Red Liberal dollar In FREEFALL!!
MattW
down................>>>
The rudderless ship of fools.....Kanaduh.
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Says Canada Strong, Declines Dollar Comment
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Finance Minister Paul Martin, declining to comment on the
Canadian dollar's fall to record lows, said on Wednesday that Canada's
economic fundamentals were strong.
"As you know, ministers of finance never comment on their currency," Martin
told reporters.
----------------------------------
" A young conservative has no heart, but an old Liberal has no brain"
--Winston Churchill
Kurt Sims
"MattW" <ww...@uunet.com> wrote:
> "As you know, ministers of finance never comment on their currency," Martin
> told reporters.
Has anyone actually heard Martin comment on anything, ever? He's so
busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a race, that I
doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
Kurt
--
To reply by email remove the 2 copies of spam in my reply address.
Mike Warren
> Has anyone actually heard Martin comment on anything, ever? He's so
> busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a race,
> that I doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
dollar?
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
<URL:http://www.mike-warren.com>
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
Honest John
wrote:
>Kurt Sims <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> writes:
>
>> Has anyone actually heard Martin comment on anything, ever? He's so
>> busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a race,
>> that I doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
>
>Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
>dollar?
It's bad because we are all made poorer.
Mike Warren
That's not true; why do you think that?
E. Barry Bruyea
Right now, with such a precarious economy, it could save a few jobs.
American business is bargain hunting for products right now and a low
dollar, (considering our relative lack of productivity improvement
over the past decade) could help our exports even more than usual.
Honest John
wrote:
>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) writes:
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:17:01 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Kurt Sims <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> writes:
>
>> >> Has anyone actually heard Martin comment on anything, ever? He's
>> >> so busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a
>> >> race, that I doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
>
>> >Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
>> >dollar?
>
>> It's bad because we are all made poorer.
>
>That's not true; why do you think that?
Imports cost more as do foreign trips. #0 years back the loonybuck was
worth more than the US dollar. Relative to the US our currency has
almost halved in value as a result of our punitive taxation and
anti-business policies. As a result we are all much poorer. As a
couple of friends who moved to Texas about 25 years back pointed out
on a recent visit, just about every profession is far better paid down
south.
Joe
> busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a race, that I
> doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
If this is true how did he manage to turn a $40 billion dollar deficit into
a surplus? You make it sound so simple that even the Mulroney government
should have been able to do it. ;-)
JMD
news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> dollar?
Because it makes imports more expensive. Do you think we grow oranges and
broccoli all year round in this country? Do you think we make computer
parts and software? A lot of commodities are priced in US dollars --
including natural gas -- so when the dollar in which you earn weakens, your
cost of living goes up.
Sigh! The education of Mike Warren is never-ending work.
John Dowell
JMD
news:3be0a94d...@nntp.uunet.ca...
> Right now, with such a precarious economy, it could save a few jobs.
> American business is bargain hunting for products right now and a low
> dollar, (considering our relative lack of productivity improvement
> over the past decade) could help our exports even more than usual.
Weighed against that possible slight advantage for exporters, Barry, is US
concern for domestic security and what that might do to our exports to the
US (border clamp downs). The US represents 90 per cent of our export
market; we represent 25 per cent of theirs. A border clamp-down, because
the US lacks confidence in our security arrangements, would hurt us more
quickly and far more deeply than it would hurt the US. Given the current
climate including the lax attitude of our government, we may see no
advantage from our weakening dollar.
John Dowell
radio-dadio
"Joe" <nos...@dropdead.com> wrote in message
news:5f9E7.50574$Z2.7...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Martin and the Red Liberals have ridden the coat tails of the unprecedented
North American and European growth boom of the 90s. Most of the most
rigorous legislative slogging, for which the Red Liberals ultimatley
received benefit, was done previously by none other than Brian Mulroney and
the PCs.
Remember NAFTA, introduced by Mulroney's government, was bitterly opposed
and fought against by the Red Liberals and Crouton in opposition...guess
what he and they lied. Same with GST. Same with tax cuts. Same UI reforms.
Since the Crouton arrived on the scene in 93 we have seen a continued plunge
in the value of the Canadian dollar and in the living standards of ALL
Canadians because of woolly headed, left of center, Big Government
interventionist policies.
It's the same old Red Liberal political interventionism with the, now,
totally politically co-opted Bank of Canada (an independent body in the US,
Britain, Germany and much of the EU!!) and they are puppets put in place to
artificially keep uncompetitive Canadian 'establishment' monopolist
companies who are politically connected; competitive by permanently
depressing the value of the Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian interest
rates permanently below US rates. This crushes the standard of living of all
Canadians and maintains the steady downward spiral of Canada, once a rich
nation.
It's the same Family Compact oligarchy that has been
running this country like it's own private mink ranch such the beginning.
They are totally wrong-headed, history will prove it I am convinced, and
unfortunately (remember YOU voted Crouton and the Red Liberals back in!) all
Canadians WILL pay a very handsome price.
They are taking our country down a descending and dark road; and they will
follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of
discarded lies.
Kurt Sims
"Joe" <nos...@dropdead.com> wrote:
> You make it sound so simple that even the Mulroney government
> should have been able to do it. ;-)
I don't think anything could be that simple.
Kurt Sims
Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote:
> Kurt Sims <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> writes:
>
> > Has anyone actually heard Martin comment on anything, ever? He's so
> > busy trying to make a run at the leadership, even without a race,
> > that I doubt he has any idea what the dollar is falling to.
>
> Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> dollar?
If you have to import things it sucks. Using what we do as an example
Say we get a $200,000 grant from CIHR or we make a deal with a drug
company. Everything we buy is in US dollars, from equipment down to
restriction enzymes and gloves. If the dollar is worth $0.63 US that
$200,000 grant is now worth about $126,000. The difference is gone
before you even see it, sometimes along with the researchers.
Our dollar has been tanking for years. Last year some economist with
CIBC forecasted a 60 cent dollar and people were furious with him. I
bet we see that by next summer.
Brad Cooke
JMD wrote:
>
> "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> >
> > Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> > dollar?
> ==================
> Because it makes imports more expensive.
And we are an export economy.
BC
Mike Warren
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:51:06 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) writes:
> >> >Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> >> >dollar?
> >> It's bad because we are all made poorer.
> >That's not true; why do you think that?
> Imports cost more as do foreign trips.
Only if they're US imports. Anyway, exports to the US will bring in
more revenue as the dollar drops and since we're an export economy...
> #0 years back the loonybuck was worth more than the US
> dollar.
Yea, so?
> Relative to the US our currency has almost halved in value [..]
If you mean ``purchasing power'' for ``value'', then you're sadly
mistaken.
> As a couple of friends who moved to Texas about 25 years back
> pointed out on a recent visit, just about every profession is far
> better paid down south.
Cost of living is higher.
Mike Warren
> "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> > dollar?
> Because it makes imports more expensive.
It also makes exports bring more revenue.
JMD
news:3BE188B7...@ucalgary.ca...
> And we are an export economy.
We are also an import economy and the world price for some things we produce
domestically, such as natural gas, is set in US dollars. A weaker dollar
represents a loss of purchasing power. A loss of purchasing power
represents an erosion of the wealth of each and every one of us.
John Dowell
Ivan Gowch
==>"Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
==>news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
==>> Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
==>> dollar?
==>Because it makes imports more expensive. Do you think we grow oranges and
==>broccoli all year round in this country? Do you think we make computer
==>parts and software? A lot of commodities are priced in US dollars --
==>including natural gas -- so when the dollar in which you earn weakens, your
==>cost of living goes up.
All true. OTOH, a low Canadian dollar makes
Canadian-produced goods -- both manufactured and
grown -- more attractive on world markets and lures
investors' dollars to Canada.
That's good for manufacturing and Canadian
agriculture and supports Canadian jobs. And
without jobs, Canadians can't buy oranges and
broccoli, computer hardware or software.
If you knew Canadians like I do, then you'd know that
most of them don't give a shit about broccoli and
many find it possible -- believe it or not -- to live
full lives without buying a lot of imported stuff.
However, they do want to keep their jobs so they
have the money to buy what's really important
to them -- beer.
And with a healthy employment situation and
thriving manufacturing/business sector, the
government collects lots of taxes it uses to
provide Canadians with the services they want,
while avoiding those nasty operating deficits.
On balance, then, a low Canadian dollar compared
to the American one is definitely to be desired.
==>Sigh! The education of Mike Warren is never-ending work.
Sigh! The education of John Dowell is, largely,
futile.
--
"This would be the best of all possible
worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
-John Adams.
"Amen."
- Ivan Gowch <go...@hotmail.com>
Brad Cooke
JMD wrote:
>
> "Brad Cooke" <bwc...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BE188B7...@ucalgary.ca...
> > And we are an export economy.
> ================
> the world price for some things we produce
> domestically, such as natural gas, is set in US dollars.
Exactly. How does a weak dollar (relative to the US) hurt us here?
> A weaker dollar
> represents a loss of purchasing power. A loss of purchasing power
> represents an erosion of the wealth of each and every one of us.
Only relative to the US - we also receive goods from other nations, by
the way.
BC.
E. Barry Bruyea
Over the long term, Canada's lack of progress in productivity compared
to that of our chief trading partners has and will hurt us more than
the low dollar and is in itself responsible for a good chunk of the
reduction of our dollar and our purchasing power.
>
>
>
Mike Warren
> Over the long term, Canada's lack of progress in productivity
> compared to that of our chief trading partners has and will hurt us
> more than the low dollar and is in itself responsible for a good
> chunk of the reduction of our dollar and our purchasing power.
Do you have figures for this supposed reduction in purchasing power?
Better yet, do you have some which compare (total) cost-of-living?
JMD
news:3be184c1...@news.primus.ca...
>
> All true. OTOH, a low Canadian dollar makes
> Canadian-produced goods -- both manufactured and
> grown -- more attractive on world markets and lures
> investors' dollars to Canada.
>
Investment would tend to push our dollar up, would it not? As I understand
it, if our dollar is sinking, it means money is flowing out of Canada --
investors abandoning Canada (among others) and fleeing to the US dollar in
uncertain times.
I don't see that a weak dollar is an inducement to investors and let's face
it, we are talking US investors here. Why would they put their money into a
country whose currency has steadily eroded in value for years now? There is
every likelihood that the Canadian dollar will erode further against the US
dollar in coming months. When US investors have to convert Canadian
earnings back to US, that make it hard to realize gains even if the value of
their Canadian investments has risen.
Our pitiful Looney certainly cheers one type of US investor, though --
people who want to buy Canadian vacation properties. For them, Canada is 50
per cent off. Go to any cottage area and you can see this transfer of
property to US owners underway.
To pick up on a point raised by Barry Bruyea: The value of the Canadian
dollar is the world's judgement on our economy. We have held our export
market up by devaluing our currency. The sliding Looney has shielded
Canadian businesses from having to achieve the kind of productivity gains
that have occurred in the US in recent years.
As the value of the dollar erodes year after year, Paul Martin's mantra is
"The fundamentals of Canada's economy are strong."
You don't like broccoli with beer, Ivan the Terrible?
John Dowell
radio-dadio
are totally irrelevant.
THE most important criterion to backstop the living standards of ALL
Canadians..is the US/CAN conversion rate.
> BC.
radio-dadio
"JMD" <jdowe...@home.com> wrote in message
news:XriE7.409237$j65.10...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
They're are out of ideas...empty and tired.... and desperately need to be
retired and replaced for the salvation of our country
> You don't like broccoli with beer, Ivan the Terrible?
>
> John Dowell
>
The federal Red Liberals, through total political co-option of the Bank of
Canada, keep the interest rate spread permanently at or below the US rate in
order
to keep our 'Crouton/Dodge dollar' permanently depressed in order to keep
uncompetitive, politically connected, "family compact" establishment
companies; globally competitive. It is the weak kneed practice of
permanently devaluing the
loony and the living standards of all Canadians in support of favored
monopolies so they can compete..and we ALL pay the price. These same folks
then wrap themselves in our flag and claim to be defending Canada from those
'evil americans'.
Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to all
Canadians through more choice, much lower prices etc... the Red Liberals try
and intervene, control and overregulate the whole economy (from airlines, to
dairy products, to banks etc.etc.etc.) using the failed socialist ideologies
of the 1970's for the benefit of an elitist establishment minority at the
huge expense of ALL Canadians. A disgusting Oligopoly.
