Recently, problems have arisen from countries not playing by the rules of the game. Certain Asian economies have been stifling the inflationary effects of their interventions and, in the process, building up massive amounts of...

While there is no question that the sponsor is responsible for any deficit in the plan, it is not at all clear that the sponsor benefits from any surplus that may be generated.

And for countries with a fixed exchange rate, this means that authorities need to run appropriate policies in order for the fixed exchange rate to be sustainable.

This e-mail is either a perpetration by a very ignorant person or its a hoax, but whatever it is its absolutely wrong,

Such a slowdown in growth, in turn, raises the risk that policy-makers might resort to protectionism. In that event, a period of very slow growth could, perhaps, be punctuated by periods of outright recession.

There’s still considerable monetary stimulus in the economy.

The global and Canadian economies have continued to grow at a solid pace, and our economy now appears to be operating at full production capacity.

We do see a need for some depreciation of the U.S. dollar over time, but that’s to correct the global imbalances that are out there,

for all residual risks to the pension plan ? both outcomes that lead to deficits and outcomes that lead to surpluses.

I’m not saying that a disorderly correction to global imbalances is certain to happen. Nor am I saying that the global economy is inevitably headed for a deflationary shortfall in demand. What I am saying...

Some modest further increase in the policy interest rate would be required to keep aggregate supply and demand in balance and inflation on target.

It’s the fiscal balance of all levels of government combined that are really important.

These changes, whatever changes may take place, have a one-year effect.