Tuesday, March 25, 2014

What Caused Changes in the Canadian CPI over time?

We learnt in Economics that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the measure used for calculating inflation in an economy. Inflation is simply a persistent increase in a country's overall price level. We also learnt that the main causes of inflation are the cost-push, where there is a large increase in the price of inelastic goods, and so no substitutes are available; the demand-pull, when the demand for a good or service is greater than the supply; and finally an increase in the money supply, which decreases the purchasing power of the currency, hence leading to an increase in price. Today, I would like to discuss what were some of the major catalysts of change for the Canadian CPI in past years.

First of all, you should know that the Bank of Canada plays an important role in the Consumer Price Index. One of its goals are to maintain a low, stable and predictable inflation, in order to have a safe and secure currency, and to accomplish this, it strives to keep the inflation rate between 1% and 3%. Since the bank was initiated, the average inflation rate has been 3.13%. One advantage the bank has in achieving this goal is the ability to set the interest rate for money borrowed. Another is the power to ask Statistics Canada to periodically adjust the way the CPI is calculated.Since the 1980s, keeping inflation low has been the central bank's main priority.

 The Bank Of Canada played an important role in financing Canada's war effort during World War II by printing money and buying the government's debt. After the war, the bank's role was expanded to encourage economic growth in Canada. An Act of Parliament in September 1944 established the subsidiary Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) to stimulate investment in Canadian businesses. Prime Minister John Diefenbaker established the central bank monetary policy, which was directed towards increasing the money supply to cause low interest rates, and have full employment. When inflation began to rise in the early 1960s, the governor of the Bank James Coyne ordered a reduction in the money supply. So here we see an example of how increased money supply in Canada led to an increase in prices, and therefore an increase in CPI.


Increased inflation 1960s

 The time between the end of the Second World War and the early 1970s was quite prosperous for Canada, as compared to Some of the European countries. We came out of the war with a fairly strong economy. Moreover, there were sizable and sustained gains in productivity through the 1950s and 1960s. These reflected the revolution in agriculture and the innovation and industrialization  and changes in technology that occurred during and after the war.
All this led to a rise in Canadian standards of living instead of the post-war depression that many had feared. Even though the agriculture industry saw the departure of a lot of its workers, the overall unemployment rate remained low. So you could see in the table, that the inflation rates were quite low through the 50s and the 60s prior to '64.

However, toward the end of the 20th century, inflation rates rose at an alarming rate, a phenomenon which was dubbed, "The Great Inflation", which lasted from about 1965 to 1984. Some reasons for the high inflation rates from the 60s to the early 80s, according to the economists include large and rising fiscal deficits (due to widespread acceptance of the Keynesian theory, and the idea of coordinating monetary and fiscal policy), a slowdown in productivity growth; and a decline in the prices of primary commodities.
On the other hand, a recession will lead to the decrease in the inflation rate, because people will be spending less and saving more.There will be more supply and less demand, and as a result, prices will drop. This is a reversal of the demand-pull. This situation creates a deflation instead of an inflation. For instance, one can see in the CPI chart that during the Great Depression from 1929 to 1939, the inflation rates were very low. There was a similar occurrence during the 2009 recession, although on a much smaller scale.
Great Depression chart 

To conclude: inflation is a given; no successful economy can be completely without it.It happens on a regular basis, and it often differs from year to year.While it has its negative aspects, mainly the increased prices hence making it harder to come by needs and wants, and decreased purchasing power, it has some positives in that it helps to boost the economy, for example, one that is stuck in a recession. All in all, I believe that inflation needn't be a bad thing necessarily; it only needs to be carefully managed. 
Thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vwPgX24g28









Thursday, March 20, 2014

Inflation



Inflation

Last week in class , we went over a activity that involved us bidding on several different products that were being showcased by the lovely Mrs. Teetaert. As the price of the items increased, less people were bidding on them and towards the end it became a competition of who wanted the item end. Afterwards we learned that the activity showed us how inflation really works.



What is Inflation?

Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. When the general price level rises, each unit of currency buys fewer goods and services. Consequently, inflation reflects a reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money, and a loss of real value in the medium of exchange and unit of account within the economy. To simply put it;  inflation is an upward movement in the average level of prices. It is also believed by economists that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply. When we look back at our game in the second round, we found out what the items were and figured out the value. When we were introduced to more disposable income in the second round, we watched most students bid high amounts of money simply because they had the cash to do so.

