• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Despite these cuts, Harper will undoubtedly fail to challenge the biggest cultural subsidy of them all:  Official Bilingualism.  While this policy perhaps makes some sense in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario it really does not make sense in the rest of Canada.  I wonder about how many billions have been spent on this project since 1968.
 
Excellent attempt stegner.

But when trolling I understand it works better if you use an unrecognized identity.  It works even better if you hack into some unsuspecting 3rd party's system and use their ISP address as well.

Bilingualism IS.

TTFE.
 
Micheal Coren on Arts and Sports funding:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Coren_Michael/2008/08/16/6469741-sun.php

Artists, athletes love free cash

By MICHAEL COREN

Broadcaster Avi Lewis on Canada's Olympic team? A great idea, and not as bizarre as it seems. Let me explain.

The government announced last week it would cut a grant scheme whereby various alleged artists and intellectuals were given the tax dollars of non-artists and non-intellectuals so as to go on expensive overseas trips and pretend to be, well, artists and intellectuals.

That so many of the recipients of this largesse were left wing, anti-American and so on was a pure coincidence. Just as is the fact that so many magazines, authors and performers who receive other tax-dollar funding are socialists, atheists and sandal-wearing bores.

Some of the people named in the government report complained that they either did not ask for the grants or were unaware of the details. But it's deeply significant that they were not at all surprised that they were being given public handouts and did not think that perhaps they shouldn't take the money in the first place.

Truth be told, this is the tip of the iceberg -- perhaps the one which figures so large in a movie about the Titanic that was made with private cash from those evil Americans who seem so dominant in the fields of academic study and great literature. The ice itself is the millions of dollars of your money given to the arts every year.

While some of this is valid and goes to deserving causes, much is merely mediocre comrade giving to mediocre comrade, which is where the Olympics and Lewis junior come in. Avi was awarded $5,000 under this now removed grant program to travel to Australia and Argentina, even though his family is so wealthy that socialist parents Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg sent him to one of the most expensive private schools in North America.

Young Avi was also being paid an extremely generous salary by the CBC at the time, again from your hard-earned taxes.
Now he works for Al-Jazeera, which may well be more balanced than his former employer.

Not sure if Lewis is much of an athlete, but he and his buddies have the perfect attitude to qualify for the Canadian Olympic team, if one of its members is in any way typical. Performing rather badly in his canoe, he opined that his poor result was due to a lack of government funding. In other words, if the taxpayer would cough up more money he might paddle faster.

He was beaten by, among others, an athlete from Togo - where there is hardly any public money and where, as in so many of the nations that beat us in the Olympics, there is a severely limited infrastructure and few basic services.

Some of our Olympians well may deserve more help, but how wonderfully Canadian it is to blame failure not on lack of ability but a lack of cash from the state.
Actually the vast majority of countries taking part in the Olympics do hardly anything for their teams, including major nations such as Britain.


Mind you, England gave us Shakespeare, Milton and Keats -- with not a government handout among them!

Memo to grant hounds. Stop taking money that is not yours and work harder.

As for writers who can't survive without trips to the public trough, go the nearest fast food store and ask for a proper job.

 
The ghost of Bob Rae stalks the Ontario Legislature! I for one hope the Federal government refuses to buckle under to this fiscal blackmail; McGuinty created this problem, now he must solve it or take the consequences:

http://voterick.com/wordpress/?p=125

McGuinty and the Deficit Monster vs Harper

What if Dalton McGuinty has no intention of controlling Ontario’s slide into fiscal deficit? What if he has every intention of allowing it to happen, and is willing to aid and abet Ontario’s descent? What if he has all his excuses ready, and intends to use this as a lever to; (1) force more money out of the federal government, and (2) blame them for all his problems, while (3) endearing himself to his core supporters?