It is a broken economic business model and the whole world knows
it....except Kanadians.
It is the definition of insanity..doing the same thing over and over
again..expecting a differnet result.
The harsh truth about the Chrétien years is that Canada has been falling
ever further and further behind the United States economically.
We are trapped in a horrible cycle: The cost of our social programs has
pushed our taxes too high, the weight of our taxes crushes entrepreneurship
and business, the
weakness of our business sector holds back the growth of personal
incomes,and governments embarrassed by slow-growing incomes react by
proposing new social programs.
IT DOESN"T WORK GUYS!!!! The world is making all Canadians pay the price.
Meanwhile, the same slow growth that has weakened our economy is corroding
already existing programs. It's not as if medicare and the Canada Pension
Plan are in such great shape that we can chalk them up as finished business
and move on to the next free-spending agenda item.
We need new leadership across the board in this country. From the ground
up.
The 'narrowness' and small-mindedness of our political climate HAS to
change.
Mike Warren
> THE most important criterion to backstop the living standards of ALL
> Canadians..is the US/CAN conversion rate.
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
radio-dadio
> "radio-dadio" <ww...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > THE most important criterion to backstop the living standards of ALL
> > Canadians..is the US/CAN conversion rate.
>
> Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
>
If you disagree with that thesis then you have zero economic knowledge.
Are you a young man or just don't get out much?
Brad Cooke
radio-dadio wrote:
> We do 1.4 Billion dollars/day in trade with the US. The rupee, peso or ruble
> are totally irrelevant.
> THE most important criterion to backstop the living standards of ALL
> Canadians..is the US/CAN conversion rate.
Uh, huh. And a _low_ Canadian dollar helps our export-driven economy.
BC
Mike Warren
> "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:4kkE7.136796$oa2.43...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > "radio-dadio" <ww...@aol.com> writes:
> > > THE most important criterion to backstop the living standards of
> > > ALL Canadians..is the US/CAN conversion rate.
> > Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
> If you disagree with that thesis then you have zero economic
> knowledge. Are you a young man or just don't get out much?
Standards of living are related to purchasing power and cost of
living, not exchange rates.
--
Honest John
wrote:
>> Imports cost more as do foreign trips.
>
>Only if they're US imports. Anyway, exports to the US will bring in
>more revenue as the dollar drops and since we're an export economy...
You believe the rest of the world prices their goods in canadian
dollars. Unless all other currencies also drop in value against the US
dollar the price of imports from those countries also goes up. As
about 80% of our imports come from the US the value of that currency
is of greatest importance.
>
>> 30 years back the loonybuck was worth more than the US
>> dollar.
>
>Yea, so?
In another 30 years it will be worth about 30c US.
>
>> Relative to the US our currency has almost halved in value [..]
>
>If you mean ``purchasing power'' for ``value'', then you're sadly
>mistaken.
In purchasing power it has dropped much more.
>
>> As a couple of friends who moved to Texas about 25 years back
>> pointed out on a recent visit, just about every profession is far
>> better paid down south.
>
>Cost of living is higher.
Only slightly so if at all. Food costs must be lower because so much
of our food is shipped here from there. This must be why so many of
our locals head south in the winter because it is cheaper to live in
Florida than heat a home in Canada.
Mike Warren
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:01:34 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >> Imports cost more as do foreign trips.
> >Only if they're US imports. Anyway, exports to the US will bring in
> >more revenue as the dollar drops and since we're an export
> >economy...
> You believe the rest of the world prices their goods in canadian
> dollars.
News to me...where did I claim such nonsense?
> Unless all other currencies also drop in value against the US dollar
> the price of imports from those countries also goes up.
Eh?!
> As about 80% of our imports come from the US the value of that
> currency is of greatest importance.
What's our trade deficit/surplus, John?
> >> 30 years back the loonybuck was worth more than the US dollar.
> >Yea, so?
> In another 30 years it will be worth about 30c US.
And...?
> >> Relative to the US our currency has almost halved in value [..]
> >If you mean ``purchasing power'' for ``value'', then you're sadly
> >mistaken.
> In purchasing power it has dropped much more.
Ha! You have figures?
> >> As a couple of friends who moved to Texas about 25 years back
> >> pointed out on a recent visit, just about every profession is far
> >> better paid down south.
> >Cost of living is higher.
> Only slightly so if at all.
You base this on...?
> Food costs must be lower because so much of our food is shipped here
> from there.
Have you even bought food in the US?
> This must be why so many of our locals head south in the winter
> because it is cheaper to live in Florida than heat a home in Canada.
It's warmer in Florida, yes...
E. Barry Bruyea
According to news reports regarding the Florida State Tourist Agency,
that number is significantly dropping. We have friends that for the
second year in a row are going to be freezing up here with the rest of
us instead of their usual three month sojourn to Florida. Although I
understand some Canadians are looking a Mexico as an alternative to
the sunshine state.
>
>
JMD
explanation then later in the thread or in a new thread on a similar topic,
he comes back and asks the same questions again. He never tells us what he
thinks or why, he just asks questions but ignores or rejects the answers. I
am beginning to think he is a young smart ass.
John Dowell
BeGone
> "JMD" <jdowe...@home.com> writes:
> > "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> > news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
>
> > > Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
> > > dollar?
>
> > Because it makes imports more expensive.
>
> It also makes exports bring more revenue.
Now this is OBVIOUSLY crap! We lower our
dollar and the US put on 30+% countervailing
duties on our lumber. The idea that your gonna
lower your dollar to compete is "looney". The
US gov't simply adds a 30% tax that goes in
their pockets ( not Canada's ) and quite rightly
charges that your dumping.
The person who said the value of the dollar
is the worlds estimate of what Canada is worth
is not necessarily correct either. Canada
is worth a lot more than that. But the
Canadian "political economy" is another
story. The problem starts with individual
Canadians and percolates up thru EVERY
political party. There are no "political angels"
out there in Canada.
E. Barry Bruyea
Or, a wannabe shrink.
>
>
>
>
>
Brad Cooke
BeGone wrote:
> > It also makes exports bring more revenue.
>
> Now this is OBVIOUSLY crap! We lower our
> dollar and the US put on 30+% countervailing
> duties on our lumber.
12.57%... and it had nothing to do with the value of the Canadian
dollar.
BC
Ivan Gowch
wrote:
==>Mike Warren wrote:
==>
==>> "JMD" <jdowe...@home.com> writes:
==>> > "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
==>> > news:1w0E7.132887$oa2.42...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
==>>
==>> > > Why is it automatically bad if our dollar falls relative to the US
==>> > > dollar?
==>>
==>> > Because it makes imports more expensive.
==>>
==>> It also makes exports bring more revenue.
==>Now this is OBVIOUSLY crap! We lower our
==>dollar and the US put on 30+% countervailing
==>duties on our lumber. The idea that your gonna
==>lower your dollar to compete is "looney". The
==>US gov't simply adds a 30% tax that goes in
==>their pockets ( not Canada's ) and quite rightly
==>charges that your dumping.
The only thing that's obvious here is that
you know nothing about economics.
Study up on it a bit, before continuing to
embarrass youself, kid.
For one thing, Canada did not "lower" the
value of its dollar, as you said. The Canadian
dollar is a free-floating currency whose value
against the American dollar is set on world money
markets on criteria I'm not even going to begin
trying to explain to you.
Mike was absolutely right in pointing out that
a cheap Canadian dollar makes Canadian
goods, agricultural products and services
more attractive on world markets, because they
are paid for in -- cheaper -- Canadian dollars.
This is very good for Canada because it keeps
people here working, buying stuff and paying
taxes.
None of this is more than slightly peripheral to
the softwood lumber dispute, as you so mistakenly
suggest. The countervail duty and dumping
penalty result from complaints by U.S. lumber
producers about alleged subsidization of the
Canadian industry by government -- an allegation
ruled baseless at least once before by the World
Trade Organization, which arbitrates these disputes.
What is going on here is a scam. The U.S. industry
complains, its friends in the Washington bureaucracy
dutifully find merit in the complaints, the government
imposes its countervail duties and penalties, then
waits for the WTO to say, you're full of shit, you
can't do that. It then cancels the penalties until
the U.S. lumber guys decide to complain again next
year.
What makes it a shameless ripoff is that the U.S.
passed a law a few years ago specifically _forbidding_
repayment of such things as countervail duties and
dumping penalties that have been ruled unjustified by
the WTO. In other words, we can fine you any time we
like, and if the fine is quashed we're keeping your
money anyway.
Cute, huh? This from a country that holds itself up
as the world champion of free trade, but behaves
more like an international pirate.
In any case, none of this has anything directly to do
with the value of the Canadian dollar -- something you
should learn a whole lot more about before you
offer opinions that only make others laugh.
==>The person who said the value of the dollar
==>is the worlds estimate of what Canada is worth
==>is not necessarily correct either. Canada
==>is worth a lot more than that. But the
==>Canadian "political economy" is another
==>story. The problem starts with individual
==>Canadians and percolates up thru EVERY
==>political party. There are no "political angels"
==>out there in Canada.
I have no idea what the above means.
I do know I've heard more rational talk
from chimpanzees.
Regards.
BeGone
Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
known as "competitive devaluation". And they have come up
with an outstanding response to it... they devalue, we tax the
difference. More money in the US treasury and less in (
in this case ) Canada's. Expect more of this.
Mike Warren
> Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> known as "competitive devaluation".
So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
Canadian dollar? Please explain.
radio-dadio
"Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
news:kECE7.139006$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
>
> > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > known as "competitive devaluation".
>
> So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> Canadian dollar? Please explain.
It's the same old Red Liberal political interventionism with the, now,
totally politically co-opted Bank of Canada (an independent body in the US,
Britain, Germany and much of the EU!!) and they are puppets put in place to
artificially keep certain uncompetitive 'establishment' Canadian monopolist
companies who are politically connected; competitive, by consciously and
permanently depressing the value of the Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian
interest rates permanently at or preferrably below US interest rates. This
crushes the standard of living of all Canadians; giving us ALL progressive
pay cuts; and maintains the steady downward spiral of Canada, once a rich
nation.
Official Red Liberal "Soft dollar policy".
It covers up the bad accounting and the resulting bad economic environment
that their wrong headed, out of touch, left of center policy making has
created.
The harsh truth about the Chrétien years is that Canada has been falling
ever further behind the United States economically.
We are trapped in a horrible cycle:
The cost of our social programs has pushed our taxes too high, the weight of
our taxes crushes entrepreneurship and business, the weakness of our
business sector holds back the growth of personal incomes,and governments
embarrassed by slow growing incomes react by proposing even more new social
programs.
FLASH: IT DOESN'T WORK GUYS!!!!!
Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to all
Canadians through more choice, much lower prices etc.etc.etc.... the Red
Liberals try and intervene, stifle, control and overregulate the whole
economy (from airlines, to dairy products, to banks etc.etc.etc.) using the
failed socialist ideologies of the 1970's for the benefit of an elitist
establishment minority at the huge expense of ALL Canadians.
A disgusting Oligopoly (and YOU voted for them!!)
A whole new leadership, from the ground up, is needed in Canada.
Canada will most certainly perish without this revamping and replenishment
and there is no viable oppostion on the near horizon..
Now please Mr. Warren do not ask the same questions again and again after
they've been answered again and again.
Pay attention...or do you really not want to hear (<fingers in ears "I can't
hear you")
"A young conservative has no heart, but an old Liberal has no brain"
--Winston Churchill
Brad Cooke
radio-dadio wrote:
> > So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> > Canadian dollar? Please explain.
>
> It's the same old Red Liberal political interventionism with the, now,
> totally politically co-opted Bank of Canada (an independent body in the US,
> Britain, Germany and much of the EU!!)
And in Canada. Do you seriously think that the government has control
of the money supply in Canada and sets interest rates?
> and they are puppets put in place to
> artificially keep certain uncompetitive 'establishment' Canadian monopolist
> companies who are politically connected; competitive, by consciously and
> permanently depressing the value of the Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian
> interest rates permanently at or preferrably below US interest rates.
Canadian interest rates are bound to be close to American interest rates
- our economies are quite intermingled. In fact, prime rates in
developed nations all tend to be quite similar.
> This
> crushes the standard of living of all Canadians; giving us ALL progressive
> pay cuts;
How do you make this leap?