Understanding Inflation

The following is a video defining deflation and relating the term with purchasing power.

Relationship between Inflation and Money

Inflation and its increase of prices will always be linked to money. Inflation is a high level of money pursuing a low level of goods/services. An example of how this works , picture a world that has just two commodities: Apples picked from apple trees, and paper money printed by the government. In a year where there is a drought and apples are limited, we'd expect to see the price of apples rise, as there will be quite a few dollars chasing very few oranges. On the other hand, if there was a high level of apples one year, we'd expect to see the price of apple fall, as apple sellers will need to reduce their prices in order to clear their inventory. These scenarios are inflation and deflation, respectively, though in the real world inflation and deflation are changes in the average price of all goods and services, not just one.

Relationship between Inflation and Money supply

Inflation as well as deflation can be caused by altering the level of money that is in the system. If the government prints large amounts of money, dollars become abundant relative to apples, in the last example. Therefore inflation is caused by the amount of money rising relative to the amount of goods and services. Deflation is caused by amount of money falling relative to goods and services.

In the Real World

In an article posted in January reading "Inflation rate rises to 1.5 in January" by the Canadian press talked about how the inflation rate in Canada raised from the previous month from Decembers 1.2 per cent. The cause of the increase was due to increased shelter, transportation, and food costs. Statistics Canada said seven of the eight major components of the consumer price index were up from a year ago. Higher electricity and insurance costs pushed up shelter costs. This shows how there was an overall demand increase in the growing economy. Demand for goods exceeds the capacity for manufactures to build them and prices rose, which led to inflation rising. While high levels of inflation seems dangerous, deflation in my opinion is even more dangerous. A high level of deflation will cause people to get laid off, spend less, prices become lower, which in my opinion will cause people to wait longer to see if prices can lower further, but consumers have less money to spend so they still buy less. Although inflation raises prices over time, I do believe that some inflation is a good thing. 





Sunday, February 23, 2014

Bitcoin: Money is What Money Does

   Last week, we discussed in class about money and learned the different uses for it. We talked about its characteristics and examples. We also did an activity on different kinds of commodity such as livestock, gold, wheat, tobacco, manual labour, and so on then talked about its advantages and disadvantages.

          Relating to what we had discussed, we are going to talk about bitcoins as a commodity and its uses.

What are bitcoins and Bitcoin?



         
        Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency introduced as open source software in 2009 by pseudonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto.  It is a cryptocurrency, so-called because it uses cryptography to control the creation and transfer of money. Cryptography is the practice and study of techniques for secure communication in the presence of third parties. Conventionally, "Bitcoin" capitalized refers to the technology and network whereas lowercase "bitcoins" refers to the currency itself.

How is it used?


         Bitcoins are created by a process called mining. Users send and receive bitcoins using wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device, or a web application. Bitcoins can be obtained by mining or in exchange for products, services, or other currencies. It is generated by thousands of so-called miners. These are people who, working individually or in groups called "mining pools," use powerful computer components to run software that solves a series of mathematical puzzles. Each time the miner solves the puzzle, they receive bitcoins, which they can trade for currency or otherwise put into circulation.

           So why should they get money for doing this? The argument is that these users essentially become a decentralized version of the Bank of Canada. They invest their own time and resources — like electricity and computing power — and in turn, the bitcoin network is supplied with the processing power needed to maintain a transparent, running tally of all transactions. A similar process applies to all alternative digital currency.

           As of last Feb. 14, a bitcoin is worth $720 Cdn.

This video explains the basics of bitcoin:





Advantages and Disadvantages


        Pros:

  • No Third-Party Seizure
          Since there are multiple redundant copies of the transactions database, no one can seize bitcoins. The most someone can do is force the user, by other means, to send the the bitcoins to someone else. This means that governments can’t freeze someone’s wealth, and thus users of Bitcoins will have complete freedom to do anything they want with their money.
  • No Taxes
          There is no way for a third party to intercept transactions of Bitcoins, and therefore there is no viable way to implement a Bitcoin taxation system. The only way to pay a tax would be, if someone voluntarily sends a percentage of the amount being sent as tax.
  • No Tracking
          Unless users publicize their wallet addresses publicly, no one can trace transactions back to them. No one, other than the wallet owners, will know how many Bitcoins they have. Even if the wallet address was publicized, a new wallet address can be easily generated. This greatly increases privacy when compared to traditional currency systems, where third parties potentially have access to personal financial data.
  • No Transaction Costs
         Sending and receiving Bitcoins requires users to keep the Bitcoin client running and connected to other nodes. Essentially, by using bitcoins users will be contributing to the network, and thus sharing the burden of authorizing transactions. Sharing this work greatly reduces transaction costs, and thus makes transaction costs negligible.
  • No Risk of “Charge-backs”
         Once Bitcoins are sent, the transaction cannot be reversed. Since the ownership address of Bitcoins will be changed to the new owner, once it is changed, it is impossible to revert. Since only the new owner has the associated private key, only he/she can change ownership of the coins. This ensures that there is no risk involved when receiving Bitcoins.
  • Bitcoins Cannot be Stolen
         Bitcoins’ ownership address can only be changed by the owner. No one can steal Bitcoins unless they have physical access to a user’s computer, and they send the bitcoins to their account. Unlike convential currency systems, where only a few authentication details are required to gain access to finances, this system requires physical access, which makes it much harder to steal.
         Cons:
  • It is not widely accepted 
         Bitcoins are still only accepted by a very small group of online merchants. This makes it unfeasible to completely rely on Bitcoins as a currency. There is also a possibility that governments might force merchants to not use Bitcoins to ensure that users’ transactions can be tracked.
  • Wallets Can Be Lost
         If a hard drive crashes, or a virus corrupts data , and the wallet file is corrupted, Bitcoins have essentially been “lost”. There is nothing that can done to recover it. These coins will be forever orphaned in the system. This can bankrupt a wealthy Bitcoin investor within seconds with no way form of recovery. The coins the investor owned will also be permanently orphaned.
  • Bitcoin Valuation Fluctuates
          The value of Bitcoins is constantly fluctuating according to demand. As of June 2nd 2011, one Bitcoins was valued at $9.9 on a popular bitcoin exchange site. It was valued to be less than $1 just 6 months ago. This constant fluctuation will cause Bitcoin accepting sites to continually change prices. It will also cause a lot of confusion if a refund for a product is being made. For example, if a t shirt was initially bought for 1.5 BTC, and returned a week later, should 1.5 BTC be returned, even though the valuation has gone up, or should the new amount (calculated according to current valuation) be sent? Which currency should BTC tied to when comparing valuation? These are still important questions that the Bitcoin community still has no consensus over.
  • No Buyer Protection
          When goods are bought using Bitcoins, and the seller doesn’t send the promised goods, nothing can be done to reverse the transaction. This problem can be solved using a third party escrow service like ClearCoin,but then, escrow services would assume the role of banks, which would cause Bitcoins to be similar to a more traditional currency.
  • Risk of Unknown Technical Flaws
          The Bitcoin system could contain unexploited flaws. As this is a fairly new system, if Bitcoins were adopted widely, and a flaw was found, it could give tremendous wealth to the exploiter at the expense of destroying the Bitcoin economy.
  • Built in Deflation
          Since the total number of bitcoins is capped at 21 million, it will cause deflation. Each bitcoin will be worth more and more as the total number of Bitcoins maxes out. This system is designed to reward early adopters. Since each bitcoin will be valued higher with each passing day, the question of when to spend becomes important. This might cause spending surges which will cause the Bitcoin economy to fluctuate very rapidly, and unpredictably.
  • No Physical Form
          Since Bitcoins do not have a physical form, it cannot be used in physical stores. It would always have to be converted to other currencies. Cards with Bitcoin wallet information stored in them have been proposed, but there is no consensus on a particular system. Since there would be multiple competing systems, merchants would find it unfeasible to support all Bitcoin cards, and therefore users would be forced to convert Bitcoins anyway, unless a universal system is proposed and implemented.
  • No Valuation Guarantee
          Since there is no central authority governing Bitcoins, no one can guarantee its minimum valuation. If a large group of merchants decide to “dump” Bitcoins and leave the system, its valuation will decrease greatly which will immensely hurt users who have a large amount of wealth invested in Bitcoins. The decentralized nature of bitcoin is both a curse and blessing.


