Canada’s growth to stagnate! That can’t be good, can it? Pt 2

On Nov. 11 I clipped an article from the local paper (The London Free Press) that says a few things about the next ten years in Canada.

A new report says we’re headed for a decade of stagnant growth because of four things:

post-recession adjustments

the aging population

low productivity

and the measures governments may adopt to control climate change

(What’s stagnant mean? Click here to read Pt 1 and find out.)

Post-recession adjustments might mean that our economy will be affected by our new-found desire to be more austere, i.e. to spend less, save more and pay down debt. The aging population may feel they have enough stuff and as they retire they will not all be replaced, affecting productivity. And reparation money that goes toward the environment may not seem to be helping the economy.

Should we be depressed now, or for ten years?


["Compared to this guy, life is good"]

No.

Though the writers of the report, economists Derek Burleton and Grant Bishop, say "it is critical to recognize that things will not simply return to how they were," Canada’s economy will still experience some growth, just less than what we’ve become used to as we’ve pursued excessive lifestyles.

"This (muted growth)” write the economists, “represents a new normal for the budgets of households and governments, as well as the returns on domestic capital investment."

So, can we live with stagnant and muted?

It’s like asking, can we live in a smaller house, drive a smaller car, eat less beef and pork and chicken, attend fewer recreational activities and still feel we’re living well?

Of course we can. And we will, if what Derek Burleton and Grant Bishop say is true:

“And there is not much that anyone can do about it.”

Of course, they’re wrong. They forget that not all of us think like economists. Some of us realize that our outlook affects the outcome of our lives.

***

Feel free to read the full article and respond in some way.

.