Klein leadership review

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

The royalty breaks (which again, are calculated by taking the difference between what Klein makes them pay, and what they were paying to the administrations before Klein and has nothing to do with pre-provincial-government land tenure) show that Albertans are losing money on THEIR oil. This money could have been used to pay for all of the things that Ralph convinced us HAD to be cut.

The other side of that arguement is that cutting corporate royalty responsibilities helps the economy. And to that I have supplied details on the wage and job decreases, in an attempt to show that the only ones that benefit are the owners of the companies, those royalty savings are not being passed on to the workers.

As far as unemployment stats go, I would wonder how many of those new jobs are in the lower paying service sectors. Also, if you are interested, there was a really good article on MSN Money the other day about the 'new' ways that governments calculate unemployment statistics. The numbers don't always mean what we think they do anymore
.

I would point out you actually haven't provided "evidence" of anything . . . . . you made a series of statements which you say are based on statistics and asked us to believe them.

You also cited a series of statistics and then told us statistics can't be trusted which kind of puts you in the same analytical ballpark as Homer Simpson's famous: "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

If you think Klein isn't charging enough on royalties a simple comeback would be that the previous administration might have been charging too much . . . . . leaving your argument, and apparently the Parkland Institute, somewhat stumped.

As I said, it's a subjective topic. You can either make it so expensive to invest that initiative is lost or you can make it so easy that there emerges a legitimate debate of whether or not the public is being served.

In either event, it's difficult to prove a right or wrong answer on that kind of subject. If it suits your political position, you can make either case.

Yes, life is hell in Alberta. Why, its so bad we can't keep people out of here!!! They're so poor with diminished relative wages that the housing market is out of control on the upside. The jobs are so menial that women in droves are showing up in the construction industry because there aren't enough males around to hammer nails.

All telltales signs of catastrophe. If you live in Lotusland.

Cowperson

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

In keeping with the rules of the Forum as to saying nothing libelous, I should note that the extra K's were a mere typo...

However, I believe the rest of my economic policy criticisms to be sound.

The royalty breaks (which again, are calculated by taking the difference between what Klein makes them pay, and what they were paying to the administrations before Klein and has nothing to do with pre-provincial-government land tenure) show that Albertans are losing money on THEIR oil. This money could have been used to pay for all of the things that Ralph convinced us HAD to be cut.

The other side of that arguement is that cutting corporate royalty responsibilities helps the economy. And to that I have supplied details on the wage and job decreases, in an attempt to show that the only ones that benefit are the owners of the companies, those royalty savings are not being passed on to the workers.

As far as unemployment stats go, I would wonder how many of those new jobs are in the lower paying service sectors. Also, if you are interested, there was a really good article on MSN Money the other day about the 'new' ways that governments calculate unemployment statistics. The numbers don't always mean what we think they do anymore.

Not to let facts get in the way of your fun but I believe it was Getty who reduced the royalties not Klein, and the $2 billion figure comes not from the reductions, but from what royalties would have been if we had other jurisdictions royalty regimes. (Usually Alaska or Norway, which would be fine if we had Alaskan or Norweigan oil)

So if what you're saying is if a tax changed almost 15 years ago were not reduced at that time but instead increased to match some other country we'd have an additional $2 billion this year in revenues, then its possible you might be right.

If you take stats not filtered through the unions you might also find that employment has grown significant ly in Alberta - so much so that we can't fine enough workers. The latest stascan employment bulletin I've seen the said:

Alberta's red hot economy also spurred hourly wage growth of 6.1% over the past 12 months. This is well ahead of the 3.3% hourly wage growth at the Canada-level and the most recent year-over-year increase of 2.8% in the national Consumer Price Index.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjec...LFS/lfs-en.htm

Commenting on the Same TD bank said

Notably, Alberta continues to be the locomotive of the West, with 25,000 jobs added in February and the unemployment rate falling to 3.1 per cent, the lowest rate in three decades. In addition, wage growth in the province has almost doubled the national average over the past year.
http://www.td.com/economics/weekly/mar1006.jsp

Generally speaking about the only labour number not happily rising in Alberta is the level of unionization, which might be related to why the AFL is desperately trying to convince people that things aren't going well.

Other than that, I too think Klein needs to move on.

