First, Mr Scheer takes issue with the Bank of Canada's claim that it did not "flood" the economy with "billions of dollars of new currency."
Except that this claim is correct. There was not a major increase in the amount of currency. The money printer was not going "brrr".
2/12
Currency outside of banks went from about $90 billion before the pandemic to about $105 billion at the end of 2020, $111 billion at the end of 2021 and $116 billion in July of this year (not seasonally adjusted). Not hundreds of billions of new cash.
3/12
What did grow, as the Bank already explains (see bankofcanada.ca/2022/06/unders…) is that settlement balances grew. Settlement balances are very special accounts that only certain financial institutions like banks have, and are used for payments systems.
4/12
Why did the Bank of Canada do this? To maintain the proper functioning of the government bond market. Who benefits from this? Mr Scheer says "primarily the government" but this is incorrect. The entire financial system, and through it the economy, benefits from this.
5/12
The yield on a Government of Canada bond will always be the lowest yield on any domestically issued marketable bond denominated in Canadian dollars of a similar maturity. This is because it will always be the lowest-risk bond of that type.
6/12
Do you want a 5-year fixed rate mortgage from BMO? The interest rate on it will be slightly higher than the yield on a 5-year bond issued by BMO, which in turn will be somewhat higher than the yield on a 5-year Government of Canada bond.
7/12
So, if the government bond market isn't functioning properly, corporate finance, mortgages and other debt markets also stop functioning properly.
This would be bad.
8/12
Mr Scheer also says "There were many economists who called out the Bank of Canada's policies."
Well, not really. Some economists started to call for QE to end sooner than it did. But there was general consensus that exceptional monetary stimulus was needed.
9/12
Almost everything closed at the start of the pandemic. The economic disruption was massive and unprecedented.
Mr Scheer notes that Bank officials were predicting that Canada was going into a deflationary crisis. Initially, Canada *did* briefly go into deflation.
10/12
We avoided a deflationary crisis. And because deflation is worse than high inflation, this is a big success. The economy bounced back from 2020 faster than it had in previous recessions. Through exceptional monetary policy interventions, a crisis was averted.
11/12
Could the Bank of Canada have done a better job? Probably. Hindsight, yadda yadda. But it is now taking action to bring inflation down, with quantiative tightening along with higher interest rates. The Bank's balance sheet is (gradually) going back to more normal levels.
12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m not about to predict how the next election will go, or even which party deserves to win it. But I disagree with the claim that a LPC win would mean that “democracy’s self-correcting mechanism is malfunctioning.” I’d say the evidence is otherwise.
How the current government has handled a number of files certainly contributed to it becoming very unpopular, to the point that it might have been facing an incredibly humiliating defeat had an election happened at that point.
2/
But we are now seeing reversals on many of the factors that contributed to that unpopularity. And because it was clear that policy reversals would not be enough to save the LPC, we are also seeing the replacement of Mr. Trudeau as leader.
3/
(🧵) I would expect government correspondence, especially when it is being made public, would be carefully checked for errors. Alas, a significant number of those were not caught in this letter.
Canada is far from perfect. But it seems to me that we have a punditocracy that is eager to sanewash President Trump by making it seem like he has legitimate grievances with Canada, that if only we did (or did not do) X, we would not be in his crosshairs.
President Trump's pronouncements are, to put it mildly, batshit. His grievances are devoid of reality. Addressing his grievances is like playing whack-a-mole; if we can close one, he will jump to another equally imaginary complaint.
2/
Yes, Canada can do, and could have done, better. We do not meet our commitments on defence spending. We often do not address problems unless and until they become pressing, serious issues. There is much that we can criticize about Canada.
3/
(🧵) For no particular reason, a basic primer on "supply" or how the government is able to spend money.
1/
It is a constitutional requirement that Parliament approves all government spending. Moreover, bills authorizing spending (or imposing any tax) *must* originate in the House of Commons (other bills can start in the Senate; regardless, both Houses must approve).
2/
Moreover, the opposition (and backbench MPs) cannot force the government to spend money on anything; the government must also approve the spending. This is done by requiring a Recommendation by the Governor General (who acts on the Government's advice) on any money bills
3/
(🧵) I know we had long ago entered the unhinged era, but the #FoodProcessor has outdone himself with his latest tweets. Even without delving deeply, one can spot multiple major errors in his statements.
To whit:
1/
First, there is the claim that “the academic hard-left … has consistently attempted to silence dissenting voices”. Which is ironic given that the #FoodProcessor continues to have a podcast, is published as an OpEd writer and remains at Dalhousie University.
2/
Second, the so-called “carbon tax intellectual mob” names four economists who could not be credibly described as being “hard-left”. Go ahead and peruse their timelines and tell me if you can find anything that even suggests otherwise.
3/
A couple of comments in response to this OpEd. First, if the USA imposes tariffs and Canada decides retaliatory action is the best way to get the White House to back down, you want actions that hurt Americans but do as little harm to Canadians as possible.
An export tax, unlike a tariff, does not increase costs for Canadians. So, in that respect, it already has an advantage.
Of course, it can mean that export demand for the taxed good will decrease, which is, obviously, bad for the producers of that good.
2/
The trick, then, is to find goods for which the export demand is highly ineleastic, that is, not particularly sensitive to price changes. If Americans will buy the same amount of good at the higher price, you’ve inflicted pain on them at no cost to us. Ideal in a trade war.
3/