Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 247

Thread: Premier Notley's First Year

  1. #101
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Twin Brooks
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Would your indentured servitude scheme apply to just doctors? How about engineers? Lawyers? Pharmacists? What about international students who pay far higher tuition & receive less subsidies? What about liberal arts degrees? What about people who decide the field isn't for them after graduation? What about those doctors interested in research & not practicing medicine with patients directly?

    I certainly understand your goal of keeping "invested" educational dollars in Canada, I just don't think chaining people to Canada is really the way to do it.
    Maybe we should be making all such professional training conditional since our tuition costs are very low compared to the U.S.

    As for undergraduate degrees I am not that concerned.

    As for those who choose not to pursue their degree perhaps they should be charged more.

    For researchers, the same rule as for practitioners.

    International students already pay far more than Canadians so I am not worried about them.

  2. #102
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    The thing that sticks in my craw is that the cost of medical training in Canada is so much lower than the U.S. and then doctors and nurses go there in chase of the almight buck.

    I am in favour of keeping tuition where it is but based on students signing an agreement that they will practice here for "X" number of years but should they choose to go elsewhere they are indebted to the University or College for the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars of educational subsidy they have enjoyed.
    Some, but not the majority. Plus, how do you feel about Canada poaching foreign trained medical staff who were funded by the tax payers in their home countries? Quid pro quo at the end of the day.
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    You are missing how GPs are paid, and you clearly have no idea what a GP does.
    You clearly have no idea that I work in the health care system, closely with family doctors, with nurse practitioners, and with their unions, in family care, emergent care, and urgent care. And have been doing this for a very long time now.

    You are a twit and need to learn to keep your boneheaded "armchair expert" ideas to yourself before you try and lecture someone who clearly knows more about a topic and industry than yourself.

    I hope that helps.

    Anger management problems got you down?

    You're the one suggesting that a GPs role could be replaced by an NP, and that slicing and dicing GP wages would fly over fine despite our pre-existent shortage. Seems odd that someone who works in health care would hold those views, because they are wrong.
    Well no, cutting down pay would not be a good thing for any professional.

    I do not believe that NP's are replacements to GP. But they do help cover the shortages in primary health care. In fact, I've heard of NP-led clinics in Ontario that has been pretty successful. From my understanding, there will be an NP-led clinic here in Alberta called C3 for Seniors.

    However, it appears that you do not trust NP's... possibly because you think they aren't as competent?

    I graduated from the UoA med school, and luckily landed a cardiology residency at UAH. I've worked with numerous NP's and I can assure you that they are incredibly smart and competent enough to handle the care of acute patients. If you've worked with them in person, you'd probably agree with me.

    You have no idea how many times Registered Nurses have saved my butt! I may have spent 8 long years in university, but I don't know everything. RN's have seen and caught mistakes that I've written on orders and called me to correct them.

    It also takes 8 years to become a Nurse Practitioner, so their training and education isn't lacking by any means.

    So here's the thing, both MD and NP's are fundamentally different professionals. MD's can never replace the nursing profession, and the nursing profession can't replace the medical profession. Our scope of practice do overlap in certain cases, you just can't compare them as one being "higher" than the other as many believe so.

    As an MD, I say yes to more NP's since we need both GP's and NP's!!

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Team-based clinics are the solution you're after.

    Instead of thousands of singular physician offices running under professional corporations with independent billing, we should establish community care clinics that have salaried GPs, NPs, specialist consultants, mental health practitioners etc.

    This system is so far more efficient that you can cut down the number of docs by a large proportion, and it also increases patient outcomes. The double benefit is that there is no need to worry about competing with the states under salary cuts. With a more efficient system you can afford to compete while also saving money.

    There is a reason that the best, most efficiently run private systems in the world use team-based clinics. They are cheaper and more effective.
    I agree with this. We have overworked GP's with thousands of patients who have basically just become prescription mills that mostly just treat symptoms. Those team clinics that actually analyze you and determine what is ailing you to try and cure the condition and prevent future ailments are clearly a much better model. Doctors aren't even needed in much of that system. Nurses, lab techs, therapists, etc. could solve so many problems quickly if they all worked under the same roof with the same patient.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  5. #105

    Default Premier Notley's First Year

    I would like to think we have learned something from how things were not well handled here in the past. Previously when the Alberta government tried to cut the pay of medical professionals or lay some off, it caused many necessary and talented people to leave and go to places like the US where wages were better and or more stable. It also caused line ups here to get longer and patient care to suffer.

    While I have some concern about the amount spent on health care professionals, it is really a North America or perhaps even world wide problem that needs to be better addressed in a co-ordinated way by all parties involved. Unfortunately the US health care system is not that co-ordinated.

    Perhaps the move to more salaried positions vs. fee for service here will improve things somewhat, especially for people with more complex situations or conditions to get better care and more attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I have a pal whose wife is an anesthesiologist making 600k a year. That's where the money is going, they live a pretty good lifestyle, no worries of a layoff, paycut, or similar.
    What we pay our doctors is directly related to what they are paid in the US. If we don't come close, we lose them. I recall last year while skiing in Montana having a conversation with a medical group that was there for a retreat. The sales manager was telling me he was trying to poach doctors from a specific place in Calgary and was offering salaries of $600-800k, with signing bonuses that would make first year income over a million... and they had to relocate all expenses paid to Miami into company-paid executive housing.

    Our options are to try and compete, or get bottom-rung doctors.

  6. #106
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nosepass2 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    You are missing how GPs are paid, and you clearly have no idea what a GP does.
    You clearly have no idea that I work in the health care system, closely with family doctors, with nurse practitioners, and with their unions, in family care, emergent care, and urgent care. And have been doing this for a very long time now.

    You are a twit and need to learn to keep your boneheaded "armchair expert" ideas to yourself before you try and lecture someone who clearly knows more about a topic and industry than yourself.

    I hope that helps.

    Anger management problems got you down?

    You're the one suggesting that a GPs role could be replaced by an NP, and that slicing and dicing GP wages would fly over fine despite our pre-existent shortage. Seems odd that someone who works in health care would hold those views, because they are wrong.
    Well no, cutting down pay would not be a good thing for any professional.

    I do not believe that NP's are replacements to GP. But they do help cover the shortages in primary health care. In fact, I've heard of NP-led clinics in Ontario that has been pretty successful. From my understanding, there will be an NP-led clinic here in Alberta called C3 for Seniors.

    However, it appears that you do not trust NP's... possibly because you think they aren't as competent?

    I graduated from the UoA med school, and luckily landed a cardiology residency at UAH. I've worked with numerous NP's and I can assure you that they are incredibly smart and competent enough to handle the care of acute patients. If you've worked with them in person, you'd probably agree with me.

    You have no idea how many times Registered Nurses have saved my butt! I may have spent 8 long years in university, but I don't know everything. RN's have seen and caught mistakes that I've written on orders and called me to correct them.

    It also takes 8 years to become a Nurse Practitioner, so their training and education isn't lacking by any means.

    So here's the thing, both MD and NP's are fundamentally different professionals. MD's can never replace the nursing profession, and the nursing profession can't replace the medical profession. Our scope of practice do overlap in certain cases, you just can't compare them as one being "higher" than the other as many believe so.

    As an MD, I say yes to more NP's since we need both GP's and NP's!!
    I very much support the use of NPs and have advocated in many places on this site and elsewhere (including professionally) for the integration of more NPs in a primary care (community clinic) setting as a replacement for the current fractured single payer GP office system.

    My comments were only against MrOilers suggestion that we slice and dice GP wages and replace them with NPs, which it seems we agree is not a solution.

    For interests sake, what is your opinion as a MD of replacing the primary care system with multidisciplinary, team based, and salaried community care clinics?

    So imagine that if you were a GP you would make roughly the same amount, but you would be a salaried employee rather than billing separately for each patient. You would work in a AHS community clinic with a bunch of other GPs, along with specialists, NPs, and mental health practitioners in a collaborative team-based environment.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 20-05-2016 at 12:57 PM.

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I would like to think we have learned something from how things were not well handled here in the past. Previously when the Alberta government tried to cut the pay of medical professionals or lay some off, it caused many necessary and talented people to leave and go to places like the US where wages were better and or more stable. It also caused line ups here to get longer and patient care to suffer.

    While I have some concern about the amount spent on health care professionals, it is really a North America or perhaps even world wide problem that needs to be better addressed in a co-ordinated way by all parties involved. Unfortunately the US health care system is not that co-ordinated.

    Perhaps the move to more salaried positions vs. fee for service here will improve things somewhat, especially for people with more complex situations or conditions to get better care and more attention.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I have a pal whose wife is an anesthesiologist making 600k a year. That's where the money is going, they live a pretty good lifestyle, no worries of a layoff, paycut, or similar.
    What we pay our doctors is directly related to what they are paid in the US. If we don't come close, we lose them. I recall last year while skiing in Montana having a conversation with a medical group that was there for a retreat. The sales manager was telling me he was trying to poach doctors from a specific place in Calgary and was offering salaries of $600-800k, with signing bonuses that would make first year income over a million... and they had to relocate all expenses paid to Miami into company-paid executive housing.

    Our options are to try and compete, or get bottom-rung doctors.
    Which is exactly my point about those claiming the NDP aren't doing enough to cut costs to prevent the deficit. Healthcare and education are the two largest costs - nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. Our options are to either keep paying them and run a deficit, or somehow find a way to pay them less without them leaving or otherwise affecting quality of service.

    The NDP did not cause any of our fiscal woes, and simply spending less is not as easy or desirable as many seem to think it is.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The NDP did not cause any of our fiscal woes, and simply spending less is not as easy or desirable as many seem to think it is.
    If you have credit card debt, it doesn't matter who caused it, continuing to spend more on your daily expenses than your daily salary, isn't very clever. Nobody is saying the PC's were responsible before the NDP, IMO they were a mess. But that's not an excuse to continue spending way more per capita than we can afford, way more than other provinces do - at least the PC's had the horrible excuse of it being boom time, now we have the worse excuse of doing it because its a recession (which makes no sense whatsoever because salaries across the board have dropped in the province, if you can't cut back now, you never can). Like it or not, we simply can't afford the current level of government service. I'd rather wait times go up a little more now, class sizes go up a little more now, than have a collapse in a few years. We are digging a massive interest hole that will hurt us all in the future right now, before you know it, we will be like Ontario, losing an LRT line every year that could have been built, on interest costs because this generation greedily decided to continue spending more than it can afford.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-05-2016 at 01:48 PM.

