|
Falling even further behind the U.S.
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EvilTree |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...Story/Business/
By SIMON TUCK
Thursday, March 3, 2005 Updated at 6:39 AM EST
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Advertisement
Ottawa — Canada's standard of living fell further behind the United States during the past two years and the gap is expected to grow over the next two, partly because Ottawa did not do enough in its recent budget to boost the economy, according to a leading economic forecaster.
In the first comprehensive economic forecast since last week's federal budget, Global Insight (Canada) Ltd. says Canada's standard of living had slipped to 84 per cent of that in the U.S. by the end of 2004 from 87 per cent two years earlier. That three-percentage-point increase in the gap reversed a 1999-2002 trend, when it narrowed to 13 percentage points from 17.
Dale Orr, chief economist with Global Insight (Canada), said he largely attributes the recent widening of the gap to the appreciation of the Canadian dollar, which has made Canadian exports about 30 per cent more expensive in the critical U.S. market.
The first year of the four-year period also saw the Canadian economy battered by one-time events such as the SARS outbreak, the discovery of a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Alberta and the power blackout in Ontario, he added. "We have the potential to do a lot better."
But Mr. Orr and other economists don't expect that to happen, at least in relation to the U.S. standard of living, over the next couple of years. The U.S. economy is expected to outpace its Canadian counterpart this year and next, which Mr. Orr forecasts will expand the standard-of-living gap by another 1.6 percentage points.
Advertisements
click here
click here
That means the gap will have widened by 4.6 percentage points over the four-year period, or 35.4 per cent of the initial 2002 gap of 13 percentage points.
Economists say Canada can improve its economic growth and standard of living by boosting economic productivity through measures such as corporate and personal income tax cuts, more aggressive writeoff schedules for capital investments and smart investments in such areas as transportation and education.
Critics say last week's federal budget was short on measures to boost Canada's productivity and therefore its standard of living. They cited the document's tepid tax cuts, some of which don't kick in for three years, and big increases to social spending.
"We should be paying much more attention to economic growth," Mr. Orr said in an interview.
Canada had narrowed the standard-of-living gap, as measured by gross domestic product per capita, with the United States to about 13 percentage points about three years ago, after falling to as much as 18 percentage points in 1993.
An expected slump in Canadian economic growth is expected to raise another hurdle, at least in the short term. Global Insight's update forecasts growth for 2005 of 2.6 per cent, compared with the 2.9 per cent forecast in Finance Minister Ralph Goodale's budget.
Jack Mintz, president of the C.D. Howe Institute, an economic think tank, said the U.S. standard of living has also been improving strongly in recent years because the corporate sector made massive investments in new machinery in the late-1990s
Those investments have since led to improved productivity, and therefore a higher standard of living, Mr. Mintz said.
He said the federal budget, which featured dramatic spending increases and minimal tax cuts, was a step in the wrong direction because there were few measures to boost the economy. "I think our productivity has always been a problem." |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| :whip: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Economists say Canada can improve its economic growth and standard of living by boosting economic productivity through measures such as corporate and personal income tax cuts, more aggressive writeoff schedules for capital investments and smart investments in such areas as transportation and education.
|
This is something that socialist and Liberal voters can't seem to grasp. The general public knows how to spend it's money much better and more efficiently than the government ever will.
It's time to vote for someone who will give us back our money and help us raise our standard of living.
I'm sick of Liberals and socialists raising my taxes and then wasting my money on boondoggles and scams. And now they want to make it worse by starting a national socialized daycare programme? God help us! |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
And now they want to make it worse by starting a national socialized daycare programme? God help us! |
lol...sounds like we're moving towards communism....equalisations, national movements and programs...:haha: :stongue: :crazy: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
we absolutely are moving toward communism. Combine high taxes and "social sharing" which is rampant with all the restrictions and bureaucracy that is being placed on us and you have the USSR.
We are less and less free to do as we please and we are less and less free to keep what we earn. Sounds pretty communist to me. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| Have they rolled out the 5-year plans yet? :haha: :stongue: |
|
|
| chanoa |
Canada moves up to #4: United Nations
By Canadian Content Staff
Saturday July 17, 2004
United Nations flag.
Photo - Unknown
Canada has recently moved up from its spot in the United Nations’ human development survey. Canada’s somewhat embarrassing position last year, 8, has improved greatly this year – now above the United States, but below Norway, Sweden and Australia.
The survey measures several factors on life in the country, but does not use income levels as a main source of measurement. Income levels alone usually determine the results of other surveys.
Canada’s world-renowned top position of the United Nations was rocked in 2001 after almost a decade (1992 – 2001) of being the “best country in the world to live in.” Since 2001, we have fallen in the rankings below even the United States for a couple of years.
Canada was ranked third place in 2001, continuing to drop another 5 positions to eighth position in 2003.
The reasons for Canada’s fall as the best place to live may be contributed in part by homeless issues, growing trends in poverty and the failure to improve life expectancy in some groups. Other factors may also be the fact that other countries, especially those part of the European Union, are actually improving the quality of life; very well contributing to their rise on the UN’s Report on Human Development.
On the bad side, our GDP remains virtually unchanged. Our poor are seeing their standard of living fall over the years and aboriginals see their overall living standards plummet.