[Lurch]

I think it needs to be clear there is probably a camp that thinks Klein is an overrated hack who walked into an "unloseable" situation from those that think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Alberta. My take on Alberta is that there is a tendency to believe people are smarter and/or harder working here and that is what is driving the success provincially. In reality, it's 99% luck - the NEP proved quite clearly Alberta cannot succeed with its current structure without oil revenues. I think this is a valuable lesson provided by history that has been entirely ignored.

I think Alberta needs to wean itself of oil revenues nearly entirely, to the point where 80%+ of all oil/gas revenues go into an endowment fund. In fact, if Alberta moved to a policy regime where non-renewable resource revenue could not be used for program spending, I would be thrilled. I read in the paper (sorry no time to find a link, but it was the Herald I think) that at the current rate of spending growth, Alberta could be back in deficit in 5 years or something along those lines even if oil revenues stay at the current level. Scary, at least to me. Spending is easy to ramp up, as Klein has demonstrated, but very hard to rein in once people are accustomed to it.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

So what if there are a lot of jobs created in the "lower paying service industries". There are so many of them there, that employers can't keep people and they're no longer exactly low paying. I've heard of kids making obscene amounts of money flipping burgers, even just starting (considering their jobs carry no responsibility, no required training/school, are easy, no worries about security)
These jobs are great for the economy too. Office jobs aren't the only ones that count. Someone still needs to take out the trash, and for some people, that's all their qualified/capable of doing. Having a boom in these sectors (which is caused by a boom in "better" sectors of industry) just make working conditions and salary better for them.

Well, if you think about the longer term, that may not be so great. While these kids are out making 'obsecene amounts of money' ($8-9 hr? Wowee) they aren't getting much of an edjumacation and are passing up the opportunities available in higher-skilled jobs ($20-30 an hour and up) that if they stayed in school would be available.

IMO opinion these are not jobs that are great for the economy, they ADD very little to the economy, but are more a result of a great economy. You can't build an economy on a foundation of burger-flippers, but on well educated group of youth? That is another story
________
blonde girl Webcam

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Well, if you think about the longer term, that may not be so great. While these kids are out making 'obsecene amounts of money' ($8-9 hr? Wowee) they aren't getting much of an edjumacation and are passing up the opportunities available in higher-skilled jobs ($20-30 an hour and up) that if they stayed in school would be available.

IMO opinion these are not jobs that are great for the economy, they ADD very little to the economy, but are more a result of a great economy. You can't build an economy on a foundation of burger-flippers, but on well educated group of youth? That is another story

I would assume that with a statement like this you would have some supporting evidence showing how enrollment in higher education has decreased and that classrooms are half full with tuition being slashed in order to attract more students... or maybe not?

Lets face it Ralph made some tough choices that have worked out well for the province (lets see... in the province with the lowest minimum wage the McDonalds by my house is offering $9/hr full time).

Ralph would be wise to light the fuse and let the Province know when he will bow out.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Not to let facts get in the way of your fun but I believe it was Getty who reduced the royalties not Klein, and the $2 billion figure comes not from the reductions, but from what royalties would have been if we had other jurisdictions royalty regimes. (Usually Alaska or Norway, which would be fine if we had Alaskan or Norweigan oil)

So if what you're saying is if a tax changed almost 15 years ago were not reduced at that time but instead increased to match some other country we'd have an additional $2 billion this year in revenues, then its possible you might be right.

If you take stats not filtered through the unions you might also find that employment has grown significant ly in Alberta - so much so that we can't fine enough workers. The latest stascan employment bulletin I've seen the said:

Alberta's red hot economy also spurred hourly wage growth of 6.1% over the past 12 months.

The royalties were reduced by Klein. Charging royalties at the same rate that Getty did, Alberta would have an extra 2 billion per year. This is on Alberta's oil, not foreign oil where these corporations pay no royalties to Albertans. I thought that was pretty straight forward.

Additionally, a 6 cent per hour increase over the LAST YEAR does not equal a REAL rise in wages WHEN COMPARED AGAINST INFLATION over the last decade of Klein rule.

And for whoever it was that said that I haven't provided evidence... i just listed the organizations that published the studies. I didn't want to include a large bibliography in my post... but I can if you really need it.