The mounting evidence seems to point clearly in this direction. In spite of the fact that minister Duncan admitted to a projected shortfall of half a billion dollars, additional announcements and the unspoken stuff between the lines, indicates that these two have not the least care in the world. We know that the teaching cartel is quickly stampeding toward a double-digit wage offer made by McGuinty’s gang. Wouldn’t you? With the financial world in turmoil and corporate giants teetering on the brink, who in this hell is expecting any kind of increase? Who would not be happy with a manageable decrease, instead? Teachers, that’s who, and McGuinty is not the least bothered by the billions that this heaps on his already enfeebled bottom line. Not only does he butter the bread of his symbiotic co-dependents, in this way, but he sets the federal government up for another dose of fiscal imbalance ranting.

This strategy does not end there. After re-ensuring the loyalty of teachers, McGuinty has also cemented the loyalty of chronically Liberal Toronto by bailing them out to the tune of a projected $500 million. This was done through a bizarrely timed commitment to municipalities to assume some off-loading. The commitment was rich in anti-Conservative-Harris imagery about the evils of downloading, and the needs of the poor communities.

In this case, communities will in fact be needy. But, this is being done now, specifically to head off any belt-tightening on their part. Why? First, there is Toronto, the biggest benefactor, which is incapable of belt restricting because of the ideology of its administration. This act effectively catches them in a safety net before they crash to the ground. It also spreads largesse to all municipalities with the intention of eventually forcing the federal government to pay for it. No effort or declared plan to finance this expense has been announced, because none exists.

If it seems that McGuinty and company are on the way to debtor’s hell, beware that this is instead a clever ploy to embarrass  Harper and fleece the feds. Eventually McGuinty will declare that he has had to ensure the proper funding of our educational system, and come to the rescue of needy communities who are still suffering from the mismanagement of the Harris downloaders. It will not fiz him one iota that Ontario is projected to fall into have-not category. All the more blame to be heaped on Harper, and all the more money transfer to which the feds will have to commit. The astute observer will notice that, in the end, the same lonely taxpayer will be footing the bill for this revisit to the “Rae Days” - (“We will spend ourselves out of the recession.”)- but McGuinty knows that observers with that much astuteness are few, and practically non-existent in Toronto.

Any bets that that $500 million deficit becomes $5 billion before long?

We should also note that the cause of the global financial crisis is the massive inbalance in the ratio between debt and underlying wealth in both the public and private realms. Allowing a deficit and increasing debt simply ensures any recession will be longer, deeper and more difficult to recover from.
 
Some people simply don't learn from experience:

http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/11/bob-rae-blackest-pot-in-kitchen.html

Bob Rae: The Blackest Pot In The Kitchen


I don't know what's stranger: the most fiscally irresponsible Premier in Ontario's history defending the fiscally irresponsible car companies; or that Bob Rae considers it an asset in his portfolio. Mr.Rae is "pressing" Ottawa to lobby Washington to bail out the auto makers that are close to going belly up, whilst slamming Prime Minister Harper.

"Mr. Harper has governed in the name of theories for too long and the cupboard is bare as a result."

Is that so? Well, to be certain Stephen Harper has not been perfect up until now, but he's definitely not anywhere in the record-setting category of Bob Rae's economic legacy of deficit proficiency. The man is still legend in Ontario for having managed the rare feat of simultaneously pissing off both left and right wing in unison:


The Rae government's first budget, introduced in 1991, increased social spending to mitigate the economic slowdown and projected a record deficit of $9.1 billion. Finance Minister Floyd Laughren argued that Ontario made a decision to target the effects of the recession rather than the deficit, and said that the budget would create or protect 70,000 jobs. It targeted more money to social assistance, social housing and child benefits, and raised taxes for high-income earners while lowering rates for 700,000 low-income Ontarians.

A few years later, journalist Thomas Walkom described the budget as following a Keynesian orthodoxy, spending money in the public sector to stimulate employment and productivity. Unfortunately, it did not achieve its stated purpose. The recession was still severe. Walkom described the budget as "the worst of both worlds", angering the business community but not doing enough to provide for public relief.