Opinion


         I believe that is only the fallacious modernist view of currency that promotes the status quo, and indeed, provides the constant support for the gold standard. Restricting currency to single nations that can control policy has enormous precedent, and that alone will be a driving force against Bitcoin’s adoption. However, unlike previous era’s, I believe we are now quite firmly in a postmodern age where we no longer turn to local powers to affect our desires and in turn, repress the desires of those outside their domain. Rather, I find that Bitcoin’s embodies the individualist yet cosmopolitan spirit that lurks within us all. I think it is clear our current level of income inequality is intolerable and unsustainable. 

So much of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Maybe a libertarian currency regime can help change that.
          Bitcoins are a representation of humanity’s desire to broach the confines of history and precedent, and move forward toward a conception in which all barriers to social elevation and self-actualization have been eroded. Bitcoins might not provide us as much financial security in the short-term, but it would definitely empower us overall.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The world's most livable cities, and the reasons behind it.

The past week we learned about different measures of Standards of Living. We focused and talked a lot about the Human Development Index, which was the statistic of how developed or undeveloped a country is – Gini Coefficient which was the measure of inequality and income distribution per household – the Human Poverty Index which took into account factors such as hunger, and ability to provide basic needs such as shelter and clothing, and there was also a presentation on gross national happiness, which focuses on the overall happiness of a country by taking into account factors such as: economic wellness, environmental wellness, workplace, social, and political wellness.

Today we are going to take into account all these measures of the standards of living and we’re going to expand it into the real world, and talk about the best and most livable cities in the world.  We will also discuss why these cities are ranked to be the most livable, how they compare internationally, and take a look behind the scenes of the best city in the world.

When determining the best cities, economists take into account how tolerable a city is. Some potential factors are: crime levels, threat of conflict, quality of medical care, levels of censorship, temperature, schools, and transportation links in the city such as buses, metro, etc. and how efficient these transportation methods are.


The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EUI) livability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in 140 cities worldwide. It assigns each city a score for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability, healthcare, culture, environment, education and infrastructure and they take these into consideration to determine the well-being of a city.

Professor Rob Adams, Director of City Design for the City of Melbourne, says livability is about choice and access.
- “A city feels livable if its citizens have choices – the choice to walk instead of drive for example. Walk-ability is probably one of the basic indicators of a livable city.”

By all these measures, surely Melbourne is indeed livable – it is certainly walk-able, with functioning hard infrastructure.



The listing here is dominated by Australasia, and Canada. Melbourne, Australia takes first place as the most livable city in the world for the past 3 years, at a rating of 97.5 / 100, and just behind it we have Vienna, Austria, and then 3 of the top 5 cities are Canadian cities; Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary which is very positive for Canada once again. As noticed, there is a very little amount of European countries which really surprised me, considering that during the past week, most presentations consisted lots of European countries to have the most developed, and happiest origins to live in, but apparently they are not all the most livable countries, which really got my attention – this is most likely due to the fact that although a country may have a high HDI rank, different factors such as crime rate or transportation may be lower compared to other cities, and that affects their ranking in terms of ‘livability’. 

Half of the cities are in Australia and New Zealand, three are in Canada, and two are in Europe. One thing most of these cities have in common is that they’re all medium-size cities in prosperous countries, with relatively low population densities. It’s an equation that leads to low crime rates, functional infrastructure and plenty of recreational activities for residents. This also helps the cities in terms of crime, congestion, and public transport efficiency.


On the bottom of the list we have very undeveloped, dangerous, unstable, cities that are primarily located in Africa and the Middle East. Countries such as Syria, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nigeria are home to cities which would be considered unstable, and dangerous and also because there's lots of war going on there and conflict was responsible for many of the lowest scores.

Australia was a country with one of the highest HDI’s, and it also proves that it is a very well rounded country overall due to its consistency of having one of its cities as the most livable city in the world, and 3 others in the top 10.

Maybe some of you are surprised that not a single American city is top 10. Regardless of the fact that the United States is a very rich and developed country, it doesn't have the most livable cities. But this is most likely because, aside from the fact that most cities look really nice to live in, such as Los Angeles or Miami, the lack of efficient healthcare, crime rates, and ability to own guns which causes lots of risks and threats is a problem. Also, high poverty rates, and cost of living are factors as well. These are some factors that really influence how livable a city is, and clearly these factors are affecting cities in America very negatively.