> and maintains the steady downward spiral of Canada, once a rich
> nation.
> Official Red Liberal "Soft dollar policy".
> It covers up the bad accounting and the resulting bad economic environment
> that their wrong headed, out of touch, left of center policy making has
> created.
The facts would seem to disagree.
> The harsh truth about the Chrétien years is that Canada has been falling
> ever further behind the United States economically.
Numbers? Try not to pull them out of your ass.
> We are trapped in a horrible cycle:
> The cost of our social programs has pushed our taxes too high, the weight of
> our taxes crushes entrepreneurship and business, the weakness of our
> business sector holds back the growth of personal incomes,and governments
> embarrassed by slow growing incomes react by proposing even more new social
> programs.
Seriously now...
[snip confounding rhetoric]
BC
Mike Warren
> "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:kECE7.139006$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
> > > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > > known as "competitive devaluation".
> > So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> > Canadian dollar? Please explain.
> It's the same old Red Liberal political interventionism with the,
> now, totally politically co-opted Bank of Canada [..]
The Bank of Canada does not control the trading price of the Canadian
dollar. They don't even control the supply of it.
> [..] (an independent body in the US, Britain, Germany and much of
> the EU!!) [..]
The Federal Reserve maintains much tighter control over the US money
supply; the US still has reserve requirements. Fundamentally, they are
quite different.
> [..] by consciously and permanently depressing the value of the
> Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian interest rates permanently at or
> preferrably below US interest rates. [..]
The Bank of Canada can only influence interest rates, not control them
(like the Federal Reserve in the US can).
> This crushes the standard of living of all Canadians; [..]
A devaluation of currency doesn't do this at all, and certainly not
when we're an export economy.
> [..] giving us ALL progressive pay cuts; and maintains the steady
> downward spiral of Canada, once a rich nation.
Still a rich nation.
> Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to
> all Canadians through more choice, [..]
Explain how our money supply is not controlled by demand for it.
> [..] economy (from airlines, to dairy products, to banks
> etc.etc.etc.) [..]
Since you're comparing Canada to the US and the EU, let's point out
that the US and EU also regulate their airline, banking and dairy
industries.
> A disgusting Oligopoly (and YOU voted for them!!)
I did? News to me.
> A whole new leadership, from the ground up, is needed in Canada.
Who do you suggest?
> Canada will most certainly perish without this revamping and
> replenishment [..]
Which revamping is that? You've so far just railed against vague
notions.
> Now please Mr. Warren do not ask the same questions again and again
> after they've been answered again and again.
They haven't; you clearly do not understand that the price of Canadian
dollars is controlled by currency traders, not ``THE EV1L RED
LIBERALS''.
radio-dadio
You have not a clue BC.
Try doing some reading; we're not in the business of bringing you up to
speed.
radio-dadio
> "radio-dadio" <ww...@aol.com> writes:
> > "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> > news:kECE7.139006$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > > BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
>
> > > > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > > > known as "competitive devaluation".
>
> > > So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> > > Canadian dollar? Please explain.
>
> > It's the same old Red Liberal political interventionism with the,
> > now, totally politically co-opted Bank of Canada [..]
>
> The Bank of Canada does not control the trading price of the Canadian
> dollar. They don't even control the supply of it.
They control interest rates and have no political independence.
>
> > [..] (an independent body in the US, Britain, Germany and much of
> > the EU!!) [..]
>
> The Federal Reserve maintains much tighter control over the US money
> supply; the US still has reserve requirements. Fundamentally, they are
> quite different.
The Fed is an independent political body.
>
> > [..] by consciously and permanently depressing the value of the
> > Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian interest rates permanently at or
> > preferrably below US interest rates. [..]
>
> The Bank of Canada can only influence interest rates, not control them
> (like the Federal Reserve in the US can).
The Bank of Canada sets interest rates, period.
> > This crushes the standard of living of all Canadians; [..]
>
> A devaluation of currency doesn't do this at all, and certainly not
> when we're an export economy.
Our companies are being bought at firesale prices, jobs move south,
international investors move south, our imports cost more, business' capital
costs escalate etc. etc. See article below.
> > [..] giving us ALL progressive pay cuts; and maintains the steady
> > downward spiral of Canada, once a rich nation.
>
> Still a rich nation.
Living on the legacy of our parents generation and using it up quickly.
> > Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to
> > all Canadians through more choice, [..]
>
> Explain how our money supply is not controlled by demand for it.
Monopolists and interventionists shut out competiton; the benefits of
competition enrich ALL Canadian's lives not just those of a politically
connected minority.
> > [..] economy (from airlines, to dairy products, to banks
> > etc.etc.etc.) [..]
>
> Since you're comparing Canada to the US and the EU, let's point out
> that the US and EU also regulate their airline, banking and dairy
> industries.
Not as seriously competition crushing and as prohibitively as Kanada. We ALL
pay much more for airline tickets, dairy products, gasoline, cigarettes,
clothing, vehicles etc. etc. EVEN before conversion!
> > A disgusting Oligopoly (and YOU voted for them!!)
>
> I did? News to me.
I presume since you support their policies; you are a Liberal.
> > A whole new leadership, from the ground up, is needed in Canada.
>
> Who do you suggest?
THAT is the question. It begins in debates like this one.
> > Canada will most certainly perish without this revamping and
> > replenishment [..]
>
> Which revamping is that? You've so far just railed against vague
> notions.
Reformation of Parliament for a start.
Democracy does not exist in Kanada today and everything that is wrong with
Kanada today radiates out from this problem.
> > Now please Mr. Warren do not ask the same questions again and again
> > after they've been answered again and again.
>
> They haven't; you clearly do not understand that the price of Canadian
> dollars is controlled by currency traders, not ``THE EV1L RED
> LIBERALS''.
>
It's Big Government and the tax burden which creates the problem.
Here's a little reading from a slightly different angle that I suggest you
and that other dimwit Cooke read..if you can concentrate for that long.
-----------------------------
How Taxes Sank The Dollar
The most fundamental aspects of the Canadian and U.S. economies have not
diverged in the past half-century. So why has our dollar been falling since
1950? And, more to the point, how do we stop it?
Michael Walker
Remember that consensus forecast for a strengthening of the Canadian dollar
last year? Indeed, remember the consensus forecast for a strengthening of
the Canadian dollar in ... you pick the year? The dollar has consistently
defied all official predictions about its value from all the usual technical
sources. Why has all this optimism been consistently dashed? What is really
going on?
First, let's look at what has happened to the dollar since 1950. As Graph I
shows, while there have been fluctuations -- most associated with temporary
circumstances -- the predominant feature of the Canadian dollar exchange
rate against the U.S. dollar is that ithas declined. Why?
Forecasters have used several factors to explain the decline and predict the
future of the dollar: commodity prices, interest rates, government borrowing
and, perennially, purchasing power parity. But do these standard theories
really explain the 50-year performance of the dollar?
Let's begin with commodities. The leading proponent of the commodity
argument is the Bank of Canada. Graph II shows the Commodity Research
Board's commodity price index (adjusted for inflation) since 1950. The trend
is certainly in the right direction. If we are getting less for our
commodities and paying more for the things we import -- if the so-called
terms of trade are against us -- that would explain the downward drift in
the dollar. But the fact is that the importance of the terms of trade has
been shrinking throughout the period as Canada has increasingly become an
importer as well as exporter of commodities.
As recently as 1976, imports of $6.9- billion were equal to 56% of exports
valued at $12.3-billion. In 1999, commodity imports had risen to
$82.5-billion and represented 75% of our commodity exports. In other words,
it has become increasingly irrelevant that we get fewer manufactured goods
for our commodities because we also have to pay less for the ones we buy. If
our commodity trade were balanced, any change in their prices would be a
wash and therefore unable to explain any changes in the exchange rate.
Even more damaging for the commodity explanation is the fact that the Bank
of Canada's calculation of the overall terms of trade -- the price of
everything we export compared with everything we import -- shows that there
has been an improvement of either 1.6% or 3.5% (depending on the form of
index) since 1992, when the dollar had the now seemingly stratospheric value
of 77ข. Why hasn't the dollar risen instead of fallen as the overall terms
of trade improved?
There is still a role left for commodity prices, however, especially in
predicting short-term changes as some forecasters, such as the Bank of
Canada, do quite well. That is, to the extent that currency traders still
view Canada as primarily a commodity play, they might well trade the
currency on changes in commodity prices. This would produce the sort of
short-term correlation which the Bank's forecasters find -- in spite of the
lack of a credible structural connection between commodity prices and the
trend value of the currency.
Some studies, based on purchasing power parity, have attempted to show that
the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar is temporary because the
development of the cost of living in the two countries favours Canada.
Eventually, so the story goes, goods arbitrage may be expected to correct
this mismatch and restore purchasing power parity through a higher Canadian
dollar. While this reasoning may have a kernel of truth, purchasing power
parity calculations have been an even more miserable predictor of the
exchange rate than the terms of trade. Moreover, inflation measured through
consumer price indices in the two countries has been nearly identical during
the period (Graph III). Certainly there is no trend here that would explain
the currency moves.
Interest rate differentials with the United States are often used to explain
movements in the exchange rate on the grounds that they drive the behavior
of portfolio managers concerned with short-term profits. As Graph IV shows,
while interest differentials have fluctuated, there is no secular trend in
them that would explain the long-run decline of the dollar.
So what has determined the dollar's decline? What are the underlying
economic conditions in Canada and the United States which might explain the
ongoing, persistent underperformance of the dollar? To solve the puzzle we
have to look for something that has evolved differently in the two economies
since the 1950s when the currencies traded about one for one.
It is clear that the most fundamental characteristics of the economies in
the two countries have not diverged. In fact, they have become more similar.
Our autos are now the same and we produce a lot of them for both countries.
Our service sector is a mirror image of the United States. Our fast-food
restaurants, auto service and general retailers are the same. Most of the
huge flow of trade between the countries is intra-firm trade. As noted, even
our commodity trade is headed toward balance.
The main way in which the economies of the two countries have diverged is in
the size of the public sector and the average tax rates as reflected in
total government revenue as a percentage of national income. As Graph V
shows, in 1950 the two countries had proportionally identical public sectors
and roughly the same total tax burdens. During the late 1990s, tax burdens
in Canada were 50% greater than in the United States.
I would like to propose that it is this simple fact -- the divergence in the
size of the tax wedge in the two countries -- which explains the decline of
the Canadian dollar by roughly the same percentage during the last 50 years.
How does an increase in the general tax rate affect the exchange rate?
Harry Johnson and Mel Kraus, in a 1970 article in the Canadian Journal of
Economics, Border Taxes, Border Tax Adjustments, Comparative Advantage, and
the Balance of Payments, had an explanation. It would come from the
reshuffling of wages, prices and rates of return as people try to avoid,
pass on or simply adjust to the higher taxes. In the end, some combination
of reduction in wages, rates of return or the exchange rate is required to
account for the burden of the tax since for all participants it cannot be
avoided.
What does that bafflegab really mean?
Take, for example, an additional tax imposed on wages. The intent of the
government is to divert to itself some of the purchasing power which has
been earned by workers. The employer must remit an increased portion of the
workers' pay to the government. Workers attempt to compensate by demanding
higher wages, employers try to pass it on in higher prices.
As we have seen in the comparative inflation data, monetary policy has
prevented employers from doing this on domestically targeted production.
Canadian inflation has not been very different from U.S. inflation. Since
not all employers can pass on the wage demands in higher prices, they resist
the demands. In the end, most of the burden is borne by workers in the form
of wages which are lower than they would otherwise have been. The decay in
purchasing power of workers, particularly in the last decade, has been
widely documented.
However, domestic monetary policy does not affect the prices which can be
charged on exports. What does affect them is the state of U.S. demand for
the products involved. To the extent that exporters try to raise their
prices against the prices set in the U.S. market, the demand for Canadian
exports falls. Given no change in the level of imports, this will put
pressure on the value of the currency until it has fallen to the point where
the attempted passing-on of the tax increase is just offset by the reduction
in the exchange rate.
The foregoing tendencies are amplified by the fact that any rise in Canadian
prices is an opportunity for imports to take a larger share of our market.
Relatively more imports mean relatively more downward pressure on the
dollar. During the 50 years we are considering, the progressive
liberalization of trade policy has opened more and more of the Canadian
market to this effect. Accordingly, we have become more sensitive to the
exchange rate impact of tax increases.