You hear that? "Keynesian orthodoxy" does not work. Adding spending to social programs during a recession does not do anything but make it more comfortable to sit at home unemployed.

Now don't get me wrong. I am terrified of the idea that the Conservatives could fall for this kind of nonsense, and all indications are that Stephen Harper is willing to go halfway there already, talking of an essential budget deficit and such woefully deluded terms as "stimulus package". The Jekyll-Hyde routine of Mr.Harper is wearing thin on critics and supporters alike, on the one hand seeming to say that the market will bear itself out, and on the other suggesting we face a catastrophic depression. But let me be clear:

Bob Rae, who turned a $700 million deficit into a $9.1 billion hole to China, is the last credible person to speak about this subject.

Though he's running a distant second to Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae just can't seem to exorcise his socialist demons, or attachment to labour union bondage from his past. If he listened to Canadians at all, he'd know there is a very strong, very oppositional attitude to bailing out Ford, GM, and Chrysler who, unlike the dominoes in the credit crisis crash, have masterminded their own disasters.

Let them sink into the ocean. And if Mr.Rae wants to go down with the ships, let him go, too. He says he's "learned from his mistakes", but every indication he shows is that he's only too willing to bring the public down with him.
 
Will we be able to weather the global recession and the next four years of American government?

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/money-for-nothing/taxes

Money For Nothing
November 29th, 2008 Posted in Taxes

Stephen Harper has prepared Canada for the recession. Let’s hope the three parties of fools don’t decide to take Canada hostage and destroy our chances of getting through it relatively unscathed.

The cut to the GST last year actually stimulated the economy by the equivalent to 2% of GDP. It’s done a great job of this without having to borrow and spend. This year should end without a deficit.

While the NDP and Liberals wail that we aren’t throwing money at something, anything (and, especially at them)… the Conservatives have prepared Canada in a number of ways other countries are following - Britain being the latest to cut taxes.

The one thing that’s overlooked in the shrill hysteria of Jack Layton and his band of jackals, is that we must cut spending in order to be in shape to tackle the unexpected. Canada is seriously over governed, and now is the time to significantly cut down the size and spending of the government.

Ontario needs to wake up and create an environment for business- not continue to drive it away through taxation. It’s the fault of their current leadership that they are becoming a have-not province.

I never thought I’d be able to point to Saskatchewan as a good example of government.

Now is the perfect time to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes - the deficit isn’t a factor yet, and if it does appear, it should be because of declining revenues, not because of increased spending.

Unemployment Insurance (whoever changed the name to employment insurance?) has had a huge surplus over the past 8-10 years… no need to increase premiums or panic if unemployment rises a bit.

If we truly want the economy to grow, drop income taxes by 5-10% points (or more) for anyone making over $50K/year. These are the people that will get the country going - giving money to the ones looking for a free ride will do nothing.

Even BC is starting to take action by lowering taxes… to all of our amazement.

Nice to see most of the Provinces are on line: Ontarians will have to grit their teeth but the rest of us will be fine.
 
A warning to everyone. Pass this article to your MP:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2008/11/28/7569916-cp.html

Flaherty says stimulus could come if necessary, but economists warn against it
By Kristine Owram, THE CANADIAN PRESS

TORONTO - Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says his government is prepared to introduce a fiscal stimulus package if necessary in the 2009 budget, even if it means going into a deficit, but some economists say such a package could do more harm than good.

"I'm not a big fan of short-term stimulus packages," said Don Drummond, chief economist at TD Bank.

"They don't really generate very much short-term stimulus and they very quickly become long-term structural problems."

Flaherty has said the Tories will only introduce new measures to revive the economy if they deem it absolutely necessary.

"Of course I hope the economy will be strong and we won't need to have any additional stimulus in the Canadian economy, but if it's necessary to do so, we will do so," Flaherty told reporters after a Friday speech in Toronto.

Flaherty's comments came as the Liberal Opposition prepared a motion of non-confidence in the Conservative minority government, which precipitated a political crisis Friday in Ottawa.

The Liberal motion, backed by the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, said Parliament has lost confidence in the Tories "in light of the government's failure to recognize the seriousness of Canada's economic situation and its failure in particular to present any credible plan to stimulate the Canadian economy and to help workers and businesses in hard-pressed sectors such as manufacturing, the automotive industry and forestry."

But Drummond said the economic slowdown wasn't created in Canada and therefore can't be solved in Canada.

"The best thing for the Canadian economy is to get the world economy going," he said.

"Canada is not the problem - we're the only developed economy in which employment and consumption are still rising. Our economy's been hit by international events, not by domestic events."

Flaherty said in his mid-year economic update Thursday that Canada will fall into a technical recession - two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth - in the current quarter and the first three months of 2009.

Overall, Flaherty said the economy will shrink by one per cent in the current quarter, another 0.4 per cent in the January-March period and grow a paltry 0.3 per cent for all of 2009.

He has said the government has already done plenty to stimulate the Canadian economy, including cutting corporate taxes, reducing the GST and increasing spending on infrastructure.

In sticking to traditional Conservative values, Flaherty is doing what he can to avoid a deficit, but has acknowledged that a fiscal stimulus package could be necessary if the economy worsens.

Flaherty was vague Friday on what measures such a stimulus package could include.

"There are lots of issues," he said. "More spending on infrastructure - there are lots of possibilities to stimulate the economy."

But Drummond cautioned against doing "anything under the guise of short-term stimulus that doesn't need to be done for longer-term interests."

For example, temporary tax cuts are often nearly impossible politically to reverse, and while spending on infrastructure can be beneficial, it takes a long time for major developments to be approved.

"Most of the infrastructure you would mount right now isn't going to hit the economy until 2011 or 2012 and hopefully we'll be recovered by that point," Drummond said. "In fact, we may even be facing an inflation problem again at that point."

Some have called on the government to develop a rescue package for the struggling automotive industry. The Detroit Three automakers have asked the U.S. government for US$25 billion to help them stay afloat amid slumping sales and tight credit markets, but the American government has expressed reluctance to bail out the auto giants.

Jack Carr, an economist at the University of Toronto, said the Canadian government should be similarly wary.

"I'm not in favour of a big stimulus package, particularly if it involves bailing out losers. Rewarding losers is not a way to compete in this global economy," he said.

He added that the Canadian operations of international automakers, such as Toyota and Honda, are doing just fine, and he doesn't think General Motors, Chrysler and Ford should receive special treatment.

Craig Wright, chief economist with Royal Bank, said whatever initiatives are introduced need to encourage productivity.

"We have to do something to turn around productivity in Canada," Wright said.

He added that it was encouraging to see government trimming some of its own costs, and encouraged Flaherty to allow for freer movement of goods and labour across provincial borders.

But he cautioned against acting too quickly, saying the Canadian government should wait and see what its counterpart south of the border does before making any major decisions.

"If the U.S. doesn't do anything and we do something, the impact would be modest at best," he said.

But Drummond said waiting to implement a stimulus package will, in essence, make it futile.

"By the time this world fiscal stimulus hits the road, the economies will probably already be in recovery," he said.

"That's why these things never work. They're supposed to be counter-cyclical and they end up being pro-cyclical."
 
I would like direct evidence that the 2% increase was due to the tax cut (rather than just an assertion by a media) and not to growth of the commodity sector and why a gst cut was better than an income tax cut.

Just treating all media the same
 
No need.  It's unlikely in the extreme that the GST cut could be responsible for all growth; someone is confused about what various numbers actually mean.  And while economics has many controversial and opposed theories and ideas, the efficiency of income tax cuts over GST cuts is not really in serious dispute.  A GST cut is foremost a populist political move.  Secondarily, it provides a small (very small) benefit to those who pay no income taxes and thus would not benefit from an income tax cut.
 
Brad Sallows said:
No need.  It's unlikely in the extreme that the GST cut could be responsible for all growth; someone is confused about what various numbers actually mean.  And while economics has many controversial and opposed theories and ideas, the efficiency of income tax cuts over GST cuts is not really in serious dispute.   A GST cut is foremost a populist political move.  Secondarily, it provides a small (very small) benefit to those who pay no income taxes and thus would not benefit from an income tax cut.

That's what I figured.

Is there a consensus to what price oil has to be before people in Alberta really have to worry, I mean that has always been the Achilles tendon of the tar sands, was the higher production costs. I just ask this because the price of oil has been slumping.
 
The higher break even point for tar sands oil has been largely inflated because of the boom in oil sands activity.

Before the boom $40 -$50 per barrel oil was fine. Now we have some projects being shelved because the price is below $100. A labour cost correction will happen.

The length of time the oil stays low is also relevant.

Russia,Iran, and Venezuela all have big problems when oil is below $75 per barrel.

My guess, as long as the price of oil averages above $55 per barrel over the year, Alberta will be fine.

In the longer term I think we can expect Oil to come back to $60 to $65 and Alberta will be fine with that too.......I hope anyway.

All of this just guessing.... ;D
 
From the CBC in 2000 Flip:

High oil prices boost Alberta surplus again
Last Updated: Thursday, June 8, 2000 | 12:19 PM ET
CBC News
The provincial surplus could climb as high as $5 billion by the end of the fiscal year thanks to high oil prices, says Premier Ralph Klein.
Crude oil was tagged on budget day at US$19 a barrel. It's now selling for close to US$30.

Every dollar rise in the price of oil means an extra $135 million in the provincial coffers.

Source

I also seem to recall that back in the 90s it was believed that $13 was the break even price on tar sands oil.  Inflation may have taken that up some but I think that technology will have done a bit of counteracting.
 
The number I've been told is $26/barrel for established oilsands.  For all the new projects costs range significantly higher due to the wage inflation and labour shortages...living just a few hours away from the oilsands our labour costs are approx. 40% of those in Fort McMurray.

The other big inputs into the oilsands costs are wether upgrader facilities exist to convert the heavy crude to a more easily refined light crude oil.  This can be up to a 30% value difference....so if texas light crude (the benchmark) is at $60/barrel you might only be getting $40/barrel for your heavy crude.

Lastly..what is the natural gas price?  Huge amounts of natural gas is needed to create the steam used to "melt" the tar in many areas so it can be pumped out.

Many of the projects being delayed/shelved are due to the decline in oil prices and the huge run-up in costs estimated over the last 3-4 years....allow for things to calm down some and some will be re-initiated.


 
This can be up to a 30% value difference....so if Texas light crude (the benchmark) is at $60/barrel you might only be getting $40/barrel for your heavy crude.

Lastly..what is the natural gas price?  Huge amounts of natural gas is needed to create the steam used to "melt" the tar in many areas so it can be pumped out.

You touch on a couple of points. Not all of the oil-sands product is heavy, much of it is upgraded low sulfur highly value added product. Oil comes and is sold in many grades and forms.

The Natural gas component is THE wild card. It's price hasn't plummeted like oil has and indeed is a highly desirable product in it's own right.  The nuclear reactor proposed would free up a lot of natural gas for more immediate uses, heating our homes for example.

The whole oil sands boom thing has been mismanaged in my opinion but the resource is still there and is still important.

Alberta's oil sector also supports oil production elsewhere. From Saskatchewan to just about every oil producing region on earth.

Just a few thoughts.... ;D
 
Flip said:
The whole oil sands boom thing has been mismanaged in my opinion but the resource is still there and is still important.