Also, a quick note on the way the Alberta government reports employment numbers: People that are chronically unemployed, or those without work for a period of five years or more are ommited from the numbers. This means that numbers at the bottom end, the numbers that truly represent those people most affected by economic policy, are either shrinking, or remaining constant on the books, when this in not in fact the case.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by firebug

I would assume that with a statement like this you would have some supporting evidence showing how enrollment in higher education has decreased and that classrooms are half full with tuition being slashed in order to attract more students... or maybe not?

Lets face it Ralph made some tough choices that have worked out well for the province (lets see... in the province with the lowest minimum wage the McDonalds by my house is offering $9/hr full time).

Ralph would be wise to light the fuse and let the Province know when he will bow out.

My evidence is all personal, which is government officials raising concerns that the supply of well educated youth is being affected by good paying low skill jobs. And the fact that to meet skilled job needs, the province is recruiting like mad from other provinces.

Lets face it, Ralph had nothing to do with the Black goo which is a big reason why Alberta is where it is (low corporate taxes is another, but other provinces have closed that gap considerably).

A big problem IMO is that the Government says that diversification into non-energy industries is a big part of the future success of the province, but the current government isn't doing enough to make it happen.

In a nutshell do you remember the bumper sticker "God please let their be another oil boom and I promise I won't **** it all away.". Well the current monarchy IMO is too stale to implement the plan to insure we have an economy that isn't a one-trick pony.

I hope I am wrong

PS And Ralph did light an 18-month fuse yesterday, he will retire in Oct 2007...maybe ;-)
________
Web Shows

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

The royalties were reduced by Klein. Charging royalties at the same rate that Getty did, Alberta would have an extra 2 billion per year. This is on Alberta's oil, not foreign oil where these corporations pay no royalties to Albertans. I thought that was pretty straight forward.

Additionally, a 6 cent per hour increase over the LAST YEAR does not equal a REAL rise in wages WHEN COMPARED AGAINST INFLATION over the last decade of Klein rule.

And for whoever it was that said that I haven't provided evidence... i just listed the organizations that published the studies. I didn't want to include a large bibliography in my post... but I can if you really need it.

Also, a quick note on the way the Alberta government reports employment numbers: People that are chronically unemployed, or those without work for a period of five years or more are ommited from the numbers. This means that numbers at the bottom end, the numbers that truly represent those people most affected by economic policy, are either shrinking, or remaining constant on the books, when this in not in fact the case.

Well so far you are o-fer on the facts, so give the bibliography a run.

Seems to me you're either grossly misinformed, or simply making things up. If it's the former, maybe we can both learn something. If it's the latter, thats fine too.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

My evidence is all personal, which is government officials raising concerns that the supply of well educated youth is being affected by good paying low skill jobs. And the fact that to meet skilled job needs, the province is recruiting like mad from other provinces. (1)

Lets face it, Ralph had nothing to do with the Black goo which is a big reason why Alberta is where it is (low corporate taxes is another(2), but other provinces have closed that gap considerably).

A big problem IMO is that the Government says that diversification into non-energy industries (3) is a big part of the future success of the province, but the current government isn't doing enough to make it happen.

In a nutshell do you remember the bumper sticker "God please let their be another oil boom and I promise I won't **** it all away.". (4) Well the current monarchy IMO is too stale to implement the plan to insure we have an economy that isn't a one-trick pony.

I hope I am wrong

PS And Ralph did light an 18-month fuse yesterday, he will retire in Oct 2007...maybe ;-)

First off, I work in corporate finance as an investment banker so my answers are invariably tainted by my inherent capitalistic experiences.

1) The "skilled jobs" that are actively being recruited are exactly those that you mentioned in a previous post - millwrights, welders, construction etc. - not lawyers, accountants, or PHd's (although demand for these groups has increased as well)

2) Low corporate taxes should help diversify the economy should they not?

3) People, companies, provinces, countries, etc. should stick to their knitting and do what they do best. In Alberta right now that is oil & gas. Trying to attract other businesses into the region is wasted effort as they are able to find cheaper inputs (especially labour and capital) other places. Let the economy decide where is best for each company, person or industry.

When the sun is shining its time to cut hay!

4) Is that the gov'ts job or the individuals? I know that I am doing all that I can to prepare myself for the time when things are not as pleasant in AB as they are now. The goverment should worry about ensuring that the business environment will attract investment irregardless of commodity prices.

I am sure each of us will have a few more kicks at this can.