Of course, this process is masked by the fact that wages and prices are
constantly changing. Moreover, it is important to remember that we are
talking about the comparative and differential impact of taxation in two
economies. If Canadian and U.S. governments raised identical taxes, there
would have been no loss in competitiveness.
As for the impact of tax increases on capital, perhaps no special
explanation is necessary. Capital which is free to move shifts at the margin
to minimize tax incidence. As it moves out, it puts downward pressure on the
value of the dollar.
While the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada might cringe to be
associated with the theory of exchange rate movement projected here, the
Department of Finance used essentially the same line of argument when it was
selling the GST to Canadians. One of the advantages, they said, was that, as
a value-added tax, it could be removed from exports and hence boost the
level of Canadian exports. So, from any given starting point, removing tax
boosts exports and the value of the currency.
The Department of Finance did not go on to say that the reverse is also
true, but we have seen that it is.
The future development of the exchange rate trend depends on whether the tax
gap between Canada and the United States will be closed. While the
government's plans for tax cuts in Canada promise that it will be narrowed,
these cuts may well be offset by possibly even larger cuts by the new Bush
administration.
I predict that during the next few years the Canadian dollar will have its
usual short-term fluctuations determined by interest rate differentials and
developments in the commodity markets, but that its trend will be determined
by the relative tax burdens in the two countries. If my analysis is correct,
the trend in the value of the loonie will recover only if we cut taxes more
than the Americans.
Brad Cooke
radio-dadio wrote:
> You have not a clue BC.
pot, kettle, black.
you're the one claiming the "RED LIBERAL" government of Canada controls
the money supply.
> Try doing some reading; we're not in the business of bringing you up to
> speed.
"we"?
BC
Honest John
wrote:
>h...@taxpayers.ca (Honest John) writes:
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2001 18:01:34 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >> Imports cost more as do foreign trips.
>
>> >Only if they're US imports. Anyway, exports to the US will bring in
>> >more revenue as the dollar drops and since we're an export
>> >economy...
>
>> You believe the rest of the world prices their goods in canadian
>> dollars.
>
>News to me...where did I claim such nonsense?
You implied that only imports from the US will be more expensive. All
our imports will be more expensive and Canadian products priced in US
dollars (aluminium for example) will go up in price as well.
>> As about 80% of our imports come from the US the value of that
>> currency is of greatest importance.
>
>What's our trade deficit/surplus, John?
>
We have a trade surplus, a current account deficit. While we gain on
goods, we lose on services and things like tourism.
>> >> 30 years back the loonybuck was worth more than the US dollar.
>
>> >Yea, so?
>
>> In another 30 years it will be worth about 30c US.
>
>And...?
We will be well and truly a third world nation.
>
>> >> Relative to the US our currency has almost halved in value [..]
>
>> >If you mean ``purchasing power'' for ``value'', then you're sadly
>> >mistaken.
>
>> In purchasing power it has dropped much more.
>
>Ha! You have figures?
I have my own experience. I used to pay 40c for a gallon of gas I now
pay over 60c for a litre. Newspapers used to cost 25c etc.
>> >Cost of living is higher.
>
>> Only slightly so if at all.
>
>You base this on...?
Visits to the southern US.
>
>> Food costs must be lower because so much of our food is shipped here
>> from there.
>
>Have you even bought food in the US?
Yes, the prices are often better especially for dairy products and the
choice and variety of food is better still. About what you would
expect in a country with a living standard 30% better than Canada's.
>
>> This must be why so many of our locals head south in the winter
>> because it is cheaper to live in Florida than heat a home in Canada.
>
>It's warmer in Florida, yes...
That to.
Mike Warren
> > The Bank of Canada does not control the trading price of the
> > Canadian dollar. They don't even control the supply of it.
> They control interest rates [..]
At best, they can influence them. That doesn't answer how you think
the BoC might control the trading price of the Canadian dollar,
however.
> [..] and have no political independence.
What do you mean? Why should the supposed representatives of the
people not control public corporations?
> > The Federal Reserve maintains much tighter control over the US
> > money supply; the US still has reserve
> > requirements. Fundamentally, they are quite different.
> The Fed is an independent political body.
Eh? Who appointed Alan Greenspan?
> > The Bank of Canada can only influence interest rates, not control
> > them (like the Federal Reserve in the US can).
> The Bank of Canada sets interest rates, period.
No, they don't. Banks set their own lending rate; all the BoC can set
is the rate that they lend money to Chartered banks at. If there was a
reserve requirement in Canada (there isn't) then the BoC would
effectively have control over interest rates. There is not, however, a
reserve requirement any longer in Canada.
> > > Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to
> > > all Canadians through more choice, [..]
> > Explain how our money supply is not controlled by demand for it.
> Monopolists and interventionists shut out competiton; the benefits
> of competition enrich ALL Canadian's lives not just those of a
> politically connected minority.
Please explain how our money supply is controlled; how is new money
created? (Hint: not by the government or the Bank of Canada.)
> Not as seriously competition crushing and as prohibitively as
> Kanada. We ALL pay much more for airline tickets, dairy products,
> gasoline, cigarettes, clothing, vehicles etc. etc. EVEN before
> conversion!
That's just not true. Please present some figures.
> > > A disgusting Oligopoly (and YOU voted for them!!)
> > I did? News to me.
> I presume since you support their policies; you are a Liberal.
Where do you see me supporting their policies in this thread? I'm
correcting your apparent confusion about what the Bank of Canada does
(or does not do).
> > Which revamping is that? You've so far just railed against vague
> > notions.
> Reformation of Parliament for a start.
To what?
> Democracy does not exist in Kanada today [..]
What do you mean by democracy?
[included article:]
> Some studies, based on purchasing power parity, have attempted to
> show that the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar is temporary
> because the development of the cost of living in the two countries
> favours Canada. [..] While this reasoning may have a kernel of
> truth, purchasing power parity calculations have been an even more
> miserable predictor of the exchange rate than the terms of trade.
The Canadian dollar's purchasing power vs. the US dollar was 0.91 last
I checked; this is significantly better than the exchange rate. I fail
to see how this is ``more miserable''.
Mike Warren
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2001 06:51:47 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >> You believe the rest of the world prices their goods in canadian
> >> dollars.
> >News to me...where did I claim such nonsense?
> You implied that only imports from the US will be more expensive.
If the Canadian dollar is only falling relative to the US dollar, then
this is true.
> All our imports will be more expensive and Canadian products priced
> in US dollars (aluminium for example) will go up in price as well.
Just because some companies present their prices in US dollars doesn't
mean that the price won't change with Canadian exchange rates...
> >> In another 30 years it will be worth about 30c US.
> >And...?
> We will be well and truly a third world nation.
How does that follow?
> >> >If you mean ``purchasing power'' for ``value'', then you're sadly
> >> >mistaken.
> >> In purchasing power it has dropped much more.
> >Ha! You have figures?
> I have my own experience.
So do I.
> I used to pay 40c for a gallon of gas I now pay over 60c for a
> litre. Newspapers used to cost 25c etc.
Did you wage go up since then?
> >> Only slightly so if at all.
> >You base this on...?
> Visits to the southern US.
My visit to the Southen US revealed that food is much more expensive
than here.
radio-dadio
questions? Easy to do that.
FACT:
The Bank of Canada SETS THE INTEREST RATES and IS NOT POLITICALLY
INDEPENDENT.
Got it???
You and Mr. Cooke are a pair of imbeciles and I shall not waste anymore time
with you.
"Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
news:evGE7.139663$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
Mike Warren
> FACT:
> The Bank of Canada SETS THE INTEREST RATES and IS NOT POLITICALLY
> INDEPENDENT.
>
> Got it???
You're wrong, plain and simple. Repeating your wrong assertion in
all-caps won't make it less wrong.
Brad Cooke
radio-dadio wrote:
> > The Bank of Canada does not control the trading price of the Canadian
> > dollar. They don't even control the supply of it.
>
> They control interest rates and have no political independence.
Get your facts straight. From the Bank of Canada Act:
1] The governor and senior deputy governor are appointed, for a term of
seven years by the Bank's board of directors NOT the federal government
2] The deputy minister of finance, who sits on the board of directors,
has NO voting rights
3] The bank submits expenditures to its board of directors - federal
government departments submit theirs to the treasury board
4] bank employees are regulated by the bank itself NOT the federal
government public service commission
5] the banks own affairs are audited by external auditors appointed by
cabinet on the recommendation of the minister of finance, NOT by the
auditor general of Canada
The Bank of Canada is a crown corporation, yes, but it has considerable
autonomy - it is, in fact, one of the most autonomous crown corporations
- under the provisions set in the Bank of Canada Act, which I strongly
suggest you read.
> > > [..] (an independent body in the US, Britain, Germany and much of
> > > the EU!!) [..]
> >
> > The Federal Reserve maintains much tighter control over the US money
> > supply; the US still has reserve requirements. Fundamentally, they are
> > quite different.
>
> The Fed is an independent political body.
In the same way that the Bank of Canada is. Again, read the Bank of
Canada Act.
> > > [..] by consciously and permanently depressing the value of the
> > > Canadian dollar by keeping Canadian interest rates permanently at or
> > > preferrably below US interest rates. [..]
> >
> > The Bank of Canada can only influence interest rates, not control them
> > (like the Federal Reserve in the US can).
>
> The Bank of Canada sets interest rates, period.
By law, banks must follow the interest rates set by the Bank of Canada,
yes - in the same manner of the US federal reserve.
> > > This crushes the standard of living of all Canadians; [..]
> >
> > A devaluation of currency doesn't do this at all, and certainly not
> > when we're an export economy.
>
> Our companies are being bought at firesale prices, jobs move south,
> international investors move south, our imports cost more, business' capital
> costs escalate etc. etc. See article below.
Isn't spin fun?
> > > [..] giving us ALL progressive pay cuts; and maintains the steady
> > > downward spiral of Canada, once a rich nation.
> >
> > Still a rich nation.
>
> Living on the legacy of our parents generation and using it up quickly.
I suppose you have some numbers to back this up?
> > > Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to
> > > all Canadians through more choice, [..]
> >
> > Explain how our money supply is not controlled by demand for it.
>
> Monopolists and interventionists shut out competiton; the benefits of
> competition enrich ALL Canadian's lives not just those of a politically
> connected minority.
So you support eliminating "limited liability" and the corporations act?
> > > [..] economy (from airlines, to dairy products, to banks
> > > etc.etc.etc.) [..]
> >
> > Since you're comparing Canada to the US and the EU, let's point out
> > that the US and EU also regulate their airline, banking and dairy
> > industries.
>
> Not as seriously competition crushing and as prohibitively as Kanada. We ALL
> pay much more for airline tickets, dairy products, gasoline, cigarettes,
> clothing, vehicles etc. etc. EVEN before conversion!
So there is no competition in any of these industries? Don't make me
laugh. And we actually pay *less* for many of the things you've listed.
> Reformation of Parliament for a start.
Fine. What do you suggest?
> Democracy does not exist in Kanada today and everything that is wrong with
> Kanada today radiates out from this problem.
Bullshit. Are the people of Canada more or less free than the people of
the US? Is our democracy more or less democratic?
[snip]
> The most fundamental aspects of the Canadian and U.S. economies have not
> diverged in the past half-century. So why has our dollar been falling since
> 1950? And, more to the point, how do we stop it?
It hasn't been "falling since 1950," actually. More to the point, the
dollar has risen and fallen ever since we adopted a floating exchange
rate. Please attempt to show that this is a bad thing for Canadians.
BC
nkennedy
anymore time
with you."->radio-dadio
Well done Res, you have an effective way of ridding yourself of vermin.
I suspect he is so slow that he thinks the above favour offends you?
Neil K
Honest John
wrote:
>Just because some companies present their prices in US dollars doesn't
>mean that the price won't change with Canadian exchange rates...
>
Most commodities, even ones we produce, are priced in US dollars based
on world wide supply and demand. It would make no sense for a company
to sell a product for less in Canada than they can get on the world
market. So the price of aluminum or oil, for example, will go up in
Canadian dollars when our currency drops against the US dollar. Our
market is so small that we cannot control the world wide price.
>> >> In another 30 years it will be worth about 30c US.
>
>> >And...?
>
>> We will be well and truly a third world nation.
>
>How does that follow?
