificial European creation based on monarchy and the Estates. It is there to govern us, hence the name government.

If anyone hadn't noticed, there has been an economic depression in the real economy for quite some time now. All the usual suspects are to blame. Automation. Competition from the developing world. Trickle up economics, and hoarding of money in tax havens. Small businesses failing because of operations like Wal*Mart and Amazon (as predicted quite neatly in the Communist Manifesto). You get less money, so you want stuff cheaper, so they have to pay their workers less, so you eventually get your $25 an hour job replaced by $12.50 an hour. Be careful how much cheap you want, because you might get your wishes answered in more ways than you expected.

There has been some talk here about how GDP growth covers the debt. That which does even more so is inflation. Inflation of prices means more sales tax. Inflation of wages means more income tax. In turn, the value of the debt is also eroded in constant dollars. Inflation is kind of like a bottle of good cognac. A couple of shots will give you a glow, but drink the whole bottle and the next day will be somewhat dismal. Ask the traditional post-war non-Tory-Blairite British Labour Party. Its next day was Margaret Thatcher.

So given the economic boom for the wealthy and the depression for the rest of us, the solution has to be in government spending, as it was in the 1930s and much of the post WW-II period.

The only concern is whether the bottomless pit of the international financial markets will refuse to buy the debt. Even under an NDP government, Canadian sovereign debt will be snapped up like hotcakes. If any rich person asks what you are doing, you give Keynsian explanations and not socialist ones. In a capitalist economy with a large public sector (what we used to call a mixed economy), we disagree that a retreat by government will mean an increase in demand. We have much proof of exactly the opposite.

Conservatives voted for Justin Trudeau because he made a Keynsian case. Unfortunately, he is now subject to ridicule for whatever reason, which is doom for his political career.

He's doing fine. The media, contrary to popular opinion, has always been against him although even that may be a sham. They endorsed Harper in 2015 as they did for his entire reign.

But yeah to the rest.

Unlike people, the government is intended to live forever. The IMF knows Greece will never pay off its debt. It's not a problem. As long as it is on the books it still exists. We don't even create all our money physically. Most money exists as debt. It is created when you take out a mortgage.

Canada will never have to pay its debt. Countries are prevented from borrowing "too much" through credit-ratings. Canada has lots and lots of room to borrow.

Look at the US. Who is going to call in their debt?

NDP vs. NDP on Deficit Spending

Pages