 Above, is a snapshot of Melbourne, Australia. You can notice that it looks like a stable city from the top, with an attractive skyline, a nice river flowing around the city center, and although you cannot see it in this picture, there are numbers of beaches just minutes away from the city center. 

Some things that make these cities stand out and that give them a jump start is the ability to host major events such as the Fifa World Cup, or Olympics and they gain lots of revenue towards the city and are able to make changes internally. But just because you host a major event, won’t automatically fix all the economic problems, but it might certainly give a country, and its cities a boost.  

After doing my research and reading a lot about Melbourne I realized that it is very clean, there is great temperature and weather, great skyline, there is a nice mix of new and old buildings, loads of great eating places, it is very diverse and there’s lots of variety – and all these factors make the city very attractive, so that’s one thing.



There are also three main modes of transportation: Trains, trams, and buses. These are all very essential for a city to be considered 'most livable', because basic, and efficient transportation within the city is the key to access the city's infrastructure. There is also a free tram that circles the entire city and stops at major areas such as the beach, key areas for tourists, and University students have access to free transportation to-and-from University.  People also use walking, bicycles, or a car as methods of transportation.

Melbourne is also planning on constructing another skyscraper into their skyline, which would make it the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere and this project is expected to be finished in 3-4 years. So as we can see, Australia is continuously investing in the future and expanding their economy.

Every year Melbourne hosts a major tennis event; the Australian Open and they gain lots of revenue from that, especially through sponsorship. They also have lots of beaches just a few minutes away so that is very appealing, especially to tourists.

Speaking of tourists, we’ll talk about immigration. Australia is an immigration-friendly country, and is the second most immigrated country in the world, just behind Canada. It is also very diverse and multicultural. It has one of the highest standards of living in the world, subsidized language lessons to foreigners, employment support, and comprehensive healthcare services. Sydney, the capital of Australia, and Melbourne are the two main cities of immigration for Australia.

Here is a video and it will help us learn why Melbourne is one of the most immigrated cities in the world, and why this city has been considered the ‘most livable’ city in the world for the past three years.


Investment, business, innovation, creativity. As said in the video, this is the ingredient to reach out to the world; ; and this ingredient is what helps this economy to keep going and expanding continuously with immigration, and innovation with the current residents. In the video, it also talks a lot about opportunity for business, so that may be very appealing for residents outside of Australia to try and invest in a new life, in a new country.

After learning more about the city, we realize that factors such as opportunity for business, great quality of medical care/education, employment opportunities, low crime rate and other measures, help determine how livable a city is, and because of such high quality of living - Melbourne, Australia is the most livable city in the world for the third straight year. 


- Mati Jankowiak

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Macroeconomics of Hosting the Olympic Games

We've started off the new term with a new unit in Economics 40S - Economic Indicators. To start off the unit, we looked specifically at Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which the textbook, Working with Economics, defines as "...the value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year." GDP helps to measure the health of a nation's economy, because a healthy economy allows for low unemployment and high wages. Macroeconomics looks at a nation as a whole, when dealing within the realms of the economy, as the textbook defines macroeconomics as "...the area of economics concerned with the overall view of an economy, rather than with individual markets."

With that in mind, it is clear that the beginning of this term also marks a spectacular international event - it marks the beginning of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games. 


So, why host the games, you may ask? The games are not only a great method of promoting tourism and nationalism in a country, and it also helps to increase spending, create jobs, and promote the construction of better infrastructure and transportation systems.

These long-term benefits were especially evident in London, after hosting the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. In fact, in an interview with the Olympics Committee, Mayor Boris Johnson of London praised the games, and said that these games will secure a "lasting legacy" on the capital of England. He noted, "We can secure a transport, housing, infrastructure, sporting, cultural, and social legacy from these games and turn these Games to gold for decades to come." However, this was not just a speculation, as the national GDP of England had finally risen over 1% after the games, after a long period of decline. According to journalist Mark Thompson of CNN, the Olympics had helped to lift the UK out of recession. In fact, British Finance Minister George Osbourne stated that the games had put the UK on the right track on its mend towards economic strength and growth. 

But, what about all this controversy over the heavy financial burden placed on the host cities? 



The grandeur of the Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 had cost the country roughly $40 billion, shocking the international community with the depth of its financial commitment. While $40 billion may seem like an extraordinary amount to be spending on a sporting event to the rest of the world, China did not suffer great financial implications, because, according to an article on Bloomberg Business Magazine, the games only accounted for, on average, 0.3% of China's total GDP each year, hardly significant on a national scale. 