Best regards,

~bug

[vanisleflamesfan]

Okay I don't really have time to find all of it, so this is a quick overview. I don't see a single fact that you have refuted me on so how am I O-fer?

Enjoy.

Canadian Taxpayers Association.
Revolution and Reversal: Ten Years of Premier Ralph Klein

Card, David and Alan B. Kreuger.
Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Princeton University Press, 1995. (Contains good info about your theory that minimum wage jobs are good for the economy).

National Council of Welfare Reports.
Welfare Incomes 2002. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2003.

Parkland Institute.
Advantage No More: How Low Taxes Flattened Aberta's Future. March 18, 2002.
Is the Klein Government Giving away Alberta's Oil Wealth. March 10, 2003

Pembina Institute.
Environmental Governance Regional Details: Alberta. http://www.pembina.org/pdf/publicati...ls_Alberta.pdf

Statistics Canada
Annual Estimates of Employment, Earnings and Hours 1991-2004. (CD ROM).
Income Trends in Canada 1980-2001. (CD ROM).
Labour Force Historical Review 2001 (revised) (CD ROM).
Perspectives on Labour and Income, Autumn 2003.
The Canadian Economic Observer: Historical Supplement, 2003.

Workman, Thom.
Banking on Deception: The Discourse of the Fiscal Crisis. Fernwood Publishing, 1996.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I remember touring the bowels of Calgary's city hall in the late 1970's and coming across Ralph in the media room in jeans, cowboy hat, his cowboy boots up on a chair, a smoke dangling from his lips and a beer in hand.

He really hasn't changed much.
Cowperson

Better than that directionless stupid bureaucractic decisions wishy washy Dave BroncoBust.

I read an article about people favouring him for the Provincial Tory Leadership and I dread that day.

The fact is when Alberta was in major recession, after the mess Don Getty put us into, Ralph decided to cut and cut hard in 1993 and it saved Alberta long before the oil boom and helped us be less reliant on oil as well.

After 2001, he's back to King Ralph like he was when mayor here but I really don't mind. It was fun watching him stick it to the Feds. Being drunk with Clinton was great too.

I'm nowhere close to this "average joe Alberta cowboy" that maybe Klein represents to some people, far from it. But I respect his language and intelligence more than the other "country-boy" politician Bush. Politicians that don't pull punches and stay successful are good to see. Better a politician that's straight up about stupid things than one who lies and makes excuses.

Diversifiying Alberta's economy is a good thing, I don't agree at all with Firebug that we should "stick to what we're good at" just because of competitive advantage. Putting all your eggs into Agri and Oil is stupid. The IT industry is not inherently that regional. There's no reason Alberta shouldn't invest in something like that.

Reliance on one industry means you're screwed when things go bust. Don't you diversify your portfolios? What if you are a maritime province and doing what you're good at means that half your population is unemployed and ends up moving to Fort Mac?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Every time this question comes up I just cringe. Last figures I heard put this around $100 Billion. It would still have to run city limits to city limits like the airports, there would still be a check in time like the airports, and there still would be the security delas like the airports.

Plus due to the climate in Alberta where we have temperatures all the way from -35 to +35 the gaps in the tracks would have to be so big that the train would have a max speed nowhere near what the trains in Japan have.

Can you give me one good reason why this is a good idea?

So you spend $200 billion and make it underground and come right run right up to a new combined C-Train station at city limits. It'll just be like getting on the C-Train - integration with the metro transit system as seamless as possible. What do you need security for? Post a few marshalls on the train, you're set. It's not like customs at the airport. Who needs to smuggle anything from Calgary to Edmonton. Power it with like low maintenance wind turbines that run the length of the tracks on the surface and make the train go 300 mph.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Okay I don't really have time to find all of it, so this is a quick overview. I don't see a single fact that you have refuted me on so how am I O-fer?

According to your own source:

The report shows that the disparity between resource revenue earned by the Alberta government during the Lougheed era and today can be explained in large part by policy decisions made by the government of former premier Don Getty and perpetuated by the Klein government.

The Parkland Institute estimates that if the current Alberta government had collected revenue from oil and gas companies at the same rate as the Lougheed government, resource revenue would have been about $3.78 billion higher per year between 1992 and 1997. If royalties and other fees had been assessed at the same rate as Alaska, the Alberta government would have brought in an extra $2.0 billion per year

If you're going to make stuff up in future I'd suggest pointing out articles you've actually read or that at least support your case. Better yet, if it's your opinion just say so, no need to play this game.