Our currency will be worth next to nothing. The liberals think it is
easier to remain competitive by constantly dropping the price of
Canadian labour through devaluation. 30 years back we ranked second
wroldwide in prosperity as a nation, now we are way down the list and
still falling. Argentina went from ranking about fourth in the world
in standard of living around the year 1900 to being a third world
nation. We are following the same path. High taxes and rampant
socialism will do it every time.
>> I used to pay 40c for a gallon of gas I now pay over 60c for a
>> litre. Newspapers used to cost 25c etc.
>
>Did you wage go up since then?
Yes, but then I obtained many more years of education and switched
fields so it's like comparing apples and oranges.
>
>> >> Only slightly so if at all.
>
>> >You base this on...?
>
>> Visits to the southern US.
>
>My visit to the Southen US revealed that food is much more expensive
>than here.
Perhaps you shopped in the wrong stores.
JMD
countries been falling steadily for years now? If I can recall the last
figures we saw on this, Canada has slipped from about secord or third spot
down to about 12th in a ranking of countries like us. Compared to the US,
which is the only yardstick that matters, the living standard of Canadians
in now about 30 per cent lower than it is for Americans and falling. A lower
standard of living reflects a loss of wealth for Canadians.
Is it coincidence that our dollar has fallen steadily during the same
period?
You keep saying we are an export economy. That is true but we are also an
import economy. It would be more accurate to say we are an economy that
relies on trade. In this trade, our dollar buys less and less in the world
beyond our borders.
What should worry us greatly is that the slide of the dollar has been going
on for years, even during good economic times. What will happen to it now
with the economy going into recession? Will we emerge from the recession
with a dollar below 60 cents?
John Dowell
JMD
> If the Canadian dollar is only falling relative to the US dollar, then
> this is true.
=================
JMD: The Canadian dollar has also dropped relative to other countries. The
US exchange rate is the one that matters most to us.
=================
> Just because some companies present their prices in US dollars doesn't
> mean that the price won't change with Canadian exchange rates...
======================
JMD: Why wouldn't it change? If natural gas is priced at so much per cubic
metre in US dollars, doesn't it take more Canadian dollars to buy that cubic
metre when our dollar declines in value against the US?
======================
John Dowell
Russil Wvong
> Is it coincidence that our dollar has fallen steadily during the same
> period?
Mike's right. It's not the exchange rate that matters, it's inflation.
A lower Canadian dollar leads to higher prices for imports, and if this
causes higher prices *overall*, then this would affect our standard of
living. But it hasn't: inflation has been low (under 3%) for the last
several years.
Paul Krugman has a good intro to economics in "The Age of Diminished
Expectations". The three things you want to watch are
1. Productivity, i.e. output per worker
2. Unemployment
3. Inequality
I think Canada's been doing reasonably well with respect to unemployment:
a low interest rate may put downward pressure on the Canadian dollar,
but a high interest rate would cause unemployment to rise. And we've
been doing reasonably well on inequality *after taxes and transfers*.
> Mike, why has Canada's standard of living relative to other Western market
> countries been falling steadily for years now?
Lack of productivity growth. I think that's the main problem,
now that government debt seems to be under control. There's a
couple ways to improve productivity:
- reduce consumption and increase savings
- encourage innovation
- "invest" in education and training
By the way, I work with a lot of Australians, and they tell me that
the Australian dollar is now below 50 cents US. They call it the
"half-dollar". :-)
(One more note: the reason commentators keep saying that the Canadian
dollar will probably go up eventually is that the "purchasing-power
parity" of the Canadian dollar is higher than the current exchange
rate. PPP measures how much it costs to buy a basket of goods in
the local currency, and thus measures how much the currency is
overvalued or undervalued. The Economist's version of this is the
"Big Mac" index.)
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, BC
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Mike Warren
> Why wouldn't it change? If natural gas is priced at so much per
> cubic metre in US dollars, doesn't it take more Canadian dollars to
> buy that cubic metre when our dollar declines in value against the
> US?
But if Canada sells a cubic meter of gas, they get more money than
they did before.
Honest John
wrote:
>"JMD" <jdowe...@home.com> writes:
>
>> Why wouldn't it change? If natural gas is priced at so much per
>> cubic metre in US dollars, doesn't it take more Canadian dollars to
>> buy that cubic metre when our dollar declines in value against the
>> US?
>
>But if Canada sells a cubic meter of gas, they get more money than
>they did before.
No they get the same amount of real money (US$s) they just get more of
our funny money (Canadian$s). The net purchaisng power in the outside
world is unchanged. Meanwhile people selling other things in Canada
have less real income.
Mike Warren
> No they get the same amount of real money (US$s) they just get more
> of our funny money (Canadian$s).
Yes...
> The net purchaisng power in the outside world is unchanged.
So why are you complaining that it dropped?
> Meanwhile people selling other things in Canada have less real
> income.
Come again?
Honest John
wrote:
>> The net purchaisng power in the outside world is unchanged.
>
>So why are you complaining that it dropped?
That's for people selling products valued in US dollars. It has
dropped for anyone who isn't exporting everything they make to the US.
Joe lunchbucket is still being paid in devalued looneybucks and he can
buy less with them.
>
>> Meanwhile people selling other things in Canada have less real
>> income.
>
>Come again?
They are getting devalued loonybucks. Imports, items priced in US
dollars and foreign travel are all more expensive in Canadian dollars.
Their production costs may be higher if the use imported components.
So they have less real income. They are poorer.
nkennedy
The only thing that saves you from being absolutely vile is your
ignorance.
Neil K
nkennedy
Talk about delusional! This creature actually thinks there are some
life forms that he can see without looking up.
Neil K
JMD
>
> But if Canada sells a cubic meter of gas, they get more money than
> they did before.
How so? If the world price is stated in US dollars, Canadian natural gas is
sold in the US for that amount. There is no change in price for Americans.
It is Canadians who pay more for that gas because our dollar has fallen
relative to the US, making commodities priced in US dollars more expensive
to us.
We are lucky at the moment because the price of oil and natural gas has
declined so we may well be buffered from price increases that would
otherwise have occurred because of the sinking looney. We weren't so lucky
last winter.
John Dowell
JMD
news:afe9ed76.0111...@posting.google.com...
> Mike's right. It's not the exchange rate that matters, it's inflation.
> A lower Canadian dollar leads to higher prices for imports, and if this
> causes higher prices *overall*, then this would affect our standard of
> living. But it hasn't: inflation has been low (under 3%) for the last
> several years.
JMD: If inflation remains flat and the looney sinks relative to the US
dollar, imported American goods cost more.
===================
> Lack of productivity growth. I think that's the main problem,
> now that government debt seems to be under control.
====================
JMD: Right. We have been getting away with poor productivity relative to
the US by letting our currency float downwards. Our lack of productivity
growth is masked by this process which makes our exports cheaper and cheaper
in the US market. In your prescription for better productivity you left out
one item that economists generally hit upon -- Canada's high rates of
taxation. They drive up the cost of doing business in this country.
John Dowell
radio-dadio
"Honest John" <h...@taxpayers.ca> wrote in message
news:3be49874...@news.eagle.ca...
It covers up or fudges the books, at our expense, for 30-40 years of bad,
left of center policy making, which is progressively coming home to roost.
Profound mismanagement.
It's easier for the Red Liberals to devalue our currency than it is for them
undertake real and fundamental reform because there are too many politically
connected, vested interests at stake if such reform were to take place...and
after all they put them into office in first place.
"Bad ideas flourish because they are in the interest of powerful groups."
--Paul Krugman
RGB
"nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3BE340CE...@seascape.ns.ca...
If one of the "Idiot Kennedys" supports you; you have to be in the employ of
the Red Liberals as professional "spinmeister".
Damning praise.
RGB
> BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
>
> > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > known as "competitive devaluation".
>
> Canadian dollar? Please explain.
>
I think Mike Warren and Brad Cooke must be the only remaining socialists in
Alberta; if they are not indeed the same person. The Keynesian models might
look good on paper to your ilk. Finish university first and see how "real
life" goes down in Kanada and I guarantee you...you will see a 'different
picture'.
Honest John
wrote:
>",,,Joe lunchbucket,,,"->Honest John
>
>Talk about delusional! This creature actually thinks there are some
>life forms that he can see without looking up.
You make no sense as usual. Why don't you just try responding to the
post, if you can?
Mike Warren
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 01:06:17 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >> The net purchaisng power in the outside world is unchanged.
> >So why are you complaining that it dropped?
> That's for people selling products valued in US dollars. It has
> dropped for anyone who isn't exporting everything they make to the US.
No; it's only dropped for people selling *less* to the US than they
buy from there. On average, this is not true.
> >> Meanwhile people selling other things in Canada have less real
> >> income.
> >Come again?
> They are getting devalued loonybucks.
If they're selling things in Canada for Canadian dollars, what does it
matter if you say one Canadian dollar is worth 3 floozies or 456
frobazz; it's still going to have the same purchasing power if you
instead change it to 100 floozies.
> Imports, items priced in US dollars and foreign travel are all more
> expensive in Canadian dollars. Their production costs may be higher
> if the use imported components. So they have less real income. They
> are poorer.
So what? Since we export more than we import, the net effect is more
income for Canada.
Mike Warren
> "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> news:ruXE7.142608$oa2.45...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > But if Canada sells a cubic meter of gas, they get more money than
> > they did before.
> How so?
Because they can trade in the theoretical US dollars (as posited by
``Honest'' John) they sold it in and get lots of Canadian dollars.
> If the world price is stated in US dollars, Canadian natural gas is
> sold in the US for that amount.
Uh huh.
> There is no change in price for Americans.
True.
> It is Canadians who pay more [..]
Since the American have seen no price change, they are still paying $X
US dollars for the gas, yes? So, if we can now trade in those $X US
for $(X*1.51) Canadian dollars (instead of, say, $(X*.120) before a
rate-drop) then the Canadian seller of the gas sees more income.
> for that gas because our dollar has fallen relative to the US,
> making commodities priced in US dollars more expensive to us.
No; if we export more gas than we import, a falling currency means
that Canadian exporters see more income (while Canadian importers see
more costs).
Mike Warren
So is that your way of saying, ``I have absolutely no idea''?
Honest John
wrote:
>So what? Since we export more than we import, the net effect is more
>income for Canada.
So if the Canadian dollar dropped to 1 cent US, we would be even
better of? You spout nonsense. As long as we import as much as we do,
we are poorer when the dollar is worse less. Look in the stores and
figure out how many things are imported. Look around the world,
nations that see their currency drop in value are worse of.
Honest John
wrote:
>> > But if Canada sells a cubic meter of gas, they get more money than
>> > they did before.
>
>> How so?
>
>Because they can trade in the theoretical US dollars (as posited by
>``Honest'' John) they sold it in and get lots of Canadian dollars.
So the hand full of Canadians who sell natural gas will not be poorer
and will have more less valuable Canadian dollars. The millions of
Canadians who buy gas will however pay more and will be poorer.>
>> It is Canadians who pay more [..]
>
>Since the American have seen no price change, they are still paying $X
>US dollars for the gas, yes? So, if we can now trade in those $X US
>for $(X*1.51) Canadian dollars (instead of, say, $(X*.120) before a
>rate-drop) then the Canadian seller of the gas sees more income.
Yes exporters are a little better of when we devalue the dollar, but
the bulk of Canadians are worse of.
>> for that gas because our dollar has fallen relative to the US,
>> making commodities priced in US dollars more expensive to us.
>
>No; if we export more gas than we import, a falling currency means
>that Canadian exporters see more income (while Canadian importers see
>more costs).
Again how many people sell gas, how many buy it?
Mike Warren
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 19:16:23 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >So what? Since we export more than we import, the net effect is more
> >income for Canada.
> So if the Canadian dollar dropped to 1 cent US, we would be even
> better of?
Yes, all else being equal.
> You spout nonsense. As long as we import as much as we do, we are
> poorer when the dollar is worse less. Look in the stores and figure
> out how many things are imported. Look around the world, nations
> that see their currency drop in value are worse of.
Russia has been doing better since their currency went through a
massive devaluation.
Honest John
wrote:
>> So if the Canadian dollar dropped to 1 cent US, we would be even
>> better of?
>
>Yes, all else being equal.
Please explain how a 1c dollar would make us better of? As no one
would be able to afford trips to the US, or anywhere else, I assume
you think it would be better for us all to be equally impoverished?
