Big banks urge Ottawa to spend $20-billion in rapid stimulus
"Two of Canada's big banks want the federal government to pump $20-billion into an economic stimulus for a fast jolt to the flagging economy. Bank of Nova Scotia urged Ottawa to spend that much by mid-2017. Such a measure, the bank said, would equal 1 percent of gross domestic product and would play into its new economic forecast for GDP growth of 1.3 percent this year and 2.5 percent next. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce called for $20-billion in the government's first year, saying the pledges on the table just aren't enough. The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indeed promised to spend billions in infrastructure stimulus. But, beyond the recent campaign pledges, there have been no details on the final amount, the targets, and the timeline. And remember, the fiscal outlook has changed rapidly, with the Liberals now forecasting a deficit of $18-billion even without their promised spending. Canadians will get the details when Finance Minister Bill Morneau unveils his budget on March 22. While Scotiabank and CIBC are the first to have specific calls, other bank economists have said the further stimulus would be welcome, and that the government certainly has the fiscal room to accommodate it. Scotiabank painted a weak economic picture for 2016, particularly for the oil-shocked province of Alberta, and a national unemployment rate that will top 7 per cent this year and next. It projected the economy of Alberta, which had been the country's economic engine until the oil route, will contract by a further 1.9 percent this year, with a jobless rate of 7.5 percent. Our Canadian forecast incorporates our recommendation for the federal fiscal stimulus of $20-billion, equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP, implemented during the second of 2016 and the first half of 2017, said Aron Gampel, Scotiabank's deputy chief economist. "This stimulus would be over and above the deficit resulting from weaker economic conditions, estimated for fiscal 2016-17 at $18-billion by the federal government," he added. "The stimulus should be designed to: deliver a rapid economic impact; raise Canada's economic capacity and thus our longer-term growth prospects; and, facilitate adjustments in the provinces most affected by weak commodity prices. Once the Canadian economy no longer requires policy support, targeting a declining ratio of net debt-to-GDP should resume." CIBC also weighed in on the stimulus debate today, calling for $20-billion in stimulus over two years. The Liberal pledges had been for $5-billion infrastructure and a further $5-billion in other measures in their first two years in power. But CIBC World Markets doesn't think that's enough given the country's economic troubles. "Federal stimulus under that scenario would be barely more than 0.5 percent of GDP, arguably too little to do the job, particularly with some provinces applying fiscal brakes," said CIBC's Royce Mendes and Avery Shenfeld. "We see a $20-billion stimulus program with a $40-billion deficit as being more appropriate, but given the political sensitivities, the government might show something closer to $35-billion for 2016-17, while perhaps taking on some further stimulus charged to the outgoing year." Some academics believe that in this low-interest-rate environment, what we need is a strong blast of fiscal stimulus to drive employment and growth. They argue that we should reject fiscal austerity and embrace public investment. Indeed, that has been the primary economic platform for the Liberal party, and for some, the reason for them winning a majority in the last election."
(a) The IMF "It is Mostly Fiscal" appears to be what Trudeau and his economic team have bought into. Explain why further fiscal austerity could be particularly painful for the Canadian economy, and how deficit spending may lower the government debt to GDP ratio. Be sure to illustrate using the IS-LM and the AD-AS frameworks.
(b) Discuss why Canadian banks are particularly concerned that the government fiscal stimulus plan may not be enough.
(c) Discuss what are some of the problems with using expansionary monetary policy in an environment of low interest rates. That is, describe the problem of a "liquidity trap."