  9. #109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    The NDP did not cause any of our fiscal woes, and simply spending less is not as easy or desirable as many seem to think it is.
    If you have credit card debt, it doesn't matter who caused it, continuing to spend more on your daily expenses than your daily salary, isn't very clever. Nobody is saying the PC's were responsible before the NDP, IMO they were a mess. But that's not an excuse to continue spending way more per capita than we can afford, way more than other provinces do - at least the PC's had the horrible excuse of it being boom time, now we have the worse excuse of doing it because its a recession (which makes no sense whatsoever because salaries across the board have dropped in the province, if you can't cut back now, you never can). Like it or not, we simply can't afford the current level of government service. I'd rather wait times go up a little more now, class sizes go up a little more now, than have a collapse in a few years. We are digging a massive interest hole that will hurt us all in the future right now, before you know it, we will be like Ontario, losing an LRT line every year that could have been built, on interest costs because this generation greedily decided to continue spending more than it can afford.
    I would LOVE to see every public union and servant's pay get cut to help close the gap, but as I said in my prior like 30 posts, it's not that easy. There's contracts. There's long term ramifications if people leave, producing knowledge gaps and creating inefficiencies.

    If it was as easy as flipping a switch and shaving 15% off everyone's salary for a couple years, it would have been done a long time ago.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  10. #110
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    In some regards the NDP looks to be taking the expiry of contracts as an opportunity.

    For instance they scrapped the plan to award the medical diagnostics contract (remember: a multi-billion dollar part of our budget) to a private party based on a questionable contract process.

    Critics have noted for years that our semi-private diagnostic system is more expensive and less effective than other public in-house systems. This could be a great opportunity for the NDP to bring down costs.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I very much support the use of NPs and have advocated in many places on this site and elsewhere (including professionally) for the integration of more NPs in a primary care (community clinic) setting as a replacement for the current fractured single payer GP office system.

    My comments were only against MrOilers suggestion that we slice and dice GP wages and replace them with NPs, which it seems we agree is not a solution.

    For interests sake, what is your opinion as a MD of replacing the primary care system with multidisciplinary, team based, and salaried community care clinics?

    So imagine that if you were a GP you would make roughly the same amount, but you would be a salaried employee rather than billing separately for each patient. You would work in a AHS community clinic with a bunch of other GPs, along with specialists, NPs, and mental health practitioners in a collaborative team-based environment.
    I would agree highly on a interdisciplinary led approach to a community clinic... it's a no-brainer in my opinion.

    Funding for physicians is a touchy thing, and I personally don't like talking about it myself lol. I'm aware of a few ways of funding.

    The "single player GP office system" is a fee-for-service funding which means that provided care are paid for each service regardless of how long it takes. This is something you can see in emergency rooms and rural clinics. It is the most familiar way of payment I think. However, there are some issues with this model, because it encourages high volume of services, doesn't reward doctors who spend quality time with patients, doesn't promote continuous care, doesn't fairly represent complexity of cases, and less incentives for rural areas.

    There are other ways of funding like remuneration, capitation, or blended. I won't go into details.

    As a resident at UAH, I'm already use to working in a collaborative multidisciplinary environment and so I can't speak on behalf of other GP's

  12. #112
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,882

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    They deserve to be ridiculed. Notley would be wise to avoid being associated with Wynne. And she should invite Wall over. Lots of opportunity to get additional viewpoints, and appear cooperative.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  14. #114
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The new Municipal Government Act amendments are slated to be introduced today. This is a very big deal for Alberta.

    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...government-act

  15. #115
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,530

    Default

    Jim Dinning praises carbon pricing policy.
    Yes, that Jim Dinning: former treasurer of Ralph Klein's government.
    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...arbon-tax-idea

    Full Op-Ed:
    http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/c...pricing-policy
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  16. #116
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    Sure Mr. Dinning, that will make the PCs very popular, just as it has made the Liberals very popular in Newfoundland and Labrador (I'm being sarcastic). Premier Dwight Ball's popularity dropped 43% since February primarily because of tax increases.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/05..._10130988.html

  17. #117
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I think I've said it many times here, but pigouvian taxes are the most conservative solution that is feasible to address this issue.

    It is not "fiscally conservative" to be against the carbon tax - it is the exact opposite. Anti-carbon taxers are just saying they would rather everyone contribute through income taxes rather than using the polluter pays principle, which is a basic tenet of fiscal conservatism.

    Dinning isn't being out of line with his ideology. He is just refusing to capitulate to the obscene demagoguery that the right wing has fallen victim to.

  18. #118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,281

    Default

    My comment was more how the electorate perceives tax increases. Typically the party's popularity drops in polls, happened to the NDP in MB and Liberals in NL. For Ontario it's been a steady decline in popularity, I'm not sure why Notley would want much advice from Wynne except what not to do.

  19. #119
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    1,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    My comment was more how the electorate perceives tax increases. Typically the party's popularity drops in polls, happened to the NDP in MB and Liberals in NL. For Ontario it's been a steady decline in popularity, I'm not sure why Notley would want much advice from Wynne except what not to do.
    It's OK for politicians to occasionally care about things other than their popularity/current polling numbers.

  20. #120
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    My comment was more how the electorate perceives tax increases. Typically the party's popularity drops in polls, happened to the NDP in MB and Liberals in NL. For Ontario it's been a steady decline in popularity, I'm not sure why Notley would want much advice from Wynne except what not to do.
    It happened to Brian Mulroney's PC party as well.

  21. #121
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Notley's meeting with Wynne imo had more to do with political posturing over pipelines then environmental issues.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    My comment was more how the electorate perceives tax increases. Typically the party's popularity drops in polls, happened to the NDP in MB and Liberals in NL. For Ontario it's been a steady decline in popularity, I'm not sure why Notley would want much advice from Wynne except what not to do.
    It happened to Brian Mulroney's PC party as well.
    The irony there is everyone upset about the GST ignored the mess of hidden taxes it replaced.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  23. #123
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    I'm not upset over the GST but could you give an example of what "hidden taxes" the GST replaced?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    The main one was the 13.5% Manufacturers Sales Tax but also the 11% Federal Telecommunications Tax. I'm most familiar with the MST as my family ran a welding business at the time. With the MST there were also a large number of industry specific rates and exemptions which made it fairly complicated to manage. For us the GST was great because it made our accounting a lot easier to do and understand.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #125
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    ^ I wasn't aware of the 11% tax but I thought the MST had more to do with Provincial then Federal.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  26. #126
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,405

    Default

    There are provincial MST's but there also used to be a federal one until the GST replaced it.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  27. #127
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,338

    Default

    The always increasing MST.

  28. #128
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    In Premier Notley's last budget they said they were going to invest close to $35B over 4 years in infrastructure. Granted the signing signature ink on the budget has barely had time to dry. Does anyone know if any of this money has been spent and if so on what? Or is it just too early to tell?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  29. #129
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Lots of previously allocated dollars in that, plus line items like MSI and maintenance of existing. Those two alone accounte for nearly 45% of cap plan for the next 5 years. Other huge sections are more "normal" stuff like basic water and wastewater infrastructure funding.

    The big items are all long in-the-works things like the new cancer centre in Calgary ($1.2B), Calgary and Edmonton ring road completion ($2.9B), school construction and modernization ($3.5B).

    You would be shocked at how quickly this money is used. A lot of the time when governments make big number announcements like that, a significant portion is just already allocated expenditures.

  30. #130
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...t-is-good-news

    Why the NDP thinks a $6.4-billion deficit is good news

    https://stopthesethings.com/2016/06/...th-wind-power/

    What’s Wrong with Wind Power? Everything is Wrong with Wind Power

    https://www.facebook.com/george.clark.184/posts/10207339385436546


    http://chattelevision.ca/__news/economic-development-minister-says-government-doesnt-create-jobs/


    https://www.facebook.com/19964833037...type=3&theater

    I don't understand the apology... It's good for "air farce" to blast the cutouts, it ok to burn a Stephen Harper cutout... But it's anti women to put a Notley cutout on a golf course? It's crazy how the media spins things...
    I wouldn't have apologized, nope


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...peal-1.3659561
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 30-06-2016 at 03:55 PM.
    Stop illegal aliens! Enforce the LAW!

  31. #131

    Default ‘Ontarians have never been this angry’: Poll respondents feel unprotected from power price increases

    Take note Notley - this is what you are going to face when your electricity policies massively drive up our power bills:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rice-increases

    Half of Ontario voters feel unprotected from price increases in the electricity system, a new poll shows.

    “Ontarians have never been this angry,” declares a presentation of the Innovative Research Group poll, to be revealed Wednesday afternoon at the Ontario Energy Association conference in Toronto. A draft of the presentation was shared with the National Post and the results of the 600-person poll show a growing distrust in the Ontario government’s handling of the energy file, in particular electricity prices.

    The poll about provincial politics and energy rates was commissioned by the Ontario Energy Association — an industry group representing everything from gas to electricity companies — for its annual conference.
    Its all very well to talk about how important climate change is, but actually implementing something that hits people's lifestyle / fundamental cost of living, is political suicide.

  32. #132
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Take note Notley - this is what you are going to face when your electricity policies massively drive up our power bills:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...rice-increases

    Half of Ontario voters feel unprotected from price increases in the electricity system, a new poll shows.

    “Ontarians have never been this angry,” declares a presentation of the Innovative Research Group poll, to be revealed Wednesday afternoon at the Ontario Energy Association conference in Toronto. A draft of the presentation was shared with the National Post and the results of the 600-person poll show a growing distrust in the Ontario government’s handling of the energy file, in particular electricity prices.

    The poll about provincial politics and energy rates was commissioned by the Ontario Energy Association — an industry group representing everything from gas to electricity companies — for its annual conference.
    Its all very well to talk about how important climate change is, but actually implementing something that hits people's lifestyle / fundamental cost of living, is political suicide.
    I agree with you, this may be a sleeper issue for the NDP. Nothing yet but could be bad. That being said, depending on implementation we may not see the increases like they have in Ontario. We are not using a feed-in tarrif. And we are using more natural gas, and wind. Overall costs may increase a small amount if managed right. If it is bungled, there could be a political risk here.