>
>> You spout nonsense. As long as we import as much as we do, we are
>> poorer when the dollar is worse less. Look in the stores and figure
>> out how many things are imported. Look around the world, nations
>> that see their currency drop in value are worse of.
>
>Russia has been doing better since their currency went through a
>massive devaluation.
You are holding Russia up as an example for Canada to follow. I guess
I'm not surprised. The rouble started massively devaluing over ten
years ago, their economy has hardly been doing well. Recent increases
in the oil price have helped them, not the drop in the rouble.
Mike Warren
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2001 23:37:51 GMT, Mike Warren <use...@mike-warren.com>
> wrote:
> >Russia has been doing better since their currency went through a
> >massive devaluation.
> You are holding Russia up as an example for Canada to follow.
No I'm not. If you're just interested in more red herrings then this
thread is over.
JMD
>
> Since the American have seen no price change, they are still paying $X
> US dollars for the gas, yes? So, if we can now trade in those $X US
> for $(X*1.51) Canadian dollars (instead of, say, $(X*.120) before a
> rate-drop) then the Canadian seller of the gas sees more income.
>
I thought we were talking about Canadian consumers. They pay more because
their dollar buys less. Gas exporters can indeed gain when they convert
their US sales income back to beaver bucks.
John Dowell
Brad Cooke
Are you having trouble answering the question, then?
--
Regards,
Brad Cooke
The University of Calgary, Department of Chemistry
Thurbide Group, Analytical Separations/Detection
EM: bwc...@ucalgary.ca
PH: 220-8002
BeGone
> RGB wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> > news:kECE7.139006$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > > BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > > > known as "competitive devaluation".
> > >
> > > So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> > > Canadian dollar? Please explain.
> > >
> > I think Mike Warren and Brad Cooke must be the only remaining socialists in
> Are you having trouble answering the question, then?
>
OK, I'll answer it. First you get a second tier economy like Canada to
lower its interest rates below that of the first tier economy next door.
This proves your an idiot who thinks investors are as numerically
challenged as you are.
Second, you get your central bank ( we call it the Bank of Canada )
to sell off a significant proportion of its precious metals reserves. This
proves your dumb enough to depend on "infinite" economic expansion
to underwrite your currency, since your currency obviously has nothing
else to fall back on or support it.
Third, you introduce a 15% effective transaction tax which guarantees
that your internal economy will whither at the expense of supporting
your exports. Evidently you consider your citizens as too dumb to
be permitted to buy anything, and heaven forbid that the private
economy actually develop into something that might actually pay
taxes instead of supplying welfare cases.
And Finally, you curtail assorted personal and property rights, introducing
"anti-terrorist" and other legislation that appears more tuned to making
instant criminals out of former law abiding citizens, coupled with a nice
sweep of laws to expropriate your citizens personal and property rights.
This proves you think your citizens are too dumb to move their assets
somewhere, where you can't get at them.
Personally I don't think the crowd in Ottawa are that dumb.
I think its pretty deliberate. As deliberate as your finance
ministers laugh when you raise the issue of the value of your
"looney"...
Brad Cooke
BeGone wrote:
>
> Brad Cooke wrote:
>
> > RGB wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mike Warren" <use...@mike-warren.com> wrote in message
> > > news:kECE7.139006$oa2.44...@news2.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> > > > BeGone <BeGoneNo...@on.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Don't kid yourself. The Americans are well aware of the device
> > > > > known as "competitive devaluation".
> > > >
> > > > So, you think the government somehow lowered the trading price of the
> > > > Canadian dollar? Please explain.
> > > >
> > > I think Mike Warren and Brad Cooke must be the only remaining socialists in
>
> > Are you having trouble answering the question, then?
> >
>
> OK, I'll answer it. First you get a second tier economy like Canada to
> lower its interest rates below that of the first tier economy next door.
> This proves your an idiot who thinks investors are as numerically
> challenged as you are.
And this is the "*government* lower[ing] the trading price of the
Canadian dollar," how?
First off, the Government of Canada, unlike the US Fed, does not set
interest rates, the Bank of Canada [an autonomous (cf. the Bank of
Canada Act) crown corporation] does. Second, the Bank of Canada's prime
lending rate rarely deviates significantly from that of the US Fed.
Third, interest rate cuts only indirectly affect the trading price of
the Canadian dollar, at best.
BC
RGB
"Brad Cooke" <bwc...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:3BE8508B...@ucalgary.ca...
It's Big Government and Big Taxes!
We are trapped in a horrible cycle:
The cost of our social programs has pushed our taxes too high, the weight of
our taxes crushes entrepreneurship and business, the weakness of our
business sector holds back the growth of personal incomes,and governments
embarrassed by slow growing incomes react by proposing even more new social
programs.
30 plus years of Red Liberal mismanagement. The failed policies of 1970's do
not work today.
A bureaucratic 'functional inflexibility' as Michael Warren of the Ottawa
Citizen put it.
----
Here's a an article from last spring just as Dodge took over from Theisen
that is interesting and ironic today.
________________________________________________________
Dodge Can't Dodge the Tax Crunch
Emergency interest rate cuts, large-scale layoffs, plunging output,
declining consumer confidence -- hardly the best statistical backdrop for
David Dodge's arrival at the Bank of Canada. Mr. Dodge, former deputy health
minister and one-time deputy finance minister, begins his seven-year term as
governor of Canada's monopoly central bank today, just as the U.S. and
Canadian economies appear to be drifting into recession. What should he do?
Not much, and plenty.
The bank is at a crossroads, and Mr. Dodge's handling of key issues over the
next few months will be crucial. His first challenge, however, may be to
bring some reality to the haze of complacency surrounding the Chrétien
government. Above all, it is time the bank opened up a meaningful review of
the role of taxation in undermining economic performance and the value of
the Canadian dollar.
For the moment, the bank appears to be sticking to the official government
line. Even though the stats are crumbling, official Ottawa is awash in good
humour and optimism; there's nothing to worry about, and certainly nothing
much that can be done. In his final speech as governor last week, Gordon
Thiessen delivered the conventional wisdom. "Our economy is now in better
shape ... to deal with all kinds of external shocks -- including
fluctuations in U.S. demand for our products." The same air of complacency
permeated this week's Speech from the Throne. "We are better positioned than
at any time in the last three decades ... to weather a short-term slowing of
growth experienced by Canada's major trading partners."
A careful reader might detect a bit of a fall-off in confidence in the seven
days between speeches. Mr. Thiessen said he's ready for "all kinds of
external shocks," while the throne speech scaled the confidence level back
to a more modest statement of ability to weather a "short-term slowing"
abroad. Prime Minister Chrétien watered down the confidence level another
notch yesterday, saying in the Commons that Canada "is in a better position
than ever to manage in case of a temporary slowdown in the United States
economy."
These days in economics, given the jet-speed arrival of the U.S. slowdown,
the short-term is probably good for about six weeks. Which would bring the
Bank of Canada, give or take a couple of days, right up to its next interest
rate setting on March 6. It is at this first setting that we will get our
first indication of where the Dodge version of the bank is heading.
Just because Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve is chopping rates in 50-point
chunks doesn't mean the Bank of Canada should be following along. Even
though the economy is slowing, inflation exceeds 3%, above the bank's
official target and well above the zero-to-2% range many economists consider
prudent. The bank must soon set new inflation targets, and there is no
reason beyond politics to avoid lowering Canada's inflation objectives.
How the bank reads inflation will help determine how it sets interest rates
and deals with the uncertain economic outlook. The question is whether
Finance Minister Paul Martin and the Prime Minister plan to pin their
recession-avoidance program solely on monetary policy and the Bank of
Canada.
Since monetary policy -- either through interest rate or money supply
manipulations -- is the only lever the bank has, there isn't much else the
bank can do. As even the bank will admit, over the long-run the bank can't
even help generate real economic growth. Over the long run, growth is
determined by all the other factors that go into creating a productive
economy.
So what can Mr. Dodge and the bank do? Over the years, the bank has been far
too complicit in accommodating government regulation and taxation. While all
levels of government expanded, the bank allowed money supply to grow and let
the dollar tank. The dollar, in effect, became the dumping ground for bad
policy, especially high tax levels relative to the United States.
The Bank of Canada, in my recollection, has never made the link between
rising tax levels, lower growth and the falling dollar. But the Fraser
Institute's Michael Walker, in a new statistical analysis published today on
this page, finds compelling evidence that Canada's low dollar is more a
function of high taxes than anything else. Mr. Walker's findings, while not
likely to be met with universal approval, deserve full review by the Bank of
Canada.
Taxation is not a Bank of Canada issue, but it should be. The bank's leading
explanation for the Canadian dollar's decades-long slide is commodity
prices -- an explanation Mr. Walker says doesn't hold water. The clear link,
he says, is with Canada's high tax levels relative to the United States;
over the last 50 years, Canadian tax rates have gone from parity with U.S.
rates to 45% higher. During the same period, the dollar has gone from parity
to 45% lower. With the United States set to ratchet taxes down even lower,
with the encouragement of the U.S. central bank's Alan Greenspan, the
pressure on Canada and the dollar will not ease any time soon.
Mr. Dodge likes to cultivate an image of tough-spoken "independence". Now's
his chance to put that image to work. You cannot run a sound monetary policy
and maintain a solid currency while governments are wrecking the tax system.
Brad Cooke
RGB wrote:
> It's Big Government and Big Taxes!
Thanks for clearing that up.
[snip off topic garbage]
BC
Mike Warren
> To my mind, the main reason to reject the idea of adopting the US buck
> is simply to retain the power to affect the supply of dollars.
More importantly, the Bank of Canada operates differently from the US
Federal Reserve. Also, indexing to the US dollar would mean we are at
the whims of Alan Greenspan (or whomever) who looks out for the
interests of the US. Certainly in many cases what's good for the US
economy is also good for Canada's, but this is by no stretch
guaranteed.
> This is done by increasing the money supply. Were the money supply
> not increased, increasing demand for dollars in a growing economy
> would result in gentle price deflation, but wages would not change
> (though people would have to continually abandon old-tech jobs and
> take on newer-tech jobs to maintain their hourly wages).
A more significant advantage to a fixed-supply currency (IMO) is that
the decisions about its value are completely decentralized (i.e. to
all holders of such currency). With a floating-supply currency, the
decisions are vastly more centralized (in Canada's case to the banks).
RGB
There is a direct relationship between our "Big Government + Big Tax"
Liberal regime business environment and the steadily depreciating Canadian
dollar, as articulated on previously posted articles...which you appear to
have chosen to just not read or 'snip'; and which is the subject of this
thread!
It is precisley 'on target' and relevant to an honest discussion of the
problem and potential solutions.
Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you"; for
whatever reason; eliminates other possibilities pre-emptively and does
contribute to a solution. It is an elitist position and part of the problem.
You and Mr. Warren, as a previous poster noted, seem to be quite serious
"spinmeisters" for the Red Liberals and of course anything that isn't Big
Government 'spin' is "off topic" to an obvious pair of Red Liberal
propagandists like you and Mr. Warren.
B. Cooke
>
> "Brad Cooke" <bwc...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> news:3BE8659D...@ucalgary.ca...
> >
> > RGB wrote:
> >
> > > It's Big Government and Big Taxes!
> >
> > Thanks for clearing that up.
> >
> > [snip off topic garbage]
> >
> > BC
>
> There is a direct relationship between our "Big Government + Big Tax"
According to someone at the Fraser Institute? Do you have any evidence
that this is the case in any other country in the world (for that matter
have you looked at the Fraser Institute's "study")? Or are you
willing to take the word of the Fraser Institute ("you want spin, we got
spin!") at face value - especially when the article itself states it is
"not likely to be met with universal approval" - code for "no economist
in their right mind would listen to this crap but some other reporters
might"?
> Liberal regime business environment and the steadily depreciating Canadian
> dollar, as articulated on previously posted articles...which you appear to
> have chosen to just not read or 'snip'; and which is the subject of this
> thread!
The subject of this thread was the effect of interest rates on the value
of the Canadian dollar - someone claimed that the Government of Canada had
direct control over both interest rates and the money supply (your
article makes the mistake of saying that the Bank of Canada can
"manipulate" the money supply - this is true of only indirect
manipulation, as the B of C does not create money - charter banks do -
and there is no longer a reserve requirement on lending).
