News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

100B deficit pre covid? Post the evidence that says that.

Do you know what "cumulatively" means? Add up the deficits for all the fiscal years before COVID.

2016: $19B
2017: $19B
2018: $14B
2019: $39B

I was a bit off. $91B cumulatively before COVID. Not for lack of trying though. They projected $29.4B in 2016 and $28.5B in 2017.
 
Canada has the lowest net debt to GDP radio in the G7. However, the deficit is important is get under control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
Canada forbids homebuyers from taking out insured mortgages with amortization periods of longer than 25 years. At a news conference Friday, Trudeau was asked whether his government would extend the limit to 30 years or more — a measure that would ease monthly payments and help some buyers who are currently shut out of the market.

The prime minister wouldn’t comment directly on that, but said: “On mortgages we will have more to say between now and the budget date on April 16, and perhaps we will save it for April 16.”

For clarity, in the past, Canada has prohibited CMHC insured mortgages from having an amortization greater than 25 years; non-insured mortgages could go to 35 years.

In the last 18 months, restrictions were further eased, and banks have been rewriting mortgages at 40 years + to those who came up under water.

That, frankly, is entirely undesirable for reasons described by @afransen and @kEiThZ across multiple posts.

This is a good comprehensive piece on mortgage characteristics across the OECD:


(from 2021)
 
Canada has the lowest net debt to GDP radio in the G7.
We need to include the the Provinces and look at total debt.

Total federal and provincial debt equals approx. USD$ 1.6 trillion. Canada's total GDP is approx. USD $ 2.1 trillion, meaning that our debt to GDP ratio is 0.76. That puts us behind Germany, whose debt to gdp ratio is 65%, but I agree that we're in better shape that the others in this regard, especially Japan where debt is reaching a staggering 270% of GDP.

But why can't our federal and provincial governments spend within their means?
 
We need to include the the Provinces and look at total debt.

Total federal and provincial debt equals approx. USD$ 1.6 trillion. Canada's total GDP is approx. USD $ 2.1 trillion, meaning that our debt to GDP ratio is 0.76. That puts us behind Germany, whose debt to gdp ratio is 65%, but I agree that we're in better shape that the others in this regard, especially Japan where debt is reaching a staggering 270% of GDP.

But why can't our federal and provincial governments spend within their means?
I am talking about Federal. I am sure the debt would be more if other countries added states and provinces.
 
I am talking about Federal. I am sure the debt would be more if other countries added states and provinces.

Which is irrelevant because:
That's federal debt. Which is deceiving because of the differences between unitary and federated States.. When you compare public debt Canada is not the lowest.


How do you compare countries like the UK where transport and healthcare and post-secondary education are managed at the national level to Canada, which doesn't do that? That's why the only apples to apples measures is total public debt (which is what the link I provided measures).
 
I am talking about Federal.
Which is gaming the data to serve your point that Canada has the lowest debt to gdp in the g7. In the USA for example, states are not permitted to issue or carry debt, and any state that cannot pay its bills must ask for federal financial aid.

The silly thing is you don't even need to be obtuse to support your assertion that Canada has a low debt to gdp ratio, because we do, even with the provinces added in. Only Germany has a lower ratio that us. So, we're #2 in the g7.
 
Apparently, ahead of the budget, the Defense Policy update will drop tomorrow:


We'll find out if the current trajectory is changing. Right now this seems to be the government's attitude:

 
We'll find out if the current trajectory is changing. Right now this seems to be the government's attitude:


Presumably, they will put something in the window, as it would be odd to hold an election presser, at a Military Base, in order to shrug your shoulders. Though whether the 'something' will be tangible, sufficient or near-term is certainly an open question.
 
Presumably, they will put something in the window, as it would be odd to hold an election presser, at a Military Base, in order to shrug your shoulders. Though whether the 'something' will be tangible, sufficient or near-term is certainly an open question.

I'm not under any hope they'll meet the 2% target. But there's a few immediate investment areas that they can hit both to stop the "death spiral" and to get us out of the "quadrant of shame".

Things like housing allowances, healthcare for dependents and daycare support would probably cost half a billion per year. They would help improve morale, increase retention, reduce stress on families.

We need about $1.9B more per year on equipment and R&D spending to get us out of the quadrant of shame. And they can easily find both some urgent requirements, and R&D outlets (including grants to academia) to meet that target.

So I'd say $2.5B more per year should be enough to get the worst of the crisis behind us. Won't get us anywhere near 2%.

In the long run, if we are going to increase defence spending substantially beyond that, there's a few smart things the government can do. Biggest among them is seek out areas which spend more of the money at home (as we do with shipbuilding) and where we gain substantially economically (R&Do, aerospace, etc). I can think of a few areas where we could do this. A new submarine program is the biggest one, as long as we build in Canada. Space is another area where we have natural advantages and where we could spend a lot domestically with spinoffs. Modeling and simulation is another area. We should be looking for ways to maximize economic return on defence spending. Shoot for the moon ideas like getting MDA a whole radarsat surveillance constellation or building really advanced training facilities with high fidelity simulation with CAE or even a nuclear submarine program with LEU CANDU reactors that can be sold as SMRs. I don't expect any of this to be in the defence policy. But I would hope there's a larger policy effort somewhere looking at what natural advantages we have, where we could invest and get the most return, not just for defence, but the economy too.
 
There’s a lot of programs announced that will need funding….







 
There’s a lot of programs announced that will need funding….

These are already budgeted for. Meeting the target requires going beyond these.

And in some cases these deals can be expanded if we want to increase defence spending a bit. For example, I think there's a case to be made with increasing the P-8 purchase to 20 frames and putting a squadron in the Newfoundland. Likewise, probably a case to buy more drones and stand up a squadron in Yellowknife, in addition to the units being stood up on the coasts. We can also build on the P-8 purchase and get a squadron of Wedgetails so we finally have our own AEW capability.

Even with the ship program, I would think we could probably plan a few more frigates and maybe an extra JSS.

Given that we would have to spend something like $15B per year to meet 2%, the above is probably a way to add $1B per year and at least look like we're trying.
 

Back
Top