[vanisleflamesfan]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

policy decisions made by the government of former premier Don Getty and PERPETUATED by the Klein government.

The Parkland Institute estimates that if the current Alberta government had collected revenue from oil and gas companies at the same rate as the Lougheed government, resource revenue would have been about $3.78 billion higher per year between 1992 and 1997. If royalties and other fees had been assessed at the same rate as Alaska, the Alberta government would have brought in an extra $2.0 billion per year

Okay, so the number was higher than I said. I said 2 billion and that article says 3.78 Billion... that supports my case. I didn't make anything up, I just quoted the wrong number.

Also, the word 'perpetuated' is an interesting one... Klein deepened the cuts, even in the face of an increasing global price of oil, he just keeps giving it away.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by firebug

First off, I work in corporate finance as an investment banker so my answers are invariably tainted by my inherent capitalistic experiences.

1) The "skilled jobs" that are actively being recruited are exactly those that you mentioned in a previous post - millwrights, welders, construction etc. - not lawyers, accountants, or PHd's (although demand for these groups has increased as well)

2) Low corporate taxes should help diversify the economy should they not?

3) People, companies, provinces, countries, etc. should stick to their knitting and do what they do best. In Alberta right now that is oil & gas. Trying to attract other businesses into the region is wasted effort as they are able to find cheaper inputs (especially labour and capital) other places. Let the economy decide where is best for each company, person or industry.

When the sun is shining its time to cut hay!

4) Is that the gov'ts job or the individuals? I know that I am doing all that I can to prepare myself for the time when things are not as pleasant in AB as they are now. The goverment should worry about ensuring that the business environment will attract investment irregardless of commodity prices.

I am sure each of us will have a few more kicks at this can.

Best regards,

~bug

1) I'm not sure where we are going on point 1, I agree the demand for 'the trades' type jobs are what in most demand now. All I am saying is that the downside to an economy that is able to lure young people out of school is that you may have a less educated population down the road.

2) I don't see the evidence that a flat tax does anything in particular (in Alberta) to diversify the economy. If anything I think that many factors have come together to create a 'market failure', basically energy investments are so sweet right now that they are sucking the capital away from other sectors like young high-tech companies (which is also inefficient b/c we spend major $$$ that should be resulting in more high-tech companies). Furthermore, the 'flat-corporate tax' is a bald untruth as energy companies recieve tax subsidies for some of their exploration and exploitation costs. I think that a well-managed tax break for investing in non-energy high-tech companies would be a wise intervention, OR the goverment should stop nursing the energy industry, I think they can handle themselves at ~$60 a barrel.

3) As was said earlier by another poster, diversification makes sense. Especially long term strategic diversification, which the government is thinking and talking about...but aren't doing enough to initiate. I don't think that leaving economic policy to market forces is always smart, it is the easiest way to run things though.

4) I agree that the gov should be creating a good business climate, I also think that the gov has to make sure that whatever economy is left over when the energy sector dips (and it will), is strong and established and the time when we can afford to develop that is when the sun is shining.
________
WASHINGTON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

1) I'm not sure where we are going on point 1, I agree the demand for 'the trades' type jobs are what in most demand now. All I am saying is that the downside to an economy that is able to lure young people out of school is that you may have a less educated population down the road.

2) I don't see the evidence that a flat tax does anything in particular (in Alberta) to diversify the economy. If anything I think that many factors have come together to create a 'market failure', basically energy investments are so sweet right now that they are sucking the capital away from other sectors like young high-tech companies (which is also inefficient b/c we spend major $$$ that should be resulting in more high-tech companies). Furthermore, the 'flat-corporate tax' is a bald untruth as energy companies recieve tax subsidies for some of their exploration and exploitation costs. I think that a well-managed tax break for investing in non-energy high-tech companies would be a wise intervention, OR the goverment should stop nursing the energy industry, I think they can handle themselves at ~$60 a barrel.

3) As was said earlier by another poster, diversification makes sense. Especially long term strategic diversification, which the government is thinking and talking about...but aren't doing enough to initiate. I don't think that leaving economic policy to market forces is always smart, it is the easiest way to run things though.

