Canadian economy moving toward a better mix of growth: BoC's Carney -

Canadian economy moving toward a better mix of growth: BoC’s Carney


OTTAWA – Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney says he believes the Canada is moving toward a more sustainable economy that is less dependent on borrowing and more on investment and export sales.

The central banker says in an interview on CTV’s Question Period that while it was essential for him and governments to stimulate borrowing and spending during the global economic crisis, that phase has run its course.

He says the economy now needs to move toward business investment and export growth for future growth, and he believes Canada will do so.

The comments come after the governor and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty took part in a meeting of the world’s biggest economies in Moscow, where officials pledged not to manipulate their currencies to boost exports.

In a closing news conference on Saturday, Flaherty said the G20 economies had made progress toward balancing fiscal discipline and economic growth, but that risks remain.

As part of the rebalancing in Canada, Carney says he believes Canadian borrowing habits are moderating, and that is reflected in the ongoing correction in the housing market.

Carney says he believes the housing market will continue to cool over the next couple of years as Canadians continue to temper their appetite for debt.

Filed under:

Canadian economy moving toward a better mix of growth: BoC’s Carney

  1. If more people understood economics, they’d know Carney said absolutely nothing.

  2. I know you learn secret handshakes and stuff, but why is M.Carney so high on Harvard? I wanted to go to an Ivy League School as a teen, but that was before I learned (in part from this rag) how good Canada’s universities are. My main question is, didn’t they change their “value-chain” economics courses in the 60s-70s, to reflect short-term profits at the expense of a long-term solvent value chain? Isn’t that error enough to undo whatever else good (biggest consumer market on Earth is instructive) their curriculum provides? I understand the networking. It would be nice if you could just take a few Havard years and get the networking, yet keep Canadian economics. No question about their engineering courses. Too bad MIT doesn’t have some finance/engineering degrees.

    • Yes it would be great if MIT had a macroeconomics department. The problem with the economics profession is that it is filled with agenda-driven quacks and charlatans. In relation to science, they are still debating whether the Earth goes around the Sun.

      Economics needs to be turned into a scientific discipline that drives a stake through the heart of zombie economic policies (that should be killed by the evidence) and ensures they stay dead. Then macro can begin to evolve like any other science, and with it human civilization. The reason things are such a mess now: corrupt economic policies put in place by self-serving plutocrats.

  3. Canada’s real mix of economic growth: jobless and anemic.

    Housing prices are absurd in Canada. It will take more than a couple years to correct. With corporations busting wages and exporting jobs, the bubble will likely be letting out air 15 years from now (like what happened in Japan.)

    The reason we are in such a mess is because of 30 years of corrupt free-market reforms that put all the wealth and power into the hands of a tiny minority of insatiably-greedy plutocrats. Using centrist economics in the post war era, we had rising living standards for all segments of society and governments paid down most of their debts. Time for a change.

  4. A big argument in favour of the truth of Dutch Disease is manufacturing is usually retooling. The workers can retrain; less l-force transaction costs then harvesting resources. When AGW science become mature in the 80s, Texas and AB got stuck in dummy-mode, lobbying for human extinction and continuing the now-flawed USA foreign policy of securing oil for max American consumption.
    A carbon tax, a natural resource tax, high corporate taxes, are progressively worse ways of fixing this. With revenues to alt energy (variety of ways to do this). So, S.Gordon probably thinks lower corporate taxes (in general for any nation) are 1/2 way to efficiency, with the carbon tax and bigger GST to come later. But in reality, for petro-economies, even without AGW it is still inefficent not to tax corporations. With AGW: Canadians are evil. The lower corporate taxes make it harder to bring carbon pricing and luxury consumption taxes subsequently. I’m done with tarry cdn women.