  33. #133

    Default

    New poll shows Alberta PCs leading Wildrose by almost 13 points, NDP in third

    Quite the shift. We still have a couple years to go so anything could happen. It will be interesting to see how the PC numbers change upon the selection of a party leader. I predict if Kinder Morgan gets the federal green light in December, NDP numbers will rise again.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  34. #134

    Default

    ^Kenney is saying exactly what most Albertan's believe in. He will be the next Premier, and we can be a competitive, successful, business oriented province again with a leaner public service. The looney left experiment won't be repeated for another 40 years as long as PC's don't lose their way again as they did post Klein.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 11:26 AM.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    New poll shows Alberta PCs leading Wildrose by almost 13 points, NDP in third


    Quite the shift. We still have a couple years to go so anything could happen. It will be interesting to see how the PC numbers change upon the selection of a party leader. I predict if Kinder Morgan gets the federal green light in December, NDP numbers will rise again.
    I like Notley even though I may not agree with some of her policies or how she goes about them. A lot of the discontent may come because the way Alberta's oil industry is at the moment. It's not Notley's fault but it's amazing how many people think it is. A lot can happen before the next provincial elections. The Provincial PC's seem to be lying low and Brian Jean is coasting. One thing I would hate to see is the PC's winning the next election. They need to sit it out for at least 8 years. I can envision a few of the old guard PC's coming out of the woodwork to run this next election. They'll be our saviors, NOT.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  36. #136

    Default

    ^Notley is as smart as anyone, but she is the only one in her entire party like that. The continued ramp up in government operational spending in a time when revenues have fallen is beyond irresponsible. The imposition of higher taxes, utility costs (about to come) and minimum wage at a time of economic crises, is ridiculous, not surprisingly nobody is investing in any sector, and small businesses (traditionally the growth employers in hard times) are collapsing left right and center. The only sector in the economy growing right now, is the government sector. That's not how you govern when times are tough, its certainly not what Harper did with the global economic crises, which Canada weathered better than anyone.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 11:49 AM.

  37. #137

    Default

    In Alberta's economy today do you not think any provincial government who got voted in during this cycle would not increase taxes or be faced with the same issues as Notley. When we depend on oil revenue and the jobs that sector creates how can we control what happens on the world stage as far as oil prices go. The slump in oil prices is not Alberta's fault, it's forces beyond it's control. How many times did we see the PC's lay off government workers/health care workers during down turns only to hire them back again. I have a friend who used to go overseas to hire nurses when the PC's cut the freeze and started to realize there was a shortage of nurses after they had just laid a bunch of them off 9 months previous. Notley seems to be keeping things on an even keel and not firing people just to hire them back. Keeps the economy stable when more people are working.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  38. #138

    Default

    ^Even if oil went back to $100 dollars tomorrow, and even with the new taxes, and even if investment in Alberta boomed again, the current government spending is obscene / unsustainable. The PC's post Klein were mostly to blame for that, caving into public sector unions, but we just can't afford it, not now, not ever. Its a spending problem, not a revenue problem, we are getting a level of service we can't afford, at an inflated cost which is unacceptable. We start facing the music slowly now, which Notley's government has done the opposite of, or we have massive cuts later. That' what this government is setting up by failing to address the fundamental broken economics / excesses, it sucks.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 12:04 PM.

  39. #139

    Default New poll shows Ablerta PCs leading

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    New poll shows Alberta PCs leading Wildrose by almost 13 points, NDP in third


    Quite the shift. We still have a couple years to go so anything could happen. It will be interesting to see how the PC numbers change upon the selection of a party leader. I predict if Kinder Morgan gets the federal green light in December, NDP numbers will rise again.
    This reminds me of a peculiar poll a while ago where the names and the percentage support actually got mixed up some how. I am sure the polling company tries to be careful with this, but accidents can happen. The percentages seem about right here, but I would think the PC's remain around the bottom not the top. However, perhaps the PC leadership contest has generated much more enthusiasm for them than is apparent.

    This is also puzzling because while there has not been a great deal of polling in Alberta, the numbers have seemed relatively stable over a number of months with Wildrose ahead, NDP second and PC's third. Hopefully someone else will poll soon so we can see if this is in fact the new trend or if it is a rogue poll.

  40. #140

    Default

    The government spending under the PC's was obscene. We probably don't know the half of what they wasted. 44 years they were in power and still didn't get it right. Notley, one year at the helm. Maybe wait until the end of her term before we judge what she has accomplished (or not).
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  41. #141

    Default

    ^She has increased government spending / hired a lot more government staff. Are you suggesting she is going to change tune and start firing them or cutting salaries across the board in year 2? I'll applaud if she does, but the odds are that are as high as me going to the moon.

    There is an unwritten rule in the private sector that when things go bad, you take your medicine / bad news / hit, and then you move on. Its the same in politics, Notley had her chance to do that in year 1, and she would have been forgiven / forgotten by year 4. She chose not to do that, but rather, to ramp up spending more and implement all sorts of taxes and regulations. Its irresponsible, and Albertan's know that, as the polls reflect.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 12:12 PM.

  42. #142

    Default

    ^Give me the source of where she has hired more government staff or is that just your inner voices telling you that. Where are you getting the impression from that I suggested she is going to start firing or cutting salaries, or is that your inner voices again?. The private sector is not the public sector. I don't know how many people on the forum have tried to tell you over the years that you cannot run government like a business. Private sector, public sector, two very different entities. Tattoo it somewhere on your person so you don't forget.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  43. #143

    Default

    100% agree. Edmonton is going to suffer disproportionately under a PC austerity budget which is going to come, no two ways about it. If you work in the public sector, start building up a rainy day fund now. Don't say you weren't warned.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^She has increased government spending / hired a lot more government staff. Are you suggesting she is going to change tune and start firing them or cutting salaries across the board in year 2? I'll applaud if she does, but the odds are that are as high as me going to the moon.

    There is an unwritten rule in the private sector that when things go bad, you take your medicine / bad news / hit, and then you move on. Its the same in politics, Notley had her chance to do that in year 1, and she would have been forgiven / forgotten by year 4. She chose not to do that, but rather, to ramp up spending more and implement all sorts of taxes and regulations. Its irresponsible, and Albertan's know that, as the polls reflect.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    not surprisingly nobody is investing in any sector
    TD forecasts Alberta to lead growth in 2017
    BMO forecasts Alberta to return to growth in 2017
    Despite recession, Alberta leads in investment per capita

    Alberta is still the best performing province in the entire country on a number of metrics, including investment. Our main export - oil - is not making us as much money due to it's low price. That is the single thing hurting our province. In every other metric, we're doing well - businesses are investing, we will see hiring (but it won't be rig workers), we will see an overall improvement. That said, unless oil goes up, we won't see as much tax revenue, and rig workers will still be left out because the diversification of the province doesn't make them qualified for the new jobs.

    NDP can't control oil prices, and nothing they are doing is hurting the non-oil investment in the province. The opposite appears to be true - their policy is getting other industries to invest here.
    Last edited by Chmilz; 19-10-2016 at 12:29 PM.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    not surprisingly nobody is investing in any sector
    TD forecasts Alberta to lead growth in 2017
    BMO forecasts Alberta to return to growth in 2017
    Despite recession, Alberta leads in investment per capita

    Alberta is still the best performing province in the entire country on a number of metrics, including investment. Our main export - oil - is not making us as much money due to it's low price. That is the single thing hurting our province. In every other metric, we're doing well - businesses are investing, we will see hiring (but it won't be rig workers), we will see an overall improvement. That said, unless oil goes up, we won't see as much tax revenue, and rig workers will still be left out because the diversification of the province doesn't make them qualified for the new jobs.

    NDP can't control oil prices, and nothing they are doing is hurting the non-oil investment in the province. The opposite appears to be true - their policy is getting other industries to invest here.
    While I don't disagree, I take economic predictions with a grain of salt - sort of like forecasting the weather. Sometimes they are fairly accurate, sometimes things turn out quite differently. However, I do think it is likely the economy will improve over the next few years whether it is due to an oil price recovery, diversification or some combination of both.

    Of course, if things improve economically enough, so will voters opinion of the government. It is not always fair as some things are beyond the government's control so they should not really receive the credit or blame, but that is how it goes. The next election is not for a while yet, so if things are on the upswing by then the government can take some credit or at least not be dragged down by a bad economy.

  46. #146

    Default

    People have very short memories. At this exact moment, based on what I see in news opinion pieces, social media, and my own experiences, it seems the anti-NDP sentiment is caused by a misplaced anger created by associating the NDP's minimum wage increase and carbon tax with the economic recession despite there being absolutely no current evidence that either of those have had any detrimental impact whatsoever. As far as I am able to tell, the entirety of this provinces issues are still 100% attributable to the decline in oil prices, of which any provincial government has zero control.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  47. #147
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz
    of which any provincial government has zero control.


    Well, not spending like drunken sailors when the times are good is certainly one coping tactic that the PC's never quite figured out for themselves.

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz
    of which any provincial government has zero control.


    Well, not spending like drunken sailors when the times are good is certainly one coping tactic that the PC's never quite figured out for themselves.
    The nature of politics in Canada seems to be such that any party would rather set the house on fire on their way out than let someone else move in and renovate it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Give me the source of where she has hired more government staff or is that just your inner voices telling you that.
    How about this? Per the Cbc. Not really surprising when her background is working for unions, and her husband is a union communications manager:

    Edmonton doing well


    The city-level performance rankings put Vancouver and Toronto-area cities in the top spots, with Edmonton ranking a solid No. 3, up seven spots from last May.

    Calgary's unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent, while Edmonton's remained unchanged at 7.0 per cent, both reported as the three-month moving average.

    "Curiously, Edmonton is still hanging around near the top of the ranking, likely reflecting the province's public-sector hiring binge," Kavcic said.

    Public sector employment is up almost 6 per cent since last May, while the private sector has shed 5 per cent of jobs in the provincial capital.


    Meantime, Calgary fell 22 spots over the past year as the fallout from the oil price collapse continues — now sharing the same 8.1 per cent jobless rate with Montreal, he noted.


    "Let's just say that this is extremely rare," Kavcic noted.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2016-1.3628424

    Brilliance, we already had a spending problem, so instead of at least keeping government employment levels flat, or a slight decline, lets ramp the size of government up... its not like we are going to have to pay it all back one day... government can just hire everyone who gets laid off in Edmonton can't they? Won't it all be unicorns and NDP rainbows then?
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 02:34 PM.

  50. #150
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Twin Brooks
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    People have very short memories. At this exact moment, based on what I see in news opinion pieces, social media, and my own experiences, it seems the anti-NDP sentiment is caused by a misplaced anger created by associating the NDP's minimum wage increase and carbon tax with the economic recession despite there being absolutely no current evidence that either of those have had any detrimental impact whatsoever. As far as I am able to tell, the entirety of this provinces issues are still 100% attributable to the decline in oil prices, of which any provincial government has zero control.
    You mean like blaming the National Energy Policy (NEP) in the early 1980s when the prime rate in Canada in August of 1981 was 22.75% and that month was 20.50% in the U.S.??
    Last edited by The Man From YEG; 19-10-2016 at 02:32 PM. Reason: Adding US Prime Rate

  51. #151

    Default

    ^places like Texas made plenty of money while Alberta was devastated by the NEP, even with those interest rates (which were a consequence of rampant inflation / governments printing too much money / poor monetary policy).

