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
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/
Counterpoint: caucus revolts are an important feature of our Westminster system between elections. When a party leader will not or cannot maintain public support, then the caucus will seek change.
They do this because they fear they, or the party overall, will lose seats in the next election with the status quo. It’s because they are accountable to voters, not because they are selfish. In a democracy, the MP’s loyalty to the leader yields to the views of voters.
Of course, leaders themselves want to be reelected and win government. As a result, they will usually change course instead of needlessly pursuing an unpopular path. Policies, tone and/or the composition of the front bench will be modified to maintain voter support.
3/
(🧵)Obviously, until the actual amendments are introduced, we won't be able to see how the Government intends to implement what the Premier is promising in her video. But a few things can be noted as items to watch.
First, the Premier speaks about enshrining the right to make one's own medical choices "without fear of *undue* pressure or interference by government."
People were not involuntarily vaccinated against COVID-19.
2/
They were only vaccinated with their consent after being fully informed of the medical considerations (unless they lacked mental capacity to consent, in which case the parent, guardian or other recognized substitute provided the consent on their behalf).
3/
An issue with vertically integrated monopoly electricity utilities is that they can prevent or limit access to cheaper generation options, including renewables. Deregulated markets can address that problem.
With a deregulated market, any electricity generator that satisfies licensing requirements can deliver power to the transmission grid on the same terms and conditions as all other generators. Unlike Saint John Power, you don’t need to build a separate transmission line.
2/
Non-discriminatory access can be better assured if the utility is broken up to separate transmission/distribution of electricity from the generation of it. Ontario did this in 1998 when Ontario Hydro’s main assets were split into Hydro One and OPG.
3/
Many things impact price levels (and hence CPI). But it is important to differentiate between the things that cause discrete changes and the things that affect the ongoing rate of change in the price levels.
An increase or decrease in an excise tax or charge, such as the fuel tax, the GST/HST rate or the carbon price, result in an increase or decrease to the price level. The effect may happen over a period of time, but it isn’t a continuous effect.
2/
For example, an increase in the carbon price will raise the price level primarily on the day the increase happens. There will be some additional increases that happen somewhat later as businesses pass on (some of) their additional costs by raising their prices. But …
3/
On federal-provincial jurisdiction and the spending power (🧵).
A lot of ink is spilled arguing over which level of government is responsible for various initiatives. And to be fair, this can be confusing and something the governments themselves get wrong de temps en temps.
1/
One area where there *is* broad jurisdiction is the (federal) spending power. It boils down to this: the federal government can pretty much spend federal money any way it sees fit, even in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. TL;dr: “My money, my rules.”
2/
So, while the federal government might not be able to enact legislation to achieve certain policy goals, it can direct federal dollars towards those goals. When there is no stick available, a big carrot can be used to achieve the same purpose.
3/