> It is precisley 'on target' and relevant to an honest discussion of the
> problem and potential solutions.
Articles giving weight to the ill construded ramblings of the Fraser
Instutite have no part in "honest" discussion.
> [snip] an obvious pair of Red Liberal propagandists like you and Mr.
> Warren.
Uh huh.
BC
RGB
"B. Cooke" <bwc...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.10.1011107...@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca...
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, RGB wrote:
>
> >
> > "Brad Cooke" <bwc...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3BE8659D...@ucalgary.ca...
> > >
> > > RGB wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's Big Government and Big Taxes!
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing that up.
> > >
> > > [snip off topic garbage]
> > >
> > > BC
> >
> > There is a direct relationship between our "Big Government + Big Tax"
>
> According to someone at the Fraser Institute? Do you have any evidence
> that this is the case in any other country in the world
I think this article, among many others, has been posted before. Seems well
considered and balanced. Enjoy.
How Taxes Sank the Dollar
The most fundamental aspects of the Canadian and U.S. economies have not
diverged in the past half-century. So why has our dollar been falling since
1950? And, more to the point, how do we stop it?
Michael Walker
Remember that consensus forecast for a strengthening of the Canadian dollar
last year? Indeed, remember the consensus forecast for a strengthening of
the Canadian dollar in ... you pick the year? The dollar has consistently
defied all official predictions about its value from all the usual technical
sources. Why has all this optimism been consistently dashed? What is really
going on?
First, let's look at what has happened to the dollar since 1950. As Graph I
shows, while there have been fluctuations -- most associated with temporary
circumstances -- the predominant feature of the Canadian dollar exchange
rate against the U.S. dollar is that it has declined. Why?
Forecasters have used several factors to explain the decline and predict the
future of the dollar: commodity prices, interest rates, government borrowing
and, perennially, purchasing power parity. But do these standard theories
really explain the 50-year performance of the dollar?
Let's begin with commodities. The leading proponent of the commodity
argument is the Bank of Canada. Graph II shows the Commodity Research
Board's commodity price index (adjusted for inflation) since 1950. The trend
is certainly in the right direction. If we are getting less for our
commodities and paying more for the things we import -- if the so-called
terms of trade are against us -- that would explain the downward drift in
the dollar. But the fact is that the importance of the terms of trade has
been shrinking throughout the period as Canada has increasingly become an
importer as well as exporter of commodities.
As recently as 1976, imports of $6.9- billion were equal to 56% of exports
valued at $12.3-billion. In 1999, commodity imports had risen to
$82.5-billion and represented 75% of our commodity exports. In other words,
it has become increasingly irrelevant that we get fewer manufactured goods
for our commodities because we also have to pay less for the ones we buy. If
our commodity trade were balanced, any change in their prices would be a
wash and therefore unable to explain any changes in the exchange rate.
Even more damaging for the commodity explanation is the fact that the Bank
of Canada's calculation of the overall terms of trade -- the price of
everything we export compared with everything we import -- shows that there
has been an improvement of either 1.6% or 3.5% (depending on the form of
index) since 1992, when the dollar had the now seemingly stratospheric value
of 77ข. Why hasn't the dollar risen instead of fallen as the overall terms
of trade improved?
There is still a role left for commodity prices, however, especially in
predicting short-term changes as some forecasters, such as the Bank of
Canada, do quite well. That is, to the extent that currency traders still
view Canada as primarily a commodity play, they might well trade the
currency on changes in commodity prices. This would produce the sort of
short-term correlation which the Bank's forecasters find -- in spite of the
lack of a credible structural connection between commodity prices and the
trend value of the currency.
Some studies, based on purchasing power parity, have attempted to show that
the drop in the value of the Canadian dollar is temporary because the
development of the cost of living in the two countries favours Canada.
Eventually, so the story goes, goods arbitrage may be expected to correct
this mismatch and restore purchasing power parity through a higher Canadian
dollar. While this reasoning may have a kernel of truth, purchasing power
parity calculations have been an even more miserable predictor of the
exchange rate than the terms of trade. Moreover, inflation measured through
consumer price indices in the two countries has been nearly identical during
the period (Graph III). Certainly there is no trend here that would explain
the currency moves.
Interest rate differentials with the United States are often used to explain
movements in the exchange rate on the grounds that they drive the behavior
of portfolio managers concerned with short-term profits. As Graph IV shows,
while interest differentials have fluctuated, there is no secular trend in
them that would explain the long-run decline of the dollar.
So what has determined the dollar's decline? What are the underlying
economic conditions in Canada and the United States which might explain the
ongoing, persistent underperformance of the dollar? To solve the puzzle we
have to look for something that has evolved differently in the two economies
since the 1950s when the currencies traded about one for one.
It is clear that the most fundamental characteristics of the economies in
the two countries have not diverged. In fact, they have become more similar.
Our autos are now the same and we produce a lot of them for both countries.
Our service sector is a mirror image of the United States. Our fast-food
restaurants, auto service and general retailers are the same. Most of the
huge flow of trade between the countries is intra-firm trade. As noted, even
our commodity trade is headed toward balance.
The main way in which the economies of the two countries have diverged is in
the size of the public sector and the average tax rates as reflected in
total government revenue as a percentage of national income. As Graph V
shows, in 1950 the two countries had proportionally identical public sectors
and roughly the same total tax burdens. During the late 1990s, tax burdens
in Canada were 50% greater than in the United States.
I would like to propose that it is this simple fact -- the divergence in the
size of the tax wedge in the two countries -- which explains the decline of
the Canadian dollar by roughly the same percentage during the last 50 years.
How does an increase in the general tax rate affect the exchange rate?
Harry Johnson and Mel Kraus, in a 1970 article in the Canadian Journal of
Economics, Border Taxes, Border Tax Adjustments, Comparative Advantage, and
the Balance of Payments, had an explanation. It would come from the
reshuffling of wages, prices and rates of return as people try to avoid,
pass on or simply adjust to the higher taxes. In the end, some combination
of reduction in wages, rates of return or the exchange rate is required to
account for the burden of the tax since for all participants it cannot be
avoided.
What does that bafflegab really mean?
Take, for example, an additional tax imposed on wages. The intent of the
government is to divert to itself some of the purchasing power which has
been earned by workers. The employer must remit an increased portion of the
workers' pay to the government. Workers attempt to compensate by demanding
higher wages, employers try to pass it on in higher prices.
As we have seen in the comparative inflation data, monetary policy has
prevented employers from doing this on domestically targeted production.
Canadian inflation has not been very different from U.S. inflation. Since
not all employers can pass on the wage demands in higher prices, they resist
the demands. In the end, most of the burden is borne by workers in the form
of wages which are lower than they would otherwise have been. The decay in
purchasing power of workers, particularly in the last decade, has been
widely documented.
However, domestic monetary policy does not affect the prices which can be
charged on exports. What does affect them is the state of U.S. demand for
the products involved. To the extent that exporters try to raise their
prices against the prices set in the U.S. market, the demand for Canadian
exports falls. Given no change in the level of imports, this will put
pressure on the value of the currency until it has fallen to the point where
the attempted passing-on of the tax increase is just offset by the reduction
in the exchange rate.
The foregoing tendencies are amplified by the fact that any rise in Canadian
prices is an opportunity for imports to take a larger share of our market.
Relatively more imports mean relatively more downward pressure on the
dollar. During the 50 years we are considering, the progressive
liberalization of trade policy has opened more and more of the Canadian
market to this effect. Accordingly, we have become more sensitive to the
exchange rate impact of tax increases.
Of course, this process is masked by the fact that wages and prices are
constantly changing. Moreover, it is important to remember that we are
talking about the comparative and differential impact of taxation in two
economies. If Canadian and U.S. governments raised identical taxes, there
would have been no loss in competitiveness.
As for the impact of tax increases on capital, perhaps no special
explanation is necessary. Capital which is free to move shifts at the margin
to minimize tax incidence. As it moves out, it puts downward pressure on the
value of the dollar.
While the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada might cringe to be
associated with the theory of exchange rate movement projected here, the
Department of Finance used essentially the same line of argument when it was
selling the GST to Canadians. One of the advantages, they said, was that, as
a value-added tax, it could be removed from exports and hence boost the
level of Canadian exports. So, from any given starting point, removing tax
boosts exports and the value of the currency.
The Department of Finance did not go on to say that the reverse is also
true, but we have seen that it is.
The future development of the exchange rate trend depends on whether the tax
gap between Canada and the United States will be closed. While the
government's plans for tax cuts in Canada promise that it will be narrowed,
these cuts may well be offset by possibly even larger cuts by the new Bush
administration.
I predict that during the next few years the Canadian dollar will have its
usual short-term fluctuations determined by interest rate differentials and
developments in the commodity markets, but that its trend will be determined
by the relative tax burdens in the two countries. If my analysis is correct,
the trend in the value of the loonie will recover only if we cut taxes more
than the Americans.
>
> > Liberal regime business environment and the steadily depreciating
Canadian
> > dollar, as articulated on previously posted articles...which you appear
to
> > have chosen to just not read or 'snip'; and which is the subject of this
> > thread!
>
> The subject of this thread was the effect of interest rates on the value
> of the Canadian dollar - someone claimed that the Government of Canada had
> direct control over both interest rates and the money supply (your
> article makes the mistake of saying that the Bank of Canada can
> "manipulate" the money supply - this is true of only indirect
> manipulation, as the B of C does not create money - charter banks do -
> and there is no longer a reserve requirement on lending).
But the Bank of Canada and David Dodge more particularly; the Martin
'appointee' as opposed to the B of C's internal candidate Knight; sets the
'prime interest rate'.
His "independence" is snickered about widely given the long standing
personal relationship he has had with Martin the finance minister and the
fact that he was a high level bureaucrat in Ottawa for many of the Red
Liberal years.
Crouton and the Red Liberals have been accused many times and from countless
sources of running a "soft dollar" policy as a kind of dumping ground for
bad policy making. It fudges the books and diverts accountability. Much
easier to give the Canadian people a pay cut than to get a new fucking idea
on how to run a country. Same old 1970s socialist interventionist bullshit
policy that does not work. They can't admit it and don't have a new idea
that doesn't involve throwing more boatloads of public money after bad for
more ill considered and badly designed "social engineering" that dugs the
hole deeper.
>
> > It is precisley 'on target' and relevant to an honest discussion of the
> > problem and potential solutions.
>
> Articles giving weight to the ill construded ramblings of the Fraser
> Instutite have no part in "honest" discussion.
Says who??? You???
Who are YOU to say that positions and viewpoints about which YOU disagree;
have no part in the discussion?! What an arrogant and elitist attitude, I
mean my God. Seems to me we can use ALL the input we can handle at this
point...the staus quo hasn't worked. New leadership starts somewhere.
You strike me as a Red Liberal policy wonk who's been locked in a room
somewhere since the 1970s with worn out textbooks.
Hey did you hear, you won't believe it??!! Pierre Trudeau died. Sorry to
depress you.
Mike Warren
> You and Mr. Warren, as a previous poster noted, seem to be quite
> serious "spinmeisters" for the Red Liberals [..]
Do you have a message-id for a post where I supported the Liberals?
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
radio-dadio
It's falling against the USD and the Euro and the Yen.
Wave goodbye to your living standards everyone..the Red Liberal are on the
file!
G
O
I
N
G
D
O
W
N
Kurt Sims
"radio-dadio" <ww...@aol.com> wrote:
> And voila; the Red Liberal "soft dollar" policy continues unchallenged.
> It's falling against the USD and the Euro and the Yen.
But didn't Paul Martin just say for the ten thousandth time that "the
fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong"? He can't be wrong can
he?
Surely if he keeps repeating that mantra and doing nothing, things have
to get better. I'm starting to think he's joining up with the Yogic
Flyers of the Natural Law Party of Canada.
Kurt
--
To reply by email remove the 2 copies of spam in my reply address.
radio-dadio
"Kurt Sims" <sspa...@uspamcalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:sspamims-2B4BEA...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca...
> In article <fcxG7.474326$j65.11...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> "radio-dadio" <ww...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > And voila; the Red Liberal "soft dollar" policy continues unchallenged.
> > It's falling against the USD and the Euro and the Yen.
>
> But didn't Paul Martin just say for the ten thousandth time that "the
> fundamentals of the Canadian economy are strong"? He can't be wrong can
> he?