    When you lose your job / have your income slashed, spending more on day to day living costs (what the NDP is doing, ramping up government employment by 6%), isn't very smart. You can either prudently start reducing your spending, or wait until it all falls apart / the credit agencies start calling (the approach of Ontario, where they lose a subway line they could have had every year in interest costs because of past stupidity).
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 02:53 PM.

  52. #152
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Twin Brooks
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^places like Texas made plenty of money while Alberta was devastated by the NEP, even with those interest rates (which were a consequence of rampant inflation / governments printing too much money / poor monetary policy).

    When you lose your job, spending more on essentials (what the NDP is doing), isn't very smart.
    As usual, your inner voice leads you astray....

    http://www.federalreservehistory.org.../DetailView/44

  53. #153

    Default

    ^What does that have to do with Notley deciding to ramp up by 6% government staffing levels, when we already had one of the most expensive public sectors in Canada, that we couldn't afford with $100 oil, let alone the prices today? By the way, its exactly what I said, those interest rates were to fix the crazy inflation from governments printing too much money / poor monetary policy (I remember back then):

    Ultimately, this persistence paid off. By October 1982, inflation had fallen to 5 percent and long-run interest rates began to decline. The Fed allowed the federal funds rate to fall back to 9 percent, and unemployment declined quickly from the peak of nearly 11 percent at the end to 1982 to 8 percent one year later (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Goodfriend and King 2005). The threat of inflation was not completely gone, as the Fed would face a number of “inflation scares” throughout the 1980s. However, the commitment of Volcker and his successors to aggressively targeting price stability helped ensure that the double-digit inflation of the 1970s would not
    http://www.federalreservehistory.org.../DetailView/44
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 03:05 PM.

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^places like Texas made plenty of money while Alberta was devastated by the NEP, even with those interest rates (which were a consequence of rampant inflation / governments printing too much money / poor monetary policy).

    When you lose your job, spending more on essentials (what the NDP is doing), isn't very smart.
    As usual, your inner voice leads you astray....

    http://www.federalreservehistory.org.../DetailView/44
    Lucky Texas, an oil discovery was made that was profitable at $40/barrel, much lower cost than oil sands. There are a lot of things governments get credit or blame for which they don't deserve, but I doubt Notley has much to do with recent Texas oil discoveries.

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^What does that have to do with Notley deciding to ramp up by 6% government staffing levels, when we already had one of the most expensive public sectors in Canada, that we couldn't afford with $100 oil, let alone the prices today? By the way, its exactly what I said, those interest rates were to fix the crazy inflation from governments printing too much money / poor monetary policy (I remember back then):

    Ultimately, this persistence paid off. By October 1982, inflation had fallen to 5 percent and long-run interest rates began to decline. The Fed allowed the federal funds rate to fall back to 9 percent, and unemployment declined quickly from the peak of nearly 11 percent at the end to 1982 to 8 percent one year later (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Goodfriend and King 2005). The threat of inflation was not completely gone, as the Fed would face a number of “inflation scares” throughout the 1980s. However, the commitment of Volcker and his successors to aggressively targeting price stability helped ensure that the double-digit inflation of the 1970s would not
    http://www.federalreservehistory.org.../DetailView/44
    Well I guess we should just fire all the teachers and nurses and just stop paying for things that cost money. Wildrose supporters can go to the back of the line at hospitals with no lights on and their kids can learn in classrooms of 60 kids with no heat to help simulate what it would be like if we shaved $8B worth of public sector salary and basic infrastructure spending to balance the budget.

    Some people want cake but forget to realize they have to pay for it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  56. #156
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Give me the source of where she has hired more government staff or is that just your inner voices telling you that.
    How about this? Per the Cbc. Not really surprising when her background is working for unions, and her husband is a union communications manager:

    Edmonton doing well


    The city-level performance rankings put Vancouver and Toronto-area cities in the top spots, with Edmonton ranking a solid No. 3, up seven spots from last May.

    Calgary's unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent, while Edmonton's remained unchanged at 7.0 per cent, both reported as the three-month moving average.

    "Curiously, Edmonton is still hanging around near the top of the ranking, likely reflecting the province's public-sector hiring binge," Kavcic said.

    Public sector employment is up almost 6 per cent since last May, while the private sector has shed 5 per cent of jobs in the provincial capital.


    Meantime, Calgary fell 22 spots over the past year as the fallout from the oil price collapse continues — now sharing the same 8.1 per cent jobless rate with Montreal, he noted.


    "Let's just say that this is extremely rare," Kavcic noted.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...2016-1.3628424

    Brilliance, we already had a spending problem, so instead of at least keeping government employment levels flat, or a slight decline, lets ramp the size of government up... its not like we are going to have to pay it all back one day... government can just hire everyone who gets laid off in Edmonton can't they? Won't it all be unicorns and NDP rainbows then?
    The 6 per cent number you cite is based on the Stats Can Labour Force Survey, and is subject to significant sampling errors. The survey also refers to employment by all orders of government, not just the province.

    In the past year, employment levels in provincial departments and government agencies have gone up less than one per cent. See page 123 here: http://finance.alberta.ca/publicatio...n-complete.pdf

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Well I guess we should just fire all the teachers and nurses and just stop paying for things that cost money. Wildrose supporters can go to the back of the line at hospitals with no lights on and their kids can learn in classrooms of 60 kids with no heat to help simulate what it would be like if we shaved $8B worth of public sector
    That's basically what you end up with, if you ignore a problem. Instead of stopping hiring teachers and nurses beyond attrition, instead of putting an extra child in each classroom or making doctors get a slightly smaller five or six figure bonus, you can take the Notley approach of sticking your head in the sand, actually ramping up the number of nurses and teachers, and a future government not having a choice but to do mass firings in a few years time. It plays to your NDP union leader friends, but it is very short sighted / stupid.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 03:53 PM.

  58. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Well I guess we should just fire all the teachers and nurses and just stop paying for things that cost money. Wildrose supporters can go to the back of the line at hospitals with no lights on and their kids can learn in classrooms of 60 kids with no heat to help simulate what it would be like if we shaved $8B worth of public sector
    That's basically what you end up with, if you ignore a problem. Instead of stopping hiring teachers and nurses beyond attrition, instead of putting an extra child in each classroom, you can take the Notley approach of sticking your head in the sand, actually ramping up the number of nurses and teachers, and a future government not having a choice but to do mass firings in a few years time. It plays to your NDP union leader friends, but it is very short sighted / stupid.
    Or we could just pay every knuckledragger $400 to look the other way at the crumbling infrastructure, long lines at hospitals, and overcrowded classrooms, which is what Klein did. I honestly feel the NDP is taking the better approach by running a deficit to maintain the status quo level of service when our population is increasing than making hard cuts, putting more people in the unemployment line, and reducing overall service levels as the population grows and service levels stagnate.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  59. #159

    Default

    ^I know, in boom times the mantra is "We have an infrastructure deficit so we have to massively overspend", and in depression times the mantra is "We have a recession, so we have to stimulate". That's how you end up a basket case like Ontario is, most indebted government on earth, losing a subway line every year to bankers. Its a lot tougher for a politician to say "we can't actually afford this anymore, we have to cut back". Prentice tried that, but nobody was ready to listen, given how the PC's made the mess, but he was right. Now Kenney is hitting that tone, and he is winning support because of it, as people are ready to listen.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 03:59 PM.

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I know, in boom times the mantra is "We have an infrastructure deficit so we have to massively overspend", and in depression times the mantra is "We have a recession, so we have to stimulate". That's how you end up a basket case like Ontario is, most indebted government on earth, losing a subway line every year to bankers. Its a lot tougher for a politician to say "we can't actually afford this anymore, we have to cut back". Prentice tried that, but nobody was ready to listen, given how the PC's made the mess, but he was right. Now Kenney is hitting that tone, and he is winning support because of it, as people are ready to listen.
    Really? Which Subway lines did they lose. I went to Toronto last month and they all seemed to be there still and working ok. Is there one called the TD Line now? If so, I must have missed it.

  61. #161

    Default

    ^moa, I looked up some stats and it appears you are correct about Notley hiring more public servants. Now, I'm not entirely sure if that is a bad thing as there is no indication as to what departments they went to. I don't believe cutting back on public servants is the way to go in a recession. The more people working the more taxes they are paying the more money being spent.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Well I guess we should just fire all the teachers and nurses and just stop paying for things that cost money. Wildrose supporters can go to the back of the line at hospitals with no lights on and their kids can learn in classrooms of 60 kids with no heat to help simulate what it would be like if we shaved $8B worth of public sector
    That's basically what you end up with, if you ignore a problem. Instead of stopping hiring teachers and nurses beyond attrition, instead of putting an extra child in each classroom, you can take the Notley approach of sticking your head in the sand, actually ramping up the number of nurses and teachers, and a future government not having a choice but to do mass firings in a few years time. It plays to your NDP union leader friends, but it is very short sighted / stupid.
    Or we could just pay every knuckledragger $400 to look the other way at the crumbling infrastructure, long lines at hospitals, and overcrowded classrooms, which is what Klein did. I honestly feel the NDP is taking the better approach by running a deficit to maintain the status quo level of service when our population is increasing than making hard cuts, putting more people in the unemployment line, and reducing overall service levels as the population grows and service levels stagnate.
    We're somewhat in the same state we were in in the early 1980s. Except then borrowing costs were far, far higher.

    I see a lot wrong with failing to prepare for a downturn, but once it's started I don't see anything all too terribly wrong with trying to create a soft landing. During the boom we should have banked a lot of cash, set up a tax code that would stabilize government revenues when royalties dropped off a cliff and to give gov't some flexibility to temporarily cut tax rates and increase offsetting borrowing to make up for decli king tax receipts caused by dramatic private sector cutbacks, business failure, etc. Since we did 'dick all' to prepare for this oil price dip, we are now in the state of having to do what the NDP is doing, or go pick sacrificial lambs to add to the masses of private sector losses - knowing that any dramatic government spending cutbacks generally turn directly into additional private sector job losses.

    When the private sector is in panic mode, adding rapid and deep government cuts is basically a recipe for a death spiral.
    Last edited by KC; 19-10-2016 at 04:36 PM.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Really? Which Subway lines did they lose. I went to Toronto last month and they all seemed to be there still and working ok. Is there one called the TD Line now? If so, I must have missed it.
    Ontario pays 11.4b each year of interest cost on its $300b + of debt. That's a very nice subway line every year. Its Millwoods to WEM LRT, every single year. And if interest rates go up, its going to get more horrific:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...est-rates-rise

    We are going to be well on our way to the same basket case status, with probably $50b of debt in just four years by the time Notley's crew is done. Give her another term and it will be 100b. Then 200b. And that's on a much smaller population than Ontario. Its easy to just supposedly keep spend on services growing at "respectable levels", on the basis of us always being in a boom or a recession, until you realize living on the credit card just destroys the wealth and infrastructure opportunities for future generations. Its harder to have the courage to say to taxpayers "this is what we can afford / what you have to manage with, its still among the best government services in the world". Once the interest starts compounding against the debt, the debt rapidly grows, even at our historically low rates, which may not be around forever.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-10-2016 at 04:47 PM.

  64. #164
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Man From YEG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    People have very short memories. At this exact moment, based on what I see in news opinion pieces, social media, and my own experiences, it seems the anti-NDP sentiment is caused by a misplaced anger created by associating the NDP's minimum wage increase and carbon tax with the economic recession despite there being absolutely no current evidence that either of those have had any detrimental impact whatsoever. As far as I am able to tell, the entirety of this provinces issues are still 100% attributable to the decline in oil prices, of which any provincial government has zero control.
    You mean like blaming the National Energy Policy (NEP) in the early 1980s when the prime rate in Canada in August of 1981 was 22.75% and that month was 20.50% in the U.S.??
    When Notley raised the min wage last time it cost me and dozens of others working from home their jobs. Businesses all over the province have reacted already to the last minimum wage increase. Prices are going up and shifts are dropping. Obviously, you are a high wage earner, so you don't see the impact this has caused Albertan's on minimum wage. We are voters as well. As for the carbon tax, its too early to tell but its been in the news as well, that groceries will be going up. Homeowners all be paying an average of $600/year on their heating bills thanks to the phasing out of coal plants/carbon tax install. So the tax for some of us is revenue neutral. As for Notley's first year, I'm giving it a F-. I can't wait for the next provincial election to vote premier out of office.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  65. #165
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Really? Which Subway lines did they lose. I went to Toronto last month and they all seemed to be there still and working ok. Is there one called the TD Line now? If so, I must have missed it.
    Ontario pays 11.4b each year of interest cost on its $300b + of debt. That's a very nice subway line every year. Its Millwoods to WEM LRT, every single year. And if interest rates go up, its going to get more horrific:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...est-rates-rise

    We are going to be well on our way to the same basket case status, with probably $50b of debt in just four years by the time Notley's crew is done. Give her another term and it will be 100b. Then 200b. And that's on a much smaller population than Ontario. Its easy to just supposedly keep spend on services growing at "respectable levels", on the basis of us always being in a boom or a recession, until you realize living on the credit card just destroys the wealth and infrastructure opportunities for future generations. Its harder to have the courage to say to taxpayers "this is what we can afford / what you have to manage with, its still among the best government services in the world". Once the interest starts compounding against the debt, the debt rapidly grows, even at our historically low rates, which may not be around forever.
    Ontario's debt clock:

    http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-d...ntario-s-debt/

    Alberta's debt clock:

    http://www.debtclock.ca/provincial-d...lberta-s-debt/
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  66. #166
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    When the private sector is in panic mode, adding rapid and deep government cuts is basically a recipe for a death spiral.
    Nobody is suggesting deep cuts though. And does anybody really think the NDP's primary reason for not making cuts is a fear of harming the economy? They are not going to cut because they don't want to tick off their public union base\bosses.

    Truth is they don't have a clue how business works and they have their fingers firmly crossed. Their only hope is a swift recovery because they have no idea how to get out of this mess. Now is the time for pragmatism and they are doubling down on ideology and radical environmental policies that are exacerbating the situation.
    Last edited by 2cents; 20-10-2016 at 07:54 AM.

  67. #167

    Default

    ^exactly. The Alberta party has said it best, its irresponsible of the NDP to actually be increasing spending, on the false logic that increasing spending is better than Klein style cuts. The reality is the only time you end up needing those sort of Klein cuts (which Ontario might have no choice but to do soon), are if you let the debt just grow and grow, instead of hold it in check:

    Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark, meanwhile, said Notley's speech framed Alberta's problems in a dichotomy that doesn't exist in reality.

    "She's creating what I believe is a false polarization, telling Albertans the only choice you have is massive debt and deficit on one hand – which is what this government is doing – or massive cutbacks on the front lines to health and education," he said.

    "There is a better way. There is a middle way that we can pursue."

    The Alberta Party wants to see public sector salaries frozen and Alberta's relatively high per-capita spending gradually brought down to the national average.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...etup-1.3810219

    That's pretty much what I believe (first time I have actually seen Alberta party lay out something logical, good for them), gradually bring our spending down to the national average per capita. Don't increase it / make it worse. Instead the NDP is betting on a recovery bailing the government out, it is not a fiscally responsible economic plan, because we all know when times are good, spending actually goes up even more (if those unions backing her won't take a cut now, what makes her think they won't ask for a lot more on a recovery?). Its also not how you ever save / build up those Norway style funds some people dream the rest of Canada will let us build up (if the best we ever do is get back in balance in a boom year):

    "We can handle the current dramatic drop in government revenue — for a time," she said.

    "But as our economy improves in coming years, the provincial budget is going to have to come back into balance. That means we can protect health care and education … but that also means we are very unlikely to have headroom for major new spending proposals until recovery arrives."
    The price of Oil today is $52. Its not actually that bad, there is no reason we can't have a government that can provide a good level of services with the bonus revenue from that which other provinces don't get, and provide policies that let business grow instead of constraining business.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 08:56 AM.

  68. #168
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^exactly. The Alberta party has said it best, its irresponsible of the NDP to actually be increasing spending, on the false logic that increasing spending is better than Klein style cuts. The reality is the only time you end up needing those sort of Klein cuts (which Ontario might have no choice but to do soon), are if you let the debt just grow and grow, instead of hold it in check:
    The truth about the NDP in general, not just this Notley incantation, is that they are not the conscience of Canada or the party of the working man. The inconvenient truth is that they envy success and believe that it must be shared. Doesn't matter if that success, most likely, has been acquired through hard work.

    If they were really about helping the working man they wouldn't be so cavalier about raising taxes and levies. I guess some of them believe that through gov't intervention one day a more just society will be created. Hasn't happened yet, but one day... those ppl are mostly the young and naive, check out the average age of their caucus. Create a carbon tax, give a rebate, shut down coal, subsidize new energy, raise the min wage, give a small business credit.... doesn't everyone know how this is going to end... the way it always ends. NDP out the door, clean up the mess.

  69. #169

    Default

    Unions did not elect NDP. Voters did. Everyday people wanted a wholesale change and they voted for it. Unless you're completely out to lunch, you'll remember that Redford was put in place by unions. I don't think they made some immediate pivot to NDP. I'm pretty sure union heads were still with the PC's last election, but everyday people made their own choice.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^exactly. The Alberta party has said it best, its irresponsible of the NDP to actually be increasing spending, on the false logic that increasing spending is better than Klein style cuts. The reality is the only time you end up needing those sort of Klein cuts (which Ontario might have no choice but to do soon), are if you let the debt just grow and grow, instead of hold it in check:
    The truth about the NDP in general, not just this Notley incantation, is that they are not the conscience of Canada or the party of the working man. The inconvenient truth is that they envy success and believe that it must be shared. Doesn't matter if that success, most likely, has been acquired through hard work.

    If they were really about helping the working man they wouldn't be so cavalier about raising taxes and levies. I guess some of them believe that through gov't intervention one day a more just society will be created. Hasn't happened yet, but one day... those ppl are mostly the young and naive, check out the average age of their caucus. Create a carbon tax, give a rebate, shut down coal, subsidize new energy, raise the min wage, give a small business credit.... doesn't everyone know how this is going to end... the way it always ends. NDP out the door, clean up the mess.
    I'm quite old but I'm not against change. So I think it's great that we have a party of young people seeking change. It would be nice to have more people with more thoughtful experience and a broader range of experience and hence empathy but that's just not going to happen. In the US it's a really old geezer (Trump) pushing change too, but his type of change sure isn't about trying anything new or novel.

    What I don't understand is what people actually want to see the government do. The private sector thoroughly screws up and so starts retrenching in a major way to save themselves, that means a whole lot of things are changing at the aggregate level, like a major spending collapse. So what should the provincial government be doing - exactly?

    Think about it, here we are:
    - corp and personal tax receipts drop,
    - asset sales plummet (royalties),
    - service demands and costs increase (people in trouble due to job loss),
    - the decades ago predicted aging demographics begin to hit thus increasing demands and so costs,
    - immigration due to development creates new and
    - ongoing demands on infrastructure (school construction, etc).

    So those who don't like the NDP are saying:
    Don't raise debt.
    Don't raise taxes.

    So what exactly should the government be doing?
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2016 at 10:18 AM.

  71. #171

    Default

    I should not better but ...
    Think about it, here we are:
    - corp and personal tax receipts drop,
    - asset sales plummet (royalties),
    - service demands and costs increase (people in trouble due to job loss),
    - the decades ago predicted aging demographics begin to hit thus increasing demands and so costs,
    - immigration due to development creates new and
    - ongoing demands on infrastructure (school construction, etc).

    So those who don't like the NDP are saying:
    Don't raise debt.
    Don't raise taxes.

    So what exactly should the government be doing?
    Ok ... People voted for the platform the NDP put forward. Not a lot of the ideology that has come out of left (pun intended) field.

    What should they have done being elected in a collapsing economy?
    - Created stability for the private sector across all industries ... they did not. Instead they embarked on the Royalty review, Bill 6, tax changes, levies etc ... instability
    - Created stability economically ... maintaining and/or reducing cost of government through efficiencies and not increased staffing and expenses. They didn't need to cut ... just maintain
    - Invested in active industry with growth potential ... Tourism, Agriculture, manufacturing (something Alberta excels at in machining and other areas). Instead: Travel Alberta is a bigger joke than under the right, heavy cuts in the Agriculture department you get the point. Our Oil field manufacturing, with promotion/co-ordination, could adapt to other sectors ... but we don't even try.
    - Skip the coal shut down till later to a)maintain stability b) maintain our power price advantage c) to exploit our clean burn coal tech (depending on source our latest coal plants are on top or or even with natural gas) with minor investment in research to improve further and then market or give to China/India and other high coal users (which would drop worldwide GHG emissions far more than the phase out) which would have created jobs in everything from R&D to manufacturing. Then when the economy was back on track, unemployment lower, alternatives more evolved, embark on change.

    At a minimum the above approach would have maintained investor confidence, reduced impending deficits and at a minimum maintained some of the jobs lost and started an intelligent diversification of the economy.

    IMHO

    You asked ...bye for another few months.
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 20-10-2016 at 11:43 AM.

  72. #172
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Unions did not elect NDP. Voters did. Everyday people wanted a wholesale change and they voted for it. Unless you're completely out to lunch, you'll remember that Redford was put in place by unions. I don't think they made some immediate pivot to NDP. I'm pretty sure union heads were still with the PC's last election, but everyday people made their own choice.
    Nobody voted for the NDP, they voted against Redford, the Smith crossing, Prentice's "math is hard", etc, etc, etc. If you believe this wasn't a protest vote then I guess we don't have much to talk about.

    And if you think that the public unions aren't at least partially pulling Notley's strings then you are out to lunch.

  73. #173

    Default

    On creating "stability for the private sector".

    Royalty review. A non issue. I've been an investor since I was a teenager. The royalty review would have meant little to investors, even if they'd heard about it. As I've said before, a change to the expected price of oil, interest rates, or even exchange rates has a far, far greater impact.


    Tax changes: So keep taxes the same or drop them. I can go with that.

    However, note that we had a 2% higher GST (broad based affecting near everything) before, and cutting it didn't appear to create massive economic gains. Could be wrong though. How much additional foreign investment arrived as a direct result of that tax cut? Did share prices spike when it was announced?


    Bill 6: It hits a few farms, ranches etc. but I'd guess that it's really a non issue in terms of the big picture for agricultural production in Alberta.



    On creating "stability economically

    "maintaining and/or reducing cost of government through efficiencies: Always a great honourable goal. As Buffett once said, something like: 'good management doesn't wake up one day and decide to control costs... they live cost control.' The problem I see is: What percentage of expenditures would be saved in year 1? It's like Alberta's carbon tax will do zip in terms of impacting global greenhouse cases. Government efficiencies - after four decades of Conservative rule - wouldn't yield substantial savings in year number one, but the royalties have tanked, in year number one.



    "not increased staffing and expenses"
    So no new public sector jobs. I can live with that, too. Leave job creation to the private sector.
    So how has that private sector responded as oil prices fell? What about this business of opening new schools? Leave them empty? Maybe. Some tough love there. More home schooling might be the answer or have parent hire laid off oil sector workers to home school. What about administering new initiatives, dealing with the fire in Ft. McMurray, etc. I'm not sure how avoid creating new jobs when demand levels within certain services demand more labour. We could privatize education and fire fighting to start with but that's hard to do in year one. Actually, fire fighting is largely already privatized. Stopping people from aging, getting them to live with the education system as it is though is a tough one. People aren't happy with the current curriculum of the system's ability to handle the influx of new students with diverse needs.


    "Invested in active industry with growth potential ... Tourism, Agriculture, manufacturing (something Alberta excels at in machining and other areas). "
    Using what money? Taxes receipts are plummeting.



    "Skip the coal shut down till later to a)maintain stability b) maintain our power price advantage c) to exploit our clean burn coal tech (depending on source our latest coal plants are on top...:"

    Even minor investments in R&D cost taxpayer money - that's at odds with reducing taxes and maintaining or reducing government jobs and not raising taxes and maintaining "stability". I need more information on where that money comes from.

    Coal hasn't been shut down. In year one there has been no change but for the power purchase contracts fiasco. (It's debatable whether this operating response would have come to light given more time.) It's debatable whether the contracts issue has impacted our economy in year one.

    The coal shut down is supposed to help everyone's health long term and cut green house gasses. I'm very suspicious of the health benefits study but they were the scientific experts so who am I to know better.
    Nonetheless, what are the year one impacts? The impact on attracting investment might be much much larger for certain sectors but the prospect of massive new utility sector spend on huge numbers of windmills, solar farms, plant efficiency upgrades, etc. must be incredibly mouth wateringly appealing vs. just maintaining the operating status quo for old businesses. Higher net costs, though, are higher net costs and thus we all suffer financially though may gain through the battle for better health and climate sustenance. By the way, I've held shares in TransAlta, Capital Power (even owned them very recently) and currently hold shares in a very high risk emerging clean coal technology company. In the past I've owned Westport Innovations shares - owned them for years actually - and have really got hammered at times investing in such domestic emerging technologies companies (Like lottery tickets, I consider it just donating money away - with a low probability kicker on the upside).

    Nonetheless, I'd guess that in year one, the coal plant plans issue hasn't really impacted Alberta. The lack of diversification effort also hasn't impacted the economy except in saving us money. Additionally, should government be involved in such private sector issues? No mater how you look at it, diversification requires government investment and spending. In the 1980s we were all looking forward to this and in the 1990s we were all disappointed in the government's massive losses as a result of its crap-shooting diversification attempts.
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2016 at 12:14 PM.

  74. #174
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So what exactly should the government be doing?
    I am talking about the NDP (socialism) in general. At the end of the day it is about human nature. You have sloth, greed and envy in everyone in varying degrees. I'm not religious but I think there is a lot of wisdom in the seven deadly sins.

    Socialism may be well-intended but it has failed because sloth, greed and envy results in a "sharing of the wealth or success" which isn't sustainable. And it's not going to work here for that reason.

    So what should they do... when you have no experience and limited skill, first do no harm. Which is pretty much exactly what they aren't doing.

  75. #175

    Default

    ^they should have just picked one or two items (like some marquee infrastructure projects to stimulate), its trying to do too much, without having any real idea of how its all going to inter-act for the broader economy (which nobody can fully predict because there are so many moving pieces). Not surprisingly, it has created mass uncertainty, and the need to ramp up government staff to implement all these ideas (at a time we are already in massive deficit). Its one thing to have uncertainty which results in poor business confidence / few investments, when oil is at $100 (still not very smart), but its quite another to do that when Oil is below 50.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 12:16 PM.

  76. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So what exactly should the government be doing?
    I am talking about the NDP (socialism) in general. At the end of the day it is about human nature. You have sloth, greed and envy in everyone in varying degrees. I'm not religious but I think there is a lot of wisdom in the seven deadly sins.

    Socialism may be well-intended but it has failed because sloth, greed and envy results in a "sharing of the wealth or success" which isn't sustainable. And it's not going to work here for that reason.

    So what should they do... when you have no experience and limited skill, first do no harm. Which is pretty much exactly what they aren't doing.
    Do no harm - sound like how I start new jobs. Just try to learn how things are done on the assumption that years of evolution already took place to make things the way they are.

    Nonetheless, I've learned that that evolution often led to a perpetuation of a system of survival and profit for vested internal interests at the cost of the people supposedly being served (i.e. clients, customers, taxpayers, etc.).

    If the electorate wanted absolutely no change, why did they not just vote back in the party of the status quo? Or did the public vote for the status quo by voting NDP vs. a PC party that would now suddenly slash and burn the weakest, least influential Albertans' to support their vested interests?

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^they should have just picked one or two items (like some marquee infrastructure projects to stimulate), its trying to do too much, without having any real idea of how its all going to inter-act for the broader economy (which nobody can fully predict because there are so many moving pieces). Not surprisingly, it has created mass uncertainty, and the need to ramp up government staff to implement all these ideas (at a time we are already in massive deficit). Its one thing to have uncertainty which results in poor business confidence / few investments, when oil is at $100 (still not very smart), but its quite another to do that when Oil is below 50.
    Implement all these ideas? Which are?

    Also are you suggesting a do nothing but ribbon cutting exercise? How much money needs to be spent to "stimulate" the economy?

    So again with the lack of detail.

    Where does the money come from?

    A little hundred million or infrastructure project might look great but to what effect?

    Alberta grew accustomed to how much annual capital investment over the last decade? It also grew accustomed to how much annual royalty income (asset sales) over the past decade? Both of those have plummeted. So, the bubble burst as predicted and now we are forced into some sort of knee jerk response for lack of planning.

    We now need some detailed, costed proposals and not platitudes.


    Personally, I love it that the NDP is now having to deal with reality but sure feel bad that the PC's aren't in there having to clean up the mess they created. Glad though that they aren't in there just piling sacrificial lambs, and crushing the lives of the weakest members of our society. (That's pretty much what the US has done over the past decade of strife there with their survival of the fittest approach, where the big bankers are the fittest and the old, laid-off middle and low class workers are the sacrifices.)
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2016 at 12:36 PM.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Implement all these ideas? Which are?.
    - carbon tax
    - accelerated coal phase out
    - minimum wage increase
    - higher top marginal tax rate, etc.

    The carbon tax alone is burecratic nightmare. A large company with, say, 30 entitles that buy and sell fuels, is going to need to register every single one of those entities for carbon tax, design new systems to track fuel purchases and sales, and apply for exemptions for a big chunk of it as wholesale sales (which the Alberta government is going to have to process and then audit). Then there is all the extra law staff government needs, and legal fees, to deal with the implications of the power companies all breaking their contracts, something which should have been factored in.

    I've said before, I'm fine with borrowing money for infrastructure that has a long term pay back. Projects like LRT are perfect to do now (and green as well). I'm not fine with borrowing money just to pay higher salaries to government workers / hire more government workers from the NDP elite from Toronto, to implement rushed and poorly thought out new regulations.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 12:41 PM.

  79. #179
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If the electorate wanted absolutely no change, why did they not just vote back in the party of the status quo? Or did the public vote for the status quo by voting NDP vs. a PC party that would now suddenly slash and burn the weakest, least influential Albertans' to support their vested interests?
    Did you read the part where I said the election was a protest vote? I guess not. The ppl wanted change, unless you are the ruling party, elections are always about change. And sometimes even hope and change. Hope in one hand, something in the other... but in Alberta for the last 44 years change has been about a change in the leader of the PCs. This time around there really wasn't a liberal party, and the Wild Rose had a new grieving leader and ppl aren't really socially conservative anymore. People didn't like Prentice calling a spade a spade with his "look in the mirror". And Notley was new and is smart so ppl thought what the heck let's give her a try... perfect storm really.

    Hopefully the right will unite and we all will learn something, but probably not much. Considering the last 50 years of politics in Alberta.

    Big thing ppl are learning is that the NDP aren't this sincere bunch of do-gooders, they have a bit of a nasty dirty streak in them, kind of like the PCs, or maybe its just a power thing or one of those deadly sins.
    Last edited by 2cents; 20-10-2016 at 12:40 PM.

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Implement all these ideas? Which are?.
    - carbon tax
    - accelerated coal phase out
    - minimum wage increase
    - higher top marginal tax rate, etc.

    The carbon tax alone is burecratic nightmare. A large company with, say, 30 entitles that buy and sell fuels, is going to need to register every single one of those entities for carbon tax, and apply for exemptions for a big chunk (which the Alberta government is going to have to process). Then there is all the extra law staff to deal with the implications of the power companies all breaking their contracts, something which should have been factored in.
    Four items is too much?

    The higher MTR hits those with jobs making a good living. Recall the surtaxes that have been used in the past. No big difference.
    Coal phase out - it's on the horizon and isn't likely costing a lot in government expenditure - just some bureaucrats engaging in negotiations and discussions.

  81. #181

    Default

    ^royalty review as well (which turned out a big fat, "we were wrong", but lets tinker with the details anyway to create work so we need to hire more government staff). Yeah its way too much at a time of $50 oil.

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    If the electorate wanted absolutely no change, why did they not just vote back in the party of the status quo? Or did the public vote for the status quo by voting NDP vs. a PC party that would now suddenly slash and burn the weakest, least influential Albertans' to support their vested interests?
    Did you read the part where I said the election was a protest vote? I guess not. The ppl wanted change, unless you are the ruling party, elections are always about change. And sometimes even hope and change. Hope in one hand, something in the other... but in Alberta for the last 44 years change has been about a change in the leader of the PCs. This time around there really wasn't a liberal party, and the Wild Rose had a new grieving leader and ppl aren't really socially conservative anymore. People didn't like Prentice calling a spade a spade with his "look in the mirror". And Notley was new and is smart so ppl thought what the heck let's give her a try... perfect storm really.

    Hopefully the right will unite and we all will learn something, but probably not much. Considering the last 50 years of politics in Alberta.

    Big thing ppl are learning is that the NDP aren't this sincere bunch of do-gooders, they have a bit of a nasty dirty streak in them, kind of like the PCs, or maybe its just a power thing or one of those deadly sins.
    People voted for change but you say the new party should do no harm.

    So, you'll have to explain what exactly would be the positive change the people wanted, and where the funding should have come from to implement that positive change? Plus how obtaining that funding wouldn't have been seen as doing harm.

  83. #183

    Default

    ^people didn't vote for a lot of these hidden agenda changes which weren't in their manifesto, and the polls now reflect people realize they made a big mistake. You might think this stuff is great, which is fine, but most people Alberta realize its horrible leadership to do this in this economy. Notley seems smart but she has stupidly given in to a bunch of ideological hair brained schemes from the NDP Tornoto elite she hired to advise her, an elite who don't understand the Alberta economy.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 12:52 PM.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^royalty review as well (which turned out a big fat, "we were wrong", but lets tinker with the details anyway to create work so we need to hire more government staff). Yeah its way too much at a time of $50 oil.
    Nickels and dimes in terms of the problems we face.

    And I speak from experience, being the kid of Great Depression parents, I've always saved scraps of wood, parts, everything, plus go to garage sales, etc. to avoid spending money that I don't have to spend, but all of that pales in comparison to my loss of salary when I quit my 'career' job. You've been great at keepignthe bg picture issue in perspective but now focussing on the subjective and 'relatively' trivial matters is right out of scale with the size of the problem Alberta faces.

    The PCs also conducted a royalty review with far worse suggested conclusions and resulting uproar but as long as oil prices were high, the big money still poured in. It was a non issue before and it was a non-issue for the NDP's performance as well.

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^people didn't vote for a lot of these hidden agenda changes which weren't in their manifesto, and the polls now reflect people realize they made a big mistake. You might think this stuff is great, which is fine, but most people Alberta realize its horrible leadership to do this in this economy. Notley seems smart but she has stupidly given in to a bunch of ideological hair brained schemes from the NDP Tornoto elite she hired to advise her, an elite who don't understand the Alberta economy.
    The polls would have trashed them no matter what. Oil prices haven't recovered and that's what drives people's sense of happiness with the party in power here. How did Getty do? He lost his seat.

  86. #186
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So, you'll have to explain what exactly would be the positive change the people wanted, and where the funding should have come from to implement that positive change? Plus how obtaining that funding wouldn't have been seen as doing harm.
    You seem to really want to believe that Albertans made a deliberate and well-reasoned choice to elect the NDP. They didn't. They were as surprised as everyone else when it happened.

    And you also want to believe that the NDP have a deliberate and well-reasoned plan for Alberta. They don't.

    I don't think ppl really want a lot of change though in terms of polices, we have a pretty good quality of life here in Alberta. Ppl were sick of the PCs and scandals that come with 44 years of majorities. But ppl have unrealistic expectations too.

    Sure ppl want more and better infrastructure and schools and healthcare and everything else. But it isn't really possible esp. since we are already paying the highest per capita of any province Canada. We don't have a revenue problem, its a spending problem.

    But we will probably get a provincial gst like everybody else.
    Last edited by 2cents; 20-10-2016 at 01:42 PM.

  87. #187

    Default

    Ok KC ... against my better judgment I'll play with one more post.

    Royalty review. A non issue. I've been an investor since I was a teenager. The royalty review would have meant little to investors, even if they'd heard about it. As I've said before, a change to the expected price of oil, interest rates, or even exchange rates has a far, far greater impact.
    The Royalty review is part of the overall instability created ... as was preached in the media and by economists at the time. Did it have a direct impact? Possibly not. But in conjunction with the other action did create instability.

    Tax changes: So keep taxes the same or drop them. I can go with that.

    However, note that we had a 2% higher GST (broad based affecting near everything) before, and cutting it didn't appear to create massive economic gains. Could be wrong though. How much additional foreign investment arrived as a direct result of that tax cut? Did share prices spike when it was announced?
    Anytime money stays in your pocket you spend it. Boosting the economy. Moreover the tax changes added to the reality or perception of instability as well as burning up government dollars internally.

    "Invested in active industry with growth potential ... Tourism, Agriculture, manufacturing (something Alberta excels at in machining and other areas). "
    Using what money? Taxes receipts are plummeting.
    Using existing dollars ... rather than cutting as happened with Ag. Rather than blowing huge bucks, higher than previous, on advertising. Rather than burning dollars on internal paper changes (tax changes etc).

    "not increased staffing and expenses"
    So no new public sector jobs. I can live with that, too. Leave job creation to the private sector.
    So how has that private sector responded as oil prices fell? What about this business of opening new schools? Leave them empty? Maybe. Some tough love there. More home schooling might be the answer or have parent hire laid off oil sector workers to home school. [IMG]file:///C:\Users\user\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_ image001.gif[/IMG] What about administering new initiatives, dealing with the fire in Ft. McMurray, etc. I'm not sure how avoid creating new jobs when demand levels within certain services demand more labour. We could privatize education and fire fighting to start with but that's hard to do in year one. Actually, fire fighting is largely already privatized. Stopping people from aging, getting them to live with the education system as it is though is a tough one. People aren't happy with the current curriculum of the system's ability to handle the influx of new students with diverse needs.
    Really KC, you are usually much better than some of this, if it was an attempt at humour you missed.
    There is a large difference between planned/budgeted expenses and "acts of nature" or "Forced Federal initiatives". As with all of us there are times where you are forced to adapt. That does not mean you throw out the regular budget.

    As someone with a child with special needs in an old elementary school in a blue collar area ... it may not be ideal but it works thanks, I'm living it.
    The Syrian children that have been added, to a large extent, have Federal funding provided and are not something that was forecast ... as I noted.


    "Skip the coal shut down till later to a)maintain stability b) maintain our power price advantage c) to exploit our clean burn coal tech (depending on source our latest coal plants are on top...:"

    Even minor investments in R&D cost taxpayer money - that's at odds with reducing taxes and maintaining or reducing government jobs and not raising taxes and maintaining "stability". I need more information on where that money comes from.
    Really? Come on you are not that naive ... how many millions of research dollars have been assigned by the Federal Government to the U of A for research? Multiple millions in recent announcements specifically for this type of research.

    Coal hasn't been shut down. In year one there has been no change but for the power purchase contracts fiasco. (It's debatable whether this operating response would have come to light given more time.) It's debatable whether the contracts issue has impacted our economy in year one.
    Goes right back to the perception of stability.

    The coal shut down is supposed to help everyone's health long term and cut green house gasses. I'm very suspicious of the health benefits study but they were the scientific experts so who am I to know better.
    Nonetheless, what are the year one impacts? The impact on attracting investment might be much much larger for certain sectors but the prospect of massive new utility sector spend on huge numbers of windmills, solar farms, plant efficiency upgrades, etc. must be incredibly mouth wateringly appealing vs. just maintaining the operating status quo for old businesses. Higher net costs, though, are higher net costs and thus we all suffer financially though may gain through the battle for better health and climate sustenance.
    Again we start with whole perception of stability, move to the dollars not being spent in upgrading and long term on existing plants ( I have that first hand from an internal source) and jobs not happening because of it. All first year impacts.

    And note I did not say cancel the change to alternatives, delay till we get to the better place in the economy. And just think of the legal and administrative money that would have been saved re: PPA debacle which also created instability.

    Nonetheless, I'd guess that in year one, the coal plant plans issue hasn't really impacted Alberta. The lack of diversification effort also hasn't impacted the economy except in saving us money. Additionally, should government be involved in such private sector issues? No mater how you look at it, diversification requires government investment and spending. In the 1980s we were all looking forward to this and in the 1990s we were all disappointed in the government's massive losses as a result of its crap-shooting diversification attempts.
    I've noted how the coal issue has already affected the Province, you can agree or not doesn't matter.

    Diversification is not about a Government funding it, it is about creating an environment that promotes and stimulates it. The only funding should be on promotion of adapting current industries (machining) to new markets and not creating impediments. Have we saved money by not starting the process ... no IMO we have lost money as a Province.

    As to your investment habits ... that's your business. But through the summer I did some consulting with NON Oil and Gas companies (4) on smaller start ups. They are not going to establish in Alberta in spite of being Albertans. Why? They see the environment as too unstable for a new venture and future operational costs (including power and taxation) unpredictable. So after they evaluated all factors including cost of living for employees they will be locating to another province.

    As to me ... with the employment situation the way it is I will be investing some of my retirement dollars into a business venture shortly .... it will not be in a urban centre and it is likely not to be in Alberta for the very reasons we have been discussing.

    Have fun I'm back to real world now.

  88. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So, you'll have to explain what exactly would be the positive change the people wanted, and where the funding should have come from to implement that positive change? Plus how obtaining that funding wouldn't have been seen as doing harm.
    You seem to really want to believe that Albertans made a deliberate and well-reasoned choice to elect the NDP. They didn't. They were as surprised as everyone else when it happened.

    And you also want to believe that the NDP have a deliberate and well-reasoned plan for Alberta. They don't.

    I don't think ppl really want a lot of change though in terms of polices, we have a pretty good quality of life here in Alberta. Ppl were sick of the PCs and scandals that come with 44 years of majorities. But ppl have unrealistic expectations too.

    Sure ppl want more and better infrastructure and schools and healthcare and everything else. But it isn't really possible esp. since we are already paying the highest per capita of any province Canada. We don't have a revenue problem, its a spending problem.

    But we will probably get a provincial gst like everybody else.
    For sure people were tired of the PC's in the last election. They were tired of their excess, entitlements and the feeling that the electorate were being taken for granted. We are PC's we will get the vote no matter what type of thinking. Redford was the absolute cherry on the cake for most people and Prentice 'Look in the Mirror' added the cream. Wild Rose shot themselves in the foot. The NDP took a lot of the protest vote due to the frustration of the voters. Notley is a fine person no doubt but we will have to see how her policies work out. I should imagine if by the next election cycle oil is trading at $105 a barrel she will get voted back in. That's the way it is in Alberta, the price of oil is a motivating factor of who stays in power.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  89. #189
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,898

    Default

    ^ What exactly was the price of oil when Ed Stelmach left office? Hmm, I can't recall off the top of my head.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  90. #190

    Default

    ^around 100, so it certainly didn't make him popular, and oil prices won't make Notley popular. Oil collapsed near the end of 2014, going as low as 28 at end of 2015.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 03:05 PM.

  91. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Unions did not elect NDP. Voters did. Everyday people wanted a wholesale change and they voted for it. Unless you're completely out to lunch, you'll remember that Redford was put in place by unions. I don't think they made some immediate pivot to NDP. I'm pretty sure union heads were still with the PC's last election, but everyday people made their own choice.
    Nobody voted for the NDP, they voted against Redford,
    I voted for Notley. Almost everyone I know voted for Notley. We voted for the NDP platform.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I voted for Notley. Almost everyone I know voted for Notley. We voted for the NDP platform.
    Most of us though, know a few more people than you and your parents basement dweller pals. Its certainly not what I am finding talking to people from my work place, through to my pool team, there is a lot of anger right now and its across all sectors of our economy (aside from government sector) from big corporate business people, to entrepreneurs / struggling retailers, to trades, and its only going to grow as all the costs and regulations, many of which weren't in that platform you voted for, start kicking in and personally hurting people.
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-10-2016 at 04:28 PM.

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I voted for Notley. Almost everyone I know voted for Notley. We voted for the NDP platform.
    Likewise me & mine.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I voted for Notley. Almost everyone I know voted for Notley. We voted for the NDP platform.
    Most of us though, know a few more people than you and your parents basement dweller pals. Its certainly not what I am finding talking to people from my work place, through to my pool team, there is a lot of anger right now and its across all sectors of our economy (aside from government sector) from big corporate business people, to entrepreneurs / struggling retailers, to trades, and its only going to grow as all the costs and regulations, many of which weren't in that platform you voted for, start kicking in and personally hurting people.
    If you think my network and I are basement dwellers, that would explain why your party of choice lost the election. You clearly have no idea what types of people voted for NDP or what their motivations were for doing so.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  95. #195
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Twin Brooks
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I voted Liberal as I have for every election since the one time I voted for the Lougheed team in their second election. Once bitten, forever shy.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I voted for Notley. Almost everyone I know voted for Notley. We voted for the NDP platform.
    Most of us though, know a few more people than you and your parents basement dweller pals. Its certainly not what I am finding talking to people from my work place, through to my pool team, there is a lot of anger right now and its across all sectors of our economy (aside from government sector) from big corporate business people, to entrepreneurs / struggling retailers, to trades, and its only going to grow as all the costs and regulations, many of which weren't in that platform you voted for, start kicking in and personally hurting people.
    If you think my network and I are basement dwellers, that would explain why your party of choice lost the election. You clearly have no idea what types of people voted for NDP or what their motivations were for doing so.
    Yeah, funny, but I've known people that would certainly have been NDP voters that lived the lifestyle of a basement dweller (actually were renters), but I'm also quite certain that they paid more in annual income taxes than I earned salary at the time. And as for their networks, both were quite broad. Basically it's not just unemployed and union people supporting the left. Some are independently wealthy, some are university / academic types, some even own businesses, even ones that aren't dependent on government spending.

    I would guess the same applies in reverse to the conservative voters. I'm sure it has basement dwellers too. I've also known people who are very right wing, also successful, but would be broke if it weren't for their government contracts or government regulations that sustain their business and limit their competition.

    For the fun of it, next time you talk with a right wing corporate tax lawyer, or accountant, start talking about all the benefits that would accrue to Socity if we could eliminate corporate taxes and just tax the 'end-receiver' in this case. I.e. The shareholders that receive the ultimate benefit.
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2016 at 06:16 PM.

  97. #197
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Yeah, funny, but I've known people that would certainly have been NDP voters that lived the lifestyle of a basement dweller (actually were renters), but I'm also quite certain that they paid more in annual income taxes than I earned salary at the time. And as for their networks, both were quite broad. Basically it's not just unemployed and union people supporting the left. Some are independently wealthy, some are university / academic types, some even own businesses, even ones that aren't dependent on government spending.

    I would guess the same applies in reverse to the conservative voters. I'm sure it has basement dwellers too. I've also known people who are very right wing, also successful, but would be broke if it weren't for their government contracts or government regulations that sustain their business and limit their competition.
    So the obvious question is why in their entire history have they never even been the official opposition? And why after the last 2 previous elections did they not even have enough MLAs to satisfy the requirements for official party status? If there is this large and diverse base why has it never resulted in elected MLAs?

    Be careful now circular logic can lead to muscle cramps. Might want to do some stretching before you reach for your answer.

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Yeah, funny, but I've known people that would certainly have been NDP voters that lived the lifestyle of a basement dweller (actually were renters), but I'm also quite certain that they paid more in annual income taxes than I earned salary at the time. And as for their networks, both were quite broad. Basically it's not just unemployed and union people supporting the left. Some are independently wealthy, some are university / academic types, some even own businesses, even ones that aren't dependent on government spending.

    I would guess the same applies in reverse to the conservative voters. I'm sure it has basement dwellers too. I've also known people who are very right wing, also successful, but would be broke if it weren't for their government contracts or government regulations that sustain their business and limit their competition.
    So the obvious question is why in their entire history have they never even been the official opposition? And why after the last 2 previous elections did they not even have enough MLAs to satisfy the requirements for official party status? If there is this large and diverse base why has it never resulted in elected MLAs?

    Be careful now circular logic can lead to muscle cramps. Might want to do some stretching before you reach for your answer.
    No, you're right, they've never had a significant following here in Alberta. That doesn't mean their platform(s) doesn't appeal to people beyond the stereotypical left winger.

    As for the right, I don't think they've had a huge base either. Lougheed was more centrist than right winger. Since then I'm not sure how you'd classify the party's evolution if you want to call it that. However, much of their spending has a very socialized base to it - that's liquidation of our provincially owned resources. So you've had a nationalized resource being accessed by private interests. I haven't seen much interest in Alberta to privatize the resource to shift us further to the right.
    Last edited by KC; 20-10-2016 at 06:52 PM.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Yeah, funny, but I've known people that would certainly have been NDP voters that lived the lifestyle of a basement dweller (actually were renters), but I'm also quite certain that they paid more in annual income taxes than I earned salary at the time. And as for their networks, both were quite broad. Basically it's not just unemployed and union people supporting the left. Some are independently wealthy, some are university / academic types, some even own businesses, even ones that aren't dependent on government spending.

    I would guess the same applies in reverse to the conservative voters. I'm sure it has basement dwellers too. I've also known people who are very right wing, also successful, but would be broke if it weren't for their government contracts or government regulations that sustain their business and limit their competition.
    So the obvious question is why in their entire history have they never even been the official opposition? And why after the last 2 previous elections did they not even have enough MLAs to satisfy the requirements for official party status? If there is this large and diverse base why has it never resulted in elected MLAs?

    Be careful now circular logic can lead to muscle cramps. Might want to do some stretching before you reach for your answer.
    I am a bit confused here - there is only one party that has an MLAs currently that has never been the official opposition at some point in time in Alberta and that is the Alberta Party. Every other such party - Wildrose, Liberal, NDP and PC's have been the official opposition at some point in time. Now to be fair to the Alberta Party, it is quite new whereas many of the others have been around much longer, but I don't get the sense you are referring to them.

  100. #200
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Yeah, funny, but I've known people that would certainly have been NDP voters that lived the lifestyle of a basement dweller (actually were renters), but I'm also quite certain that they paid more in annual income taxes than I earned salary at the time. And as for their networks, both were quite broad. Basically it's not just unemployed and union people supporting the left. Some are independently wealthy, some are university / academic types, some even own businesses, even ones that aren't dependent on government spending.

    I would guess the same applies in reverse to the conservative voters. I'm sure it has basement dwellers too. I've also known people who are very right wing, also successful, but would be broke if it weren't for their government contracts or government regulations that sustain their business and limit their competition.
    So the obvious question is why in their entire history have they never even been the official opposition? And why after the last 2 previous elections did they not even have enough MLAs to satisfy the requirements for official party status? If there is this large and diverse base why has it never resulted in elected MLAs?

    Be careful now circular logic can lead to muscle cramps. Might want to do some stretching before you reach for your answer.
    I am a bit confused here - there is only one party that has an MLAs currently that has never been the official opposition at some point in time in Alberta and that is the Alberta Party. Every other such party - Wildrose, Liberal, NDP and PC's have been the official opposition at some point in time. Now to be fair to the Alberta Party, it is quite new whereas many of the others have been around much longer, but I don't get the sense you are referring to them.
    My mistake, you are right, they were the official opposition on 2 occasions. Forgot about Ray Martin, decent fellow but not know for charisma. And Notley was the official opposition although the party only had 2 seats in the early 80s.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •