tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post788635712290660941..comments2024-01-30T12:46:10.810-05:00Comments on Yappa Ding Ding: Fiscal Stimulus Part 4: Deficit ImplicationsYappahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18126433451905766475noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-33579652755622538512009-01-04T21:55:00.000-05:002009-01-04T21:55:00.000-05:00In your Nov. 27 blog you wrote:“We let developers ...In your Nov. 27 blog you wrote:<BR/><BR/>“We let developers plan our cities. When the economy hits bottom and people can't afford to drive their cars, we should have policies in place to work in a more efficient, less polluting, more sustainable way”.<BR/><BR/>I didn’t read this until today, Jan. 4. I then worked up to your current entries and I see you have written a lot about the economic state we find ourselves in; you have expanded on this argument and others, and written several extensive accessible analyses, offering ideas and tangible suggestions for Canadians to think about. I find much of the popular press that I read, the major national press and the local community level newspaper, to be obtuse, or ideological or written in such a way that I and millions of other average readers can’t be bothered to struggle with. How helpful it would be to be able to find this sort of analysis, argument and reflection in our daily press. Thank you for your clear and very articulate commentary. As well, I was reminded while reading your comments that a large part of our problem is that we tend to forget that our PM really snuck in through the backdoor as far as Conservative politics go in Canada. He is indeed a dyed in the wool far, far right Conservative, born and bred Alliance, which is so UnCanadian, I cannot believe that we can continue behaving as though this is Canada – what once was easily recognizable as a more humane, progressive and rational country. <BR/>MindeaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-32217406636196854702009-01-04T18:15:00.000-05:002009-01-04T18:15:00.000-05:00>>Structural deficits are like the deficits ...>>Structural deficits are like the deficits that Brian Mulroney gave us: they are situations where government spending exceeds its revenue year after year, even in boom times.<<<BR/>Actually, structural deficits <A HREF="http://www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Federal_Program_Spending_and_Revenues_1961-2009.pdf" REL="nofollow">began in mid-1970</A>, during Trudeau's 3rd term in government. Mulroney trimmed spending so that government revenues covered the program expenses, but kept borrowing money to cover the interest charges which by then had swollen to over $30B. That's what produced those ill-famous $30B-$40B deficits.Leonardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01745434180812340088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23053767.post-79481418390713802882009-01-04T16:28:00.000-05:002009-01-04T16:28:00.000-05:00Thank you Yappa for these posts on how to deal wit...Thank you Yappa for these posts on how to deal with the economic crisis. We need a wide discussion of the issues, so we'll be prepared to react appropriately when the PC stimulus plan is announced later this month. <BR/><BR/>I'm no expert, to say the least, but I wonder whether putting money in the hands of the least well off would provide much of a stimulus. I think it is a good idea for humanitarian reasons and should therefore be done anyway. But if a major issue for this group is debt and the new money goes to pay off their debts, does that provide a stimulus? By contrast, the idea of spending on infrastructure, which Krugman [along with many others] has stressed, looks like a winning strategy. Just so enough money is spent. As he said, and you have noted, better to err on the side of spending too much rather than too little.Ferdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16629986970523159482noreply@blogger.com