Not picking here Flip, just an observation.

I've had the opportunity to see a couple of boom towns in a couple of industries.  I would suggest that you know the boom is over when the roads get paved.  Up until that time everybody is too busy grabbing what they can to initiate production to be worried about more than the most rudimentary infrastructure.

The highways, parks, schools and sewers all seem to come after the peak years are past.

I don't know that anybody ever manages a boom.
 
Making Canada Relevant the right way (no taxpayer dollars required!):

http://www.bluebloggingsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2470:amazing&catid=17:politics

Amazing
Written by BBS 
Monday, 08 December 2008 07:09

A major step towards improving the Canadian economy was taken Friday and it didn't require buckets of taxpayer money to accomplish. That's probably why you didn't hear much about it.

Provincial labour barriers to fall

"Full labour mobility will allow Canadians to move freely, taking advantage of job opportunities and help address long-term skilled worker shortages," he said.

The deal signed by the provincial, territorial and federal trade ministers means that anyone qualified in a profession or other regulated occupation in one province will be able to practise in another province.

The deal has been in the works for months, if not years. It seals a pact reached last July between the premiers. That accord aimed to repair a 12-year-old agreement that was supposed to remove economic trade barriers between the provinces.

Although it's taken 12 years, credit must be given to the Premiers for finally moving forward with this initiative. The knee-jerk reaction during recessionary times such as these would be to increase trade barriers to protect what you currently have. Time and again this has been proven wrong and thankfully the powers that be have realized it. There remain many issues to be resolve such as harmonizing regulations and educational standards but the important thing is that the first step has been taken. Next up - one securities regulator for the country.

A bit of interpolation here. One securities regulator may or may not be a good idea (the United States has multiple regulators; ever wonder why so many companies are incorporated in the State of Delaware?), but killing the one regulator idea is a key concession the "Axis of the Inept" made to the BQ for support of the putative coalition government.
 
We need to be a bit careful in comparing Canadian and US agencies.

Incorporation, for example, is, in Canada, largely a national matter while securities regulation (e.g. the OSC) is provincial.

Incorporation in the US is, mainly, a state matter, while securities regulation (through the SEC) is national.

Generally OSC + various provincial 'sisters' ≈ SEC, and the Conservatives want to merge all (just almost all?) the Canadian ‘sisters’ into one agency that is comparable in reach and power to the US SEC and Australia’s ASIC.

It’s not east to make clear comparisons across national and sub-national boundaries.  I guess that’s why there are so many lawyers: they profit from the confusion.

 
A bit of a hijack here, but do we realise how difficult it has become to move from province to province in Canada now after our 911 experience?
It is not just moving your professional accreditation's it is also your driver licenses and insurances etc. Having had 5 provincial driver's licences and my 404s plus an international licence, it has become far easier to go from Jordan to Syria to Lebanon than to go from Alberta to Manitoba to Saskatchewan.
We really need to get more efficient crossing our own provincial borders. Incoming immigrants can get set up faster then a native Canadian in today's bureaucracies
 
I don't know that anybody ever manages a boom.

Quite right...sorry ...I mis-spoke. :-[

I should have written that the accelerated development was mis-managed.  ;D

Funny you should mention highways......The Highway from Edmonton to Fort Mac is some 800km long and is still a two laner!  One lane all the way up and one lane all the way back.  The traffic, I've been told is heavy and treacherous.  Would this be appropriate, in one of the most paved provinces ?

The Alberta Environmetal Protection Agency may or may not have kept up....not sure. What I am aware of, is the controversy about tailings ponds and water usage.  Some of this is environmentalists' nonsense and propaganda i'm sure.

The City of Edmonton has had it's struggles as well - Rapid real estate development and then a bit of a bust.  Taxes go up because the tax rate is set by the value of the property.  The taxes on my small business have doubled!  Power and water rates are high......I could go on.... ;D

It's hard to run a business with all that instability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top