Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I'm sure all the equipment and implements used to build the added infrastructure are all manufactured in Alberta? Maybe some of the $300 Danielle Dollars would go to '100% Made in Alberta prostitutes' at new Red Light districts! 
While the concept of infrastructure spending can most definately be beneficial vs. immediate consumption, we should caution to not extend your arguement too far as it would imply that the economy would perform much better if only the good people in Edmonton had their hands on more of our money to intelligently command it's most efficient allocation.
At some point (And I'm not necessarily saying the arguement here in Alberta is at this level), some infrastructure projects are actually white elephants. Perfect example would be if the province jacked taxes and then built a high-speed train between Calgary and Edmonton. In that case not only would the province be wasting capital funds on a project that has no economics, but it would also be indenturing the budget to pay it's operating costs forever into the future.
The economic arguement is not as cut and dry as simply saying infrastructure projects = good, refund cheques = bad. Often the sum of individual market decisions on transactions beats how a bunch of politicians decide. |
Certainly it's not as black and white as I made it out to be. But there is no question as to whether there would be more economic benefit to Alberta by building needed infrastructure than to give every person $300 every year. The dollars to build infrastructure would mostly stay in Province, and nearly all in country. However, a significant portion of rebate cheques would end up outside our country very quickly.