« Canada's current account bounces back up | Main | Carbon taxes vs cap-and-trade »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

If someone can extract meaning from this, please explain it to me in the comments.

The author is saying he doesn't understand economics at all but that he doesn't see that as a reason to stop blathering nonsense.

Off topic:

In tomorrow's NY Times Greg Mankiw argues for reducing, or even abolishing, the (US) corporate income tax and replacing it with an increase in the gasoline tax.

Sound familiar anyone? When a conservative US economist and a liberal Canadian economist both advocate the same tax changes, it just may be that they are on to something.

"Sound familiar anyone? When a conservative US economist and a liberal Canadian economist both advocate the same tax changes"

I'm not a liberal!

Oh.. you were talking about someone else... carry on... :)

The nominal GDP is pertinent for those interested in the governments finances. As a rule of thumb, governments receive taxes as a share of the nominal GDP. Suppose that the economic forecasts are 3% reel growth and 2% inflation and the governement have planned the public spending based on that. If what happens is 1% reel growth and 4% inflation, that's bad news for the citizens but the governement won't go into deficit. (think GST, tax bracket creeping, oil company profits,...)

In the last six month, it was the first time for a while that some analists feared that the federal government could fall into deficit. That's the only reason I can find for "Analysts in Canada have recently focused less on real GDP and more on nominal GDP". But the whole paragraph is just bad journalism.

instead of:
"much of Canada's prosperity is coming from the money earned from rising commodity prices"
You could write:
"lately, a large part of Canada's relative prosperity is coming from the rising of the reel prices of commodity"
But this is not to be confused with the nominal GDP.

They may mean: total quantities of oil (and other commodities) produced aren't increasing, but the price we get for it has shot through the roof, and we're net exporters, so we're clearly better off. But (1) if this is a terms of trade story, nominal GDP is still the wrong measure (as Mercure pointed out); and (2) it shouldn't matter if it doesn't flow through to real incomes and real final demand, I wouldn't think. And as you note, the last at least isn't looking too rosy. Bottom line: no real meaning.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad