XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.generalThei   
   From: Canuck57@nospam.com   
      
   On 19/09/2011 5:45 AM, John Fleming wrote:   
      
   >> $That is what they would have you believe bit it is BS.  Just liberal   
   >> $economics BS.  If prices go down (deflation) people can aquire more   
   >> $goods requiring more taxable labor and GST.   
   >   
   > While it is true you can buy more when prices go down, if   
   > you owe money (for example, on mortgages or bonds) and your   
   > revenue is declining, you are caught in a tough spot.   
      
   Depends, is rent, food or others declining?  A small decline is nothing   
   to worry about.  If it rains do you seek a bomb shelter?   
      
   Government over reacted.  So do you want jobs or appreciation?   
      
   Why government fears deflation is purely for government greeds sake and   
   has nothing to do what is best for the economy or the people. Government   
   overspends on the premise that it can have inflation for more revenue to   
   pay the bills later.  If prices remain the same, then government would   
   have to balance the budget.   
      
   And the golden rule of government is that it is more important than the   
   people.  Tax them sheep for more government, government cannot and will   
   not willingly shrink.   
      
   Which is the real problem.  To do what is right for the people means   
   less government costs...   
      
   Government is like a parasite to the economy.  If it sucks too much,   
   like cutting grass too short the returns dwindle.  And dwindling they are.   
      
   > And the reason the governments are scared of deflaiton is   
   > they are up to their eyeballs in debt.   
      
   Yes, but that is a size of government problem.  Government is now too   
   big for us to support.   
      
   >> $The things fleabagger economists forget is if you generate inflation by   
   >> $excessive money print (electronic counterfeiting) to feed government   
   >> $debt is that it causes consumption and spending to stall even though the   
   >> $GDP might go up.  Canada saw less of this because of the strong dollar,   
   >> $but the USD has lost 40% on the Yuan since the introduction of Bernanke   
   >> $Doctrine some 5 to 6 years ago.   
   >> $   
   >> $If last month you could buy 20 units of production, but then 5%   
   >> $inflation hits.  You then only consume 19 units but GDP is the same.  1   
   >> $in 20 get laid off as consumption of goods is down.  Two hits, less   
   >> $standard of living for thos 19/20 still emloyed, and a job loss on EI.   
   >   
   > And if one in twenty is getting laid off, that is   
   > potentially a reduction in government tax revenue.  Less   
   > taxes to pay for (a) services and (b) interest on all that   
   > accumulated debt.   
      
   Actually worse, but yes.  1/20 go on EI, means a big revenue/expense   
   loss for the government.  Also means profits are less for less revenue   
   and price depression.  And yes, it comes all away around....all are   
   effected just like we see today.   
      
   >> $GDP is a dollar measure, not a goods consumption measure and neither is   
   >> $it a job effort measure.   
   >   
   > Hence the existence of a second measure--real GDP.   
      
   Not sure what you mean by real GDP.  But if it is board feet made +   
   grain grown + coal mined + oil shipped I agree.  The amount of goods   
   created has a link to jobs, but if all prices doubled, GDP stays the   
   same, then people are buying and employing 1/2 the people.   
      
   Something fleabagger economists missed in their fraud money print for   
   debt scheme.   
      
   >> $Fact is government far over reacted to the small deflation seen and   
   >> $crashed the economy with low interest rates.   
   >> $   
   >> $Low rates was a double whammy.  Retirees income dries up, less tax and   
   >> $spending adding to the problem.  More OAS as the lower incomes.  Less   
   >> $GST.  Have $2M in USD in a retiment generating all of $20K interest   
   >> $isn't much taxes.  But at 5% fair rates, that is $100K and taxable.   
   >> $Businesses too, lower earnings as where else do you go?  Lower earning   
   >> $bars.  That means less taxes.  Shoots government revenue right in the head.   
   >   
   > Absolutely.  And with the baby boom generation reaching   
   > retirement age . . ..   
      
   Yep.  I would even be considered late baby boomer.  So say I cash out of   
   Canada and move to Costa Rica, Chile or Ecuador taking my money and   
   taxable income with me?   
      
   That is a growing problem.  As quite literally a million retirees could   
   on average take a million of CAD on average and move a trillion of CAD   
   for a currency crash as the market gets flooded with CAD.   
      
   You can put $1M in a Brazil bank and they will happily pay ou $100K a   
   year.  And at their tax rates you live like king.  Or if you want a   
   little safer, try Panama or Costa Rica, they give you citizenship for a   
   million and 5.5% return at a lower tax rate, again you live well.   
      
   Big shift coming, Costa Rica's biggest import is retired Canadians.  2   
   years ago, 60,000...now almost 80,000 Canadians....   
      
   >> $Liberal Keynes worshiping fleabagger economists screwed up huge.   
   >> $   
   >> $I must have some sense to this, in Nov 2008 I was 60% cash waiting for   
   >> $the crash.  I read right through the government liquidity BS.  There was   
   >> $never a shortage of lenders, the shortage of debtors paying their bills   
   >> $and the risk was up, unwilling to pay fair rates.  Ponzi fraud scheme   
   >> $first hit was 2007 so lots of notice to get the hell out for   
   >> $conservative realism economists.   
   >   
   > You did very well.   
      
   Only because I spent decades reading, learning and practicing investing,   
   ignoring liberal economics every inch of the way.   
      
   > My own portfolio was a lot smaller back then.   
      
   It is like planting a tree.  Starts small but grows.   
      
   > When all hell broke loose, I figured, if the financial   
   > system was collapsing, it didn't really matter where my   
   > money was.  And so I loaded up on stocks--mostly preferreds.   
   > Those 10% to 15% dividend yields were very attractive.   
      
   Good move on your part.  But experienced investors don't fear the dips,   
   they look at them as buying opportunities.   
      
   >> $>  Oh will they ever whine.  Instead of using this low interest   
   >> $>  rate window to reduce debt and build up savings and   
   >> $>  investment, they are using it to go deeper into debt.   
   >> $   
   >> $Yep, and why like Japan, we are now locked into a Japan lost decades   
   >> $scenario.  A long period of steady deterioration of wage value and an   
   >> $up-tick in inflation.  Some prices might go down if the purcases are   
   >> $optional and have the elasticity, but over all most costs of life are   
   >> $going to go up.   
   >   
   > I don't see a major change here until the baby boomers start   
   > shuffling off those mortal coils.  When they were younger,   
   > they were big spenders--which fueled demand for goods and   
   > services.  Now that they are retiring, they will have less   
   > money.   
      
   Gets back to the banking fraud of low interest rates.  Who pays more   
   taxes?  Each couple with $2M in retirement assets.  5% yeild would be a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)