(Click here to read Pt 1. You’ll be glad you did. I’ll wait).
I’m shocked that economists are shocked by zero growth in the Canadian economy.
["I'm also shocked I bought these pants": photo GAH circa 1972]
Yes, our fundamentals are strong, steady, appropriate, important, newsworthy, fit, tall, stocky and wide, whatever... and if PM Harper or Finance Minister Jim Flatulence say we have fundamentals, then we have fundamentals.
However, Canada also has a knowledgeable staff that can put two and two together and come up with strong and appropriate reasons why no one should be shocked by zero growth.
Reason 1:
People over the age of 16 who still read newspapers or listen to radios for more than music and catchy ads know by now that the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) is on solid ground.
But who isn’t? (Don’t count Californians.)
However, those same people know that the CPP provides retirees with only about 25 per cent of the income they are used to, or about 11,000 bucks per year.
You can say 11,000 bucks a million times and it still won’t be a lot of money. People know that.
So more of us are reducing our spending, saving more and paying off debt while we can. The new kitchen and vacation to Bermuda and economy can wait until our own fundamentals are better.
Zero percent growth is shocking? Not at all.
***
Stay tuned for Part 3. Reason 2.
Zero per cent will sound as pleasant as a new baby’s burp by the time I’m finished.
.
2 comments:
What's shocking to me is how people can expect anything other than zero growth - just doing a little reading and thinking on one's own will quickly provide enough evidence that the recession isn't over. I think it's just starting - we ain't seen nothin' yet.
I agree, Theresa. The positive spin that economists and governments put on the slimmest of details distorts reality. I'd prefer to hear governments say that a smaller lifestyle is in order, then lead by example.
Keep well,
GH
Post a Comment