>
> Surely if he keeps repeating that mantra and doing nothing, things have
> to get better. I'm starting to think he's joining up with the Yogic
> Flyers of the Natural Law Party of Canada.
>
> Kurt
>
Brad Cooke
radio-dadio wrote:
>
> And voila; the Red Liberal "soft dollar" policy continues unchallenged.
> It's falling against the USD and the Euro and the Yen.
> Wave goodbye to your living standards everyone..the Red Liberal are on the
> file!
Troll, troll, troll your boat...
radio-dadio
Plug, plug, plug your ears...
Ivan Gowch
of the governing federal Liberals:
[snip]
==>They're are out of ideas...empty and tired....
I often think the same. . . .
==> and desperately need to be
==>retired and replaced for the salvation of our country
Nonsense. Whatever else one might think of the
federal Liberal government, it has been, for the
most part, competent, honest and responsive to
the will of (most of) the people.
It may not be the best of all possible governments
of Canada, but it is so far ahead of the brain-dead
Conservatives, amateurish, incompetent and
retrograde Canadian Reform Alliance Party (C.R.A.P.)
and sterile, leaderless NDP that it is virtually
certain to hold the reins of power for the foreseeable
future.
That may not be an ideal situation, but we could do
far, far worse. Trade in the Liberals for any of the
other pretenders, and we sure as hell will.
==>> You don't like broccoli with beer, Ivan the Terrible?
I do not like it there or here,
I do not like it far or near,
I do not like it front or rear,
I do not like broccoli with beer.
==>The federal Red Liberals, through total political co-option of the Bank of
==>Canada,
The Bank of Canada, as everyone who is not
absolutely politically blinkered knows, operates
independently. If you assert that it has been
"co-opted" by the government, you'd better be
prepared to prove it -- or be seen as spouting
dumb-ass Libertarian bullshit.
==> keep the interest rate spread permanently at or below the US rate
Izzat so? How, then, do you explain:
Canada % U.S. %
Feb. 2001 5.75 5.00
Mar. 2001 5.25 4.50
Apr. 2001 5.00 4.00
May 2001 4.75 3.50
Jun. 2001 4.75 3.25
Jul. 2001 4.50 3.25
Aug. 4.25 3.00
Sep. 3.75 2.50
Oct. 3.00 2.00
Nov. Not avbl Not avbl
Everyone can see that Canadian prime interest
rates are -- without exception -- ABOVE U.S.
rates. So . . . are you a liar, simply ignorant,
or just simple?
==> in
==>order
==>to keep our 'Crouton/Dodge dollar' permanently depressed in order to keep
==>uncompetitive, politically connected, "family compact" establishment
==>companies; globally competitive. It is the weak kneed practice of
==>permanently devaluing the
==>loony and the living standards of all Canadians in support of favored
==>monopolies so they can compete..and we ALL pay the price.
Nice paranoid raving, but at odds with the
facts, as we can see.
==> These same folks
==>then wrap themselves in our flag and claim to be defending Canada from those
==>'evil americans'.
==>Rather than let competition in the marketplace give the benefit to all
==>Canadians through more choice, much lower prices etc...
As everyone who is not totally brain-dead or
brainwashed by Libertarian bullshit knows,
there is little competition in the so-called
free marketplace and, where there is, it is
the result of government anti-monopoly laws
that -- sometimes -- succeed in preventing
business from fixing and artificially inflating
prices and gouging the consumer even more
than he is being gouged now.
==> the Red Liberals try
==>and intervene, control and overregulate the whole economy (from airlines, to
==>dairy products, to banks etc.etc.etc.) using the failed socialist ideologies
==>of the 1970's for the benefit of an elitist establishment minority at the
==>huge expense of ALL Canadians.
Nice rant but, as usual, misinformed.
It is, in fact, the government's _retreat_ from
regulation in recent years that has produced
the chaos in, for example, the airline industry.
In that industry -- as in most -- the market remains
free only until one player or another can rid itself
of the competition and enjoy a consumer-gouging
monopoly. It is the greed-driven attempts by
Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Canada 3000 to
drive each other out of business that now threatens to
leave Canada with no national airline at all.
This is the true nature of a "free-market" economy,
which is why there's no such thing.
==> A disgusting Oligopoly.
True. But it's an oligopoly owned and operated by
a small handful of executives and other corporate
types who give govenments their marching orders.
[snip]
==>The harsh truth about the Chrétien years is that Canada has been falling
==>ever further and further behind the United States economically.
==>We are trapped in a horrible cycle: The cost of our social programs has
==>pushed our taxes too high, the weight of our taxes crushes entrepreneurship
==>and business, the
==>weakness of our business sector holds back the growth of personal
==>incomes,and governments embarrassed by slow-growing incomes react by
==>proposing new social programs.
You apparently believe that the worth of a
country is measured only by the "growth of
personal incomes." You're entitled to that
view, as insane as it is. Most people place
a higher value on a country's "livability" as
measured by the quality of its medical care,
education, aid to the needy and the other
social programs for which you have such
inexplicable contempt.
==>IT DOESN"T WORK GUYS!!!! The world is making all Canadians pay the price.
Sure it is. That's why, year after year, surveys
show that "The World" considers Canada one of
the two or three most-desirable countries in
which to live. You, in your madness, probably
imagine that this is _in spite of_ its social
programs.
But I don't really expect that the existence of such
a glaring hole in your logic will deter you from
your fanatical business-worship for one instant.
Your paranoia is exceeded only by your bitterness
and delusions.
--
"This would be the best of all possible
worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
-John Adams.
"Amen."
- Ivan Gowch <go...@hotmail.com>
Roscoe
news:3beee075...@news.primus.ca...
(snip) leftwing ravings
>
> ==>IT DOESN"T WORK GUYS!!!! The world is making all Canadians pay the
price.
>
> Sure it is. That's why, year after year, surveys
> show that "The World" considers Canada one of
> the two or three most-desirable countries in
> which to live.
We are dining on the legacy of the accomplishments from our parents and
grandparents.
PS. Didn't it used to be "number one"?
>
> But I don't really expect that the existence of such
> a glaring hole in your logic will deter you from
> your fanatical business-worship for one instant.
It's not 'business' worship!
It is simply the desire to evolve from an interventionist, overregulated,
overly taxed, soft totalitarian, quasi-police state to a more modern, fully
democractic, internationally competitive, more personally responsible,
entrepeneurial, free market economy that accrues more of the benefits to
those who actually earn it.
> Your paranoia is exceeded only by your bitterness
> and delusions.
What bitterness and delusions?
I just believe that there is a big line in the sand in this country...on the
'left' are all
those who benefit more from Big Government than they contribute and vote for
the Crouton and the Red Liberals...and on the 'right' those that pay for
that discrepancy, contribute more than they receive and do not vote Red
Liberal. He and they get elected..you do the arithmetric!
Does the word unsustainable ring any bells?
It is quite evident that you appear to be quite profoundly on the 'left'
side of that line.
nkennedy
vote Red
Liberal.."->Roscoe
I contribute more than I receive, but I am undoubtedly NOT on 'the
right.
How do you explain me and millions like me? What side of what line are
we on?
Neil K
Patrick Coghlan
>",,, on the 'right' ....contribute more than they receive and do not
>vote Red
>Liberal.."->Roscoe
> I contribute more than I receive, but I am undoubtedly NOT on 'the
>right.
>How do you explain me and millions like me?
Probably one or more of the following apply:
- you don't work in the private sector
- you don't support a family and a stay-at-home spouse
- you don't earn more than $60K-$70K/year
-Pat
Roscoe
"nkennedy" <nken...@seascape.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:3BEFFE86...@seascape.ns.ca...
Ode for the broken dream of the 'Old Kanadian Socialistas'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The sweet smell of a great sorrow lies over the land
Plumes of smoke rise and merge into the leaden sky:
A man lies and dreams of green fields and rivers,
But awakes to a morning with no reason for waking
He's haunted by the memory of a lost paradise
In his youth or a dream, he can't be precise
He's chained forever to a world that's departed
It's not enough, it's not enough
His blood has frozen & curdled with fright
His knees have trembled & given way in the night
His hand has weakened at the moment of truth
His step has faltered
One world, one soul
Time pass, the river rolls
It's not enough it's not enough
His hand has faltered
.... .... ......
And he talks to the river of lost love and dedication
And silent replies that swirl invitation
Flow dark and troubled to an oily sea
A grim intimation of what is to be
There's an unceasing wind that blows through this night
And there's dust in my eyes, that blinds my sight
And silence that speaks so much louder that words,
Of promises broken......
Mike Warren
> [..] democractic, internationally competitive, more personally
> responsible, entrepeneurial, free market economy that [..]
The following are not consistent with a ``free market'':
. international trade agreements
. patents
. copyrights
. limited-liability corporations
. corporations with rights
Kelly Eugene
>Going down.........and down...........and down......and
>down................>>>
>The rudderless ship of fools.....Kanaduh.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Martin Says Canada Strong, Declines Dollar Comment
>
>
>OTTAWA (Reuters) - Finance Minister Paul Martin, declining to comment on the
>Canadian dollar's fall to record lows, said on Wednesday that Canada's
>economic fundamentals were strong.
>
>
>"As you know, ministers of finance never comment on their currency," Martin
>told reporters.
>
>
>----------------------------------
>" A young conservative has no heart, but an old Liberal has no brain"
>--Winston Churchill
>
>
My response is..so what? Our dollar is only weak against the US
dollar. Against other currencies, it does quite well. In other
words, it's not our dollar that has a problem with weakness, it's
theirs that has a problem with strength. And make no respect - it is
more of a problem for them than us. Remember those softwood tarriffs?
Guess what brought those on? And when those tariffs are thrown out,
our lumber will be even more competitive and theirs less so because of
that strong US dollar.
"Ask me whether the glass is half full or half empty,
and I will ask you how it can be half full without
being half empty at the same time"
Kelly Eugene
Rob
"Kelly Eugene" <s...@direct.ca> wrote in message
news:3bf35c31...@news.direct.ca...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:26:28 GMT, "MattW" <ww...@uunet.com> wrote:
>
> >Going down.........and down...........and down......and
> >down................>>>
> >The rudderless ship of fools.....Kanaduh.
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >Martin Says Canada Strong, Declines Dollar Comment
> >
> >
> >OTTAWA (Reuters) - Finance Minister Paul Martin, declining to comment on
the
> >Canadian dollar's fall to record lows, said on Wednesday that Canada's
> >economic fundamentals were strong.
> >
> >
> >"As you know, ministers of finance never comment on their currency,"
Martin
> >told reporters.
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------
> >" A young conservative has no heart, but an old Liberal has no brain"
> >--Winston Churchill
> >
> >
>
>
> My response is..so what?
>Our dollar is only weak against the US
> dollar. Against other currencies, it does quite well.
> In other
> words, it's not our dollar that has a problem with weakness, it's
> theirs that has a problem with strength.
>And make no respect - it is
> more of a problem for them than us.
>Remember those softwood tarriffs?
> Guess what brought those on? And when those tariffs are thrown out,
> our lumber will be even more competitive and theirs less so because of
> that strong US dollar.
>
>
>
> "Ask me whether the glass is half full or half empty,
> and I will ask you how it can be half full without
> being half empty at the same time"
>
> Kelly Eugene
Kurt Sims
s...@direct.ca (Kelly Eugene) wrote:
> My response is..so what? Our dollar is only weak against the US
> dollar. Against other currencies, it does quite well. In other
> words, it's not our dollar that has a problem with weakness, it's
> theirs that has a problem with strength. And make no respect - it is
> more of a problem for them than us. Remember those softwood tarriffs?
> Guess what brought those on? And when those tariffs are thrown out,
> our lumber will be even more competitive and theirs less so because of
> that strong US dollar.
It's actually quite weak against several currencies. The dollar, pound,
yen, euro. I think it's still strong against the Australian dollar but
how much stuff do we import from Australia. The shipping costs would
take out any advantage there.
The low dollar is good for some exports except when we have to import
any raw materials to make the final product. Besides, exports from
Mexico are pretty cheap too. Manufacturing and other low skill job
classes are one thing I'd rather we not fight with Mexico to lead the
world in. The lower our dollar goes the faster we lose out in high
tech, science and medicine. I'd also rather our currency not be known
as the Hudson Bay Peso.