Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass die Haushaltsziele des Bundeshaushalts erreicht werden, sagt die vorläufige PBO
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-budgets-fiscal-targets-unlikely-to-be-met-interim-pbo-says/
Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass die Haushaltsziele des Bundeshaushalts erreicht werden, sagt die vorläufige PBO
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-budgets-fiscal-targets-unlikely-to-be-met-interim-pbo-says/
5 Kommentare
That’s very controversial for the PBO to say, makes sense why the liberals are already looking for his replacement. Can’t be listening to experts or being transparent with Canadians, that’s far to dangerous to their platform
I wonder if Carney has an older baby sitter he can give the role to or maybe the best man at his wedding.
To make that kind of proclamation this early is a pretty damning indictment of Carney.
Isn’t an economist supposed to be.. umm.. good at budgeting?
It was interesting to read over what both the Carney and the interim PBO call the ‚expansive‘ definition of capital expenditure this budget operates under, and where it differs from the international definition they’re talking about here.
There are basically two areas where they’d differ. The first is really quite defensible, which is that the international definition doesn’t allow for private ownership, or ownership by other levels of government. That is, if Canada builds a sky train extension, it wouldn’t count as a capital project because it’s owned by Translink, which is BC, if Canada subsidizes an oil pipeline without retaining ownership, it wouldn’t count as a capital project because it’s owned by the pipeline company, and if Canada builds up water infrastructure on reservations, it doesn’t count because it’s owned by the local government, and so on. The international definition makes sense, because in practice industries or local governments could come to expect continuous investment, but I think Canadians broadly understand that infrastructure money for the provinces and a pipeline were on the table.
The second is more clear-cut, with research funding and scientific development being defined by this government as capital spending, which is not at all typical. It does seem very likely that research budgets will be renewed in a way that a bridge or a highspeed rail budget doesn’t need to be ‚renewed‘ once the project is done.
The message the headline misses? The PBO says that while they think Carney is being overly optimistic about the state of the budget, they still rate it as a sustainable level of deficit spending. It’s an admonition, not a condemnation.
I’m all for government accountability and transparency but this PBO analysis is not consistent with other expert analysis.
The former PBO ( Kevin Page, well respected) disagrees with Jacques analysis.
[Federal budget watchdog’s comments are ‚just wrong,‘ says one of his predecessors Kevin Page says PBO should ‘walk back’ comments about ‚unsustainable‘ finances](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliamentary-budget-officer-finances-sustainable-comments-1.7651039)
All the major bank economists have said that the government is on the right track and some said the government didn’t go far enough on the capital spending side.
“Economists Avery Shenfeld, Ali Jaffary and Katherine Judge said the 2025–26 deficit — which still came in below some estimates for a $100-billion shortfall — shouldn’t set off alarm bells over “fiscal sustainability,” as it comes in at 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).
“This year’s federal deficit isn’t out of line with past periods of economic weakness,” the trio said.
But even that doesn’t raise alarm bells, according to the economists, as it places Canada in the “middle of the pack” compared with other advanced economies and below the United States, which has a deficit to GDP ratio of six per cent.”
[Mark Carney’s first budget is a step in the right direction, but economists say it could take years to show results](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-budget-take-time-to-boost-economy)
The head of the IMF said there are two countries well positioned fiscally to make large investments in infrastructure, housing etc (Canada and Germany).
“IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva was asked about the fiscal health of the world’s advanced economies during a press briefing at the IMF’s annual meeting in Washington on Thursday.
“Some have a more significant fiscal problem. Others less…. we have countries in the G7 that are in a better position. Germany and Canada stand up in that regard,” Georgieva said in response.
“Georgieva went on to suggest that Canada should use the fiscal wiggle room it has to spur growth as the global economy faces some headwinds.
“The areas that Canada identified — housing, infrastructure, energy — they are thinking of some strategic projects. These are areas that we see the need of doing more, so Canada can lift up productivity,” she said.
So the head of IMF, big bank economists and long time PBO chief Kevin Page disagree with Jacques assessment. The PM, a noted economist and finance expert also disagrees with Jacques assessment.
[IMF chief praises Canada’s fiscal space for capital spending](https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/imf-chief-praises-canada-fiscal-164927138.html)
[IMF head says Canada has fiscal wiggle room as larger deficit looms](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/imf-canada-fiscal-position-deficit-9.6941148)
[Canada has fiscal room to boost capital spending](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/imf-chief-canada-fiscal-room-capital-spending)
Categorizing tax credits as capital investments (and $98B worth of that)is economic malpractice.
It’s surprising that this is the work of a PM who is an established economist.