6

Good news: Canada’s bank are safe. Bad news: well, Al Gore.

A monthly scorecard of the economy


 



 
Filed under:

Good news: Canada’s bank are safe. Bad news: well, Al Gore.

  1. The petro companies should just elect their most gifted science and petro-chemical engineering prodigies to their Boards. Their are a variety of easy recyclable petro-chemical plastics diversifications (battery parts, wind turbine parts, vehicle parts, pwoer plant parts) in the energy sector they can lead, at least in N.America. Europe is ahead in mapping carbon supply chains and Chindia will pay European consultants, not Canadian.
    What is really need is materials science R+D with the goal being to output different thermoplastics materials that are (at least mostly) recyclable with an easy melt. In the future AB’s Petro will output recyclable energy and medical components, or nothing at all.
    The world doesn’t live in a Bible-science delusion like the people in cdn power “enjoy”.
    If there is a god you AGW enablers are going to Hell or purgatory,

  2. Ontario is right on the deficit. The recovery (one of the weakest since the Great Depression) has stalled. GDP growth slipped to 1.8% last year. This year’s forecast is 1.6%.

    The evidence strongly suggests that austerity in a slump is self-defeating. It kills GDP-growth causing the deficit to *increase*; slower GDP growth also makes debt more burdensome (debt is measured in debt/GDP.) The UK went the “contractionary stimulus” route (which Harper wanted to take in 2008) and killed off it’s recovery; it’s now facing a triple-dip recession. This didn’t get its deficit under control. The country just got downgraded.

    Keynes was right. (Again.) The farcical Reinhart-Rogoff paper the (oxymoronic) “contractionary stimulus” is based on was debunked by a 28-year PhD student who found it referenced cooked statistics.

    It’s time to make macroeconomics a science. Economists regularly push political agendas with flaky Aristotelian theorizing. When compared to real science (which is merciless on hypotheses to get to the truth,) macroeconomics in its current state can only be described as pre-Copernican.

    • “It’s time to make macroeconomics a science.”

      That’s impossible. Macroeconomics is not the pursuit of knowledge so much as it is a byproduct of a society and its culture. E.g. economies with a high wealth inequality could and quality of life variations could be considered ‘good’ by its denizens because they view material success as a metaphysical entitlement to the best, brightest, and most capable with no grudges between classes due to their metaphysical beliefs. Even if class mobility becomes calcified they don’t view it as such due to their faith in a just world and inevitable reward for their labors and punishment for a lack thereof. On the other end economies could strive for a low wealth inequality and lower variation for a standard of living because their culture values equality and co-operation. In both of these cases the goal of macroeconomics varies quite drastically and will only change with the culture.

      The best science can do is offer a tool set to better meet those goals and understand what is required (but I do admit it would make me happier if economists did drop a few debunked models such as Rational Actor Theory… *shutters*).

      • I disagree. All economic theories are based on the premise that they will allocate economic resources in the most efficient manner to create prosperity and jobs.

        Free-market ideology was based on the premise that small government and tax cuts would lead to increased living standards for people. (“People know how to spend money better than government.”) Adherents of the philosophy said the wealth would trickle down: not that rich people would accumulate all the benefits from GDP and productivity growth while living standards were downsized for everyone else.

        So one can measure the success of different theories put in action by various economic indicators: GDP growth, productivity growth, unemployment rate, inflation rate, distribution of generated wealth (inequality,) government debt, personal debt, economic stability, etc.

        On all these (with exception of eventual high inflation) the 30-year post-war Keynesian era blows the recent 30-year free-market comeback right out of the water.

        No doubt, if hard-right conservatives want to come right out and campaign on reducing people’s living standards with chaotic trickle-up economics, that would be great! But ultimately (whether left or right leaning,) democratic societies want economics that work.

        • “I disagree. All economic theories are based on the premise that they will allocate economic resources in the most efficient manner to create prosperity and jobs.”

          Therein lies the rub. What kinds of jobs and prosperity should the economy be efficient at creating? You’ll find the answers to those questions stem from morals and culture as opposed to science.

Sign in to comment.