April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

As an elected municipal official, I laugh at folks who say we're in this for the money. It's not the glory either, although most of us have egos.

You laugh at people who say your in it for the money, eh MoneyGuy?

[Senator Clay Davis]

A conspiracy? The medical lobby in the US has done everything in its power to ensure public health care is defeated, and that practices like denying pre-existing conditions succeed. Would you not say that has a major public benefit? Yet the government only just passed health care, which just as quickly may be repealed.

Oil and Gas companies clearly have a vested interest in ensuring oil is the energy resource of choice. And their shareholders equally would like to see oil and gas continue to thrive and deliver record profits. Its not a conspiracy, its reality. Is it as bad here in Canada? Not really, but to act like interest groups don't have influence is silly.

Bringing European politics into this is irrelavent as they obviously operating under totally different political conditons than here in North America. And for the record, Exxons 2.5 billion barrells represents $490 billion (billion!) dollars in revenue. So yeah, I'd say they'd be concerned to lose that.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You laugh at people who say your in it for the money, eh MoneyGuy?

Yeah, I get the perception of irony, but my username is because of my full-time business (financial planner/investment advisor), not because of my politicial life. I write a newspaper financial column and some people call me the money guy, so I use it.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

First, the WR proposed dividend is 20% of surpluses, not 10%. Second, there is no such thing as a "royalty revenue surplus". All government revenue goes into the same pot.

Certainly the case for the Government of Saskatchewan. Essentially everything goes into the giant pot of gold known as the General Revenue Fund.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Yeah, I get the perception of irony, but my username is because of my full-time business (financial planner/investment advisor), not because of my politicial life. I write a newspaper financial column and some people call me the money guy, so I use it.

But my criticisms/disdain for public officials wouldn't include you, because you aren't a true politician. You are involved in politics but you have a full time career that supports you financially, so you don't need to be in politics. Those whose only source of income is from politics are the ones who worry me.

[GP_Matt]

You stated that the O and G lobby had too much influence to think that oil will disappear without a crisis.
How do you propose that the oil lobby will prevent me from buying or building an electric car or switching to solar to power/heat my house?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I don't know if you've explained it at some point in the past but I am fascinated by your pure unadulterated hate of teachers and the education system.

What's up with that?

No hate at all for either.

Lots of hate for the Teachers Union and it's ability to exploit the PC government. It's hard to find another single group (other than the party itself) that has benefitted more directly from the PC's.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You stated that the O and G lobby had too much influence to think that oil will disappear without a crisis.

How do you propose that the oil lobby will prevent me from buying or building an electric car or switching to solar to power/heat my house?

Right, exactly! Only us as consumers can actually really effect change. We have the dollars to support what we want. But the government has to power to do things like subsidize oil production or subsidize green energy prodution or offer incentives for the production of either. If the government chooses to subsidize oil and offer incentives to produce it, the green energy market is at a huge disadvantage.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Right, exactly! Only us as consumers can actually really effect change. We have the dollars to support what we want. But the government has to power to do things like subsidize oil production or subsidize green energy prodution or offer incentives for the production of either. If the government chooses to subsidize oil and offer incentives to produce it, the green energy market is at a huge disadvantage.

But that isn't what the government has chosen to do. There are some tax advantages for O and G companies just like seemingly every industry but there is nothing like the direct subsidies that go towards green energy. Ontario guarantees prices for solar and wind power that are 4-8 times higher than the going rate for electricity to encourage growth. Given that you seem to accept this as true, how do you make the leap to the oil and gas lobby preventing oil from being replaced? Oil and gas are some of the cheapest scalable sources of energy that we have available. They are also easy and safe to distribute and use. That is why we use them, it has nothing to do with some secretive lobby group.

[Senator Clay Davis]

We use oil and gas because it is the cheapest option available. Period. If clean, green energy were cheaper than obviously we'd use it, but its not. Its the same thing with organic food versus non-organic. Almost all studies show organic foods are better for you, healthier and substantially less likely exposed to chemicals, yet it doesn't even come close to regular food sales for the obvious reason. Have you seen how much more expensive food is at an organic food store? A 4L of milk at $10? Most people can't afford to pay that for milk. If green energy was more affordable than gasoline, then oil companies would be in trouble. But its not, so oil has nothing to worry about at present time.

[Jacks]

Didn't Redford say that she was going to pass a (deficit) budget and then run on it?

How are they finding 3.4 billion more dollars to spend?

Now they are going to "end child poverty in 5 years"? Didn't Chretien promise that in the 90's?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There are some tax advantages for O and G companies just like seemingly every industry but there is nothing like the direct subsidies that go towards green energy. Ontario guarantees prices for solar and wind power that are 4-8 times higher than the going rate for electricity to encourage growth.

For the "Alberta needs to diversify it's economy" crowd, and especially the "Alberta needs to invest in green energy" crowd, Ontario's subsidies are a good case study for why you should tread down that path very carefully, if at all.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

For the "Alberta needs to diversify it's economy" crowd, and especially the "Alberta needs to invest in green energy" crowd, Ontario's subsidies are a good case study for why you should tread down that path very carefully, if at all.

How is Ontario an example of that?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Didn't Redford say that she was going to pass a (deficit) budget and then run on it?

How are they finding 3.4 billion more dollars to spend?

Now they are going to "end child poverty in 5 years"? Didn't Chretien promise that in the 90's?

Are you saying that you shouldn't try and end child poverty because Chretien tried it? Or are you saying that a lofty promise that simply panders to one segment of the population, and has no real chance of succeeding, should not enter into a parties platform?

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ontario should be en example why we should diversify our economy. Manufacturing is doing so well after all...

[Tinordi]

The green energy act is often lambasted by never thoroughly evaluated.

What's fundamentally wrong with feed-in tariffs for clean energy production?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you saying that you shouldn't try and end child poverty because Chretien tried it? Or are you saying that a lofty promise that simply panders to one segment of the population, and has no real chance of succeeding, should not enter into a parties platform?

I'm saying it is pretty much impossible to keep that promise. How much more on top of the additional 3.4 billion is it going to cost to try?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Now they are going to "end child poverty in 5 years"? Didn't Chretien promise that in the 90's?

It was the Mulroney Conservatives in the 80s, actually, but the pledge was passed unanimously by all MPs from all parties.

[GP_Matt]

It isn't quite an endorsement but it should ease Slava's fear that scrapping the Green Trip would prevent LRT expansion.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...994/story.html

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It was the Mulroney Conservatives in the 80s, actually, but the pledge was passed unanimously by all MPs from all parties.

Hmm, thought I remembered it being in the 90's, I stand corrected. Not sure how Redford is going to pull off the miracle this time. Might as well promise to end car crashes or dog bites.