On the good side, our life expectancy is the world’s highest at 79 years. We have moved ahead of the United States [again] in overall rankings and we’re getting again closer to our old number one spot.
The country’s overall position is tainted by high unemployment rates, compared to other overall high ranking countries. Some of the lowest unemployment rates are as follows: Iceland (3.6%), Japan (3.8%), Norway (4.4%), the Netherlands (4.8%) and Sweden (6.4%)… and Canada with around 9%.
Canada is also spending less on public education. This down to approx. 5.2% today from approx. 6.5% in 1990.
Overall, though, Canada does very well for its self. The UN has high regard for many of our liberal policies, allowing our First Nations to create their own government in the Northern territory of Nunavut and our continued top-10 placement in the UN’s list.
Top Ten Ranking Countries:
1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. The Netherlands
6. Belgium
7. Iceland
8. United States
9. Japan
10. Ireland
"Most and Least Livable Countries: UN Human Development Index, 2004." Infoplease.
© 2000–2005 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease.
03 Mar. 2005
almost a year old...so we'll see if there are going to be any changes
-andrea- |
|
|
| zokissima |
| quote: | | we absolutely are moving toward communism. Combine high taxes and "social sharing" which is rampant with all the restrictions and bureaucracy that is being placed on us and you have the USSR |
I don't think anything can be further from the truth. This is simply an inequality in balance sheets when it comes to productivity quotients for US and Canada. I'm still not sure how this affects actual "standard of living" or how you even measure that..
This has nothing to do with communism. High taxes come with the fact that we have idiots in charge of spending. Also, consider this: When you take into account ALL social services, health-care, police, fire departments, schools, costs of roads, any and all services that are provided by the government, including social outreach programmes, there is still a huge discrepancy between the income that comes from taxes, and the money that it actually costs to run these institutions. So where is the rest of it? Consider any government initiative. It's a bunch of people getting togethe, talking ideas, getting ultimately nothing accomplished, yet all of this costs money as well. No, this is nothing like communism, but clear and pure capitalism. Social outreach programmes, 'social sharing' as you so well put it, and other idiotic notions such as these are mere public image gimmicks, meant to ease the fact that they take our money to further their own goals more than those of the people. The end result may be similar in ideaology to the repression that was evident with communism, but we're working with imperfect systems here. I guess my point is that both communism and capitalism, when applied on a humal level, both end up corrupt because of the same basic human element: greed. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| I dont nec trust the UN. Considering that we have to wait forever to see a health specialist, we have to pay 60-80% of our incomes in some sort of tax and our actual available income has only increased 3% IN 15 YEARS id say we have a lot of work to do. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by zokissima
I don't think anything can be further from the truth. This is simply an inequality in balance sheets when it comes to productivity quotients for US and Canada. I'm still not sure how this affects actual "standard of living" or how you even measure that..
This has nothing to do with communism. High taxes come with the fact that we have idiots in charge of spending. Also, consider this: When you take into account ALL social services, health-care, police, fire departments, schools, costs of roads, any and all services that are provided by the government, including social outreach programmes, there is still a huge discrepancy between the income that comes from taxes, and the money that it actually costs to run these institutions. So where is the rest of it? Consider any government initiative. It's a bunch of people getting togethe, talking ideas, getting ultimately nothing accomplished, yet all of this costs money as well. No, this is nothing like communism, but clear and pure capitalism. Social outreach programmes, 'social sharing' as you so well put it, and other idiotic notions such as these are mere public image gimmicks, meant to ease the fact that they take our money to further their own goals more than those of the people. The end result may be similar in ideaology to the repression that was evident with communism, but we're working with imperfect systems here. I guess my point is that both communism and capitalism, when applied on a humal level, both end up corrupt because of the same basic human element: greed. |
You think our government operates on the notion of capitalism? Is that why they take our taxes and redistribute it through failing programmes such as socialized medicine, and now socialized daycare?? Is that why they take our money and funnel it to their friends in Quebec? Is that why Dalton put a new health care levy on everyone's income tax and then gave almost half a billion dollars to renovate a casino?
Come on!!! We are pure socialists and its getting worse. Not only do they now take our taxes but they are now taking our freedoms as well. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
Have they rolled out the 5-year plans yet? :haha: :stongue: |
Well based on the recent federal budget, there are plenty of 5 and even 10 year plans!
Why anyone gives any credit to these fiscal plans further than 2 years out is beyond me:
a) It's like putting a finger in the wind if you think you can guess where the economy will be / what it will be doing more than 2 years out.
b) There will be at least 1 if not 2 elections between now and when these 5-10 year plans get fully implemented, so it's not like the funding allocations mean anything... they can easily be changed or even reversed. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Well based on the recent federal budget, there are plenty of 5 and even 10 year plans!
Why anyone gives any credit to these fiscal plans further than 2 years out is beyond me:
a) It's like putting a finger in the wind if you think you can guess where the economy will be / what it will be doing more than 2 years out.
b) There will be at least 1 if not 2 elections between now and when these 5-10 year plans get fully implemented, so it's not like the funding allocations mean anything... they can easily be changed or even reversed. |
Arent they calling this the "Mr Dithers" budget?
Id say more like a ing disgrace.
I cant wait to get my $16 in tax cuts... Thanks for nothing Mr Martin! |
|
|
|
|