Looking at it from a macroeconomic standpoint, the Sochi Olympic Games, which had cost the Russian government an estimated $50 billion (the most ever spent on the games), did not impact the nation's economy greatly, costing only a mere 2.4% of the national GDP. In fact, the financial impact of the Sochi Olympic Games pale in comparison to the 2004 Athens Olympic Games, which had cost the Greek government roughly $11 billion, or a heavy 7% of their national GDP, according to the same article from Bloomberg Business Magazine. 

So, what's the moral of the story? 

It's simple - don't let the numbers scare you (unless you're looking at the national GDP). In a paper published by Markus Bruckner and Evi Pappa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, it has been shown time and time again that hosting the games generates positive investment, consumption, and output responses, even before the games begin. 



The games unite the international community, bringing people from all corners of the world together to celebrate, compete, and enjoy one another's company. It (generally) strengthens a city's economy, and encourages spending, tourism, and improved services for years to come. It's definitely an investment on a nation's part, but a good one at that. 

In the end, Russia spending $50 billion on the games will not send the country into a recession. However, many economists speculate that Athens spending 7% of its GDP had sparked its economic downfall. 

As you can see, the common misconception that the Olympic Games are a waste of money, and only damages a country's economy, is wrong. Looking at the grand scheme of things, or, looking at it from a macroeconomic perspective, we can see that the financial implications of hosting the Olympic Games do not heavily increase a nation's debt, as long as a moderate amount of money was spent in relation to the nation's GDP. So, the numbers don't matter - it's the percentages that count.




Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Alex's Blog Post



Why is Winnipeg Health Care Failing it’s People?
                Winnipeg health care system is failing us because we don’t have enough hospitals to support the 783, 700 people who live here. We only have six hospitals and probably one 3-4 doctors on call, depending on the ward. 280,000 people visited the hospital last year which calculates 23, 333 visits each month and 5833 people a week. Thus equally out to 972 people in each hospital. The average ambulance wait in 2013 was 78 minutes. According to the WRHA president and CEO Arlene Wilgosh, the WRHA wants to be able to treat and discharge 90% of emergency rooms patients. Myrightcare.cu is a website promoting other alternatives to patients to use, rather than rushing to emergency rooms for less severe incidents or concerns.  In my opinion, this won’t really help because when people are really sick they don’t want to go online.  They want to know what is wrong and the place to go is the hospital where doctors and nurses are to help. Also people will be a little hesitant to use to website because people don’t trust the internet for certain research and also people won’t be thinking clear because they are too busy panicking.
                My mom Sylvia Ptashnik, is the director of residence and services at Deer Lodge Centre,  one of the board of directors for the Fred Douglas committee, and has also been a nurse for 37 years. She worked in emergency rooms and the intensive care unit for 25 years. I asked her, “Why is the health care system failing us?” She answered, “When I worked in the emergency room, ambulance waiting times were a lot faster than they are now and we didn’t have the amount of people requiring hospital visits as much as we do now.” She also told me, “about 15-30 years ago people were saying we need more hospitals to cover the growing population of Winnipeg, but the government denied saying no we don’t need to build more hospitals. Now they are trying to make up for their mistakes, but it’s a little too late.”
                In my experience with hospital visits they need to improve the care they give the patients because when I had my appendix out the nurses didn’t give me good care. For example, when I wanted clean sheets they told my parents where to find them and my parents changed them. It is their job to do things like that.
                If our money goes into the health care system, why isn’t it changing or improving. We learned in class that it is the provincial government’s responsibility to provide us with health care. In the case study we did on health care on September 18, it states despite the massive funds put into the system, problems still exist. Waiting room times for operations, recruitment of new staff – especially doctors and specialists nursing staff. Arguments continue over where National Health Service funds would be most appropriately spent. This article is on the health care problems that are in the United Kingdom but they are similar to the problems that we have here in Canada. 





WRHA flatlineson ER targets  By: Larry Kusch Winnipeg Free Press

 http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/whra-flatlines-on-er-targets-24034051.html 

The Numbers don't lie: Ambulance wait times rising, not falling By: Tom Brodbeck Winnipeg Sun

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/10/15/the-numbers-dont-lie-ambulance-wait-times-rising-not-falling