4) I agree that the gov should be creating a good business climate, I also think that the gov has to make sure that whatever economy is left over when the energy sector dips (and it will), is strong and established and the time when we can afford to develop that is when the sun is shining.

Fozzie, first off, I appreciate that you have been keeping this discussion above board... no reason for those with differing opinions to result to insults and attacks.

1) Are some youth being lured from school into industry... most likely. However it would seem that there are plenty of other youth who may not have chosen to attend school previously who are now filling those spots. Until I see reduced post-secondary entrance and graduation rates I am not worried about this. Besides, there is no reason to beleive that these bright kids can't make a good living and contribute to society in the skilled trades.

2-3) Bring me a business plan trying to raise 10 - 15 million for a non-resource related company that couldn't be situated better in another region. Face it... O&G is too attractive right now to focus capital in other areas that are not providing the same upside.

Is a diversified economy a good thing? It certainly could be argued that it is. However, I am sceptical that governments can stimulate diversity in the current environment in a cost effective and sustainable matter.

When oil is $20 again there will be a much stronger economic incentive for diversification than anything the gov't. could dream up right now (whatever happened to that magnesium plant by High River anyways?).

4) The gov't is debt free and in much better shape than any other regoin to survive an economic bust (spending levels are worrysome however... but those could always be Ralph'ed again if needed).

In a bust situation there will be a glut of skilled and/or educated labour allowing other industries to establish themselves (like what has happened previously). I still see no need for the gov't to artificially motivate the already highly efficient flow of investment capital.

Those of us currently enjoying the fruits of the boom need to personally ensure that we are going to be able to handle any future downturn(s). Gov't meddling rarely makes any of these situations better, and frequently makes them worse.

Best regards,

~bug

[firebug]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

Okay, so the number was higher than I said. I said 2 billion and that article says 3.78 Billion... that supports my case. I didn't make anything up, I just quoted the wrong number.

Also, the word 'perpetuated' is an interesting one... Klein deepened the cuts, even in the face of an increasing global price of oil, he just keeps giving it away.

VIFF, it has been great to see your perspective on Alberta's tax & royalty policies.

I happen to see some fundamental differences in the context in which you understand these verses how many in Alberta might.

First off, there is the assumption that O&G revenues are somehow better off in the goverment's pockets than in those of Albertan's. Any increase in royalty rates merely transfers wealth out of the pockets of the shareholders and employees of the companies finding and extracting the reserves.

If you beleive that the government can do a better job with that money than individuals can, I suspect that it is unlikely that you will ever agree with my opinoins nor those held by the majority of Albertans.

Regards,

~bug

[Lurch]

First off, there is the assumption that O&G revenues are somehow better off in the goverment's pockets than in those of Albertan's. Any increase in royalty rates merely transfers wealth out of the pockets of the shareholders and employees of the companies finding and extracting the reserves.

I think this is also a big simplification of the gov't role in royalties. The government owns these resources - why should they give them away? Is this the capitalist approach? Also, governments should act in the perpertual interest of citizens, i.e. not shortsightedly maximize current development. If you look at this history of oil development in the US, it is readily obvious that unfettered access to resources ends up destroying the resource. (I'm referring to overproduction/depleted recovery rates as a result of the policy regime that did not give ownership to resevoirs and gave rise to slant drilling etc)

Also, it is naive to suppose that 100% of the benefits of oil resources remain in Alberta. Foreign ownership, etc result in the value flowing out of the province to at least some extent. If the gov't allows free access to the resource, a portion of the benefit flows out of the province.

Further, how do you ration scarce resources if the gov't gives away its oil reserves? Today, willingness to pay is one determinant via the land auction and established royalty structure. I'd prefer royalties were paid the same way, i.e. auction off the royalty rate on packages of land rather than a postage stamp approach. Some resources are more valuable, and the government should reflect this in its royalty policy. This encourages true investment efficiency as companies that can produce energy more cheaply will value it more and be willing to pay a higher royalty.

Finally, there is an inherent assumption in your position that royalties flow either to the gov't or to investors/employees. This is missing the point that royalty revenues can offset other forms of taxes, both now and in the future. That is, if you suppose the gov't needs $30 billion per year to accomplish its goals indefinitely into the future, why should it not extract this amount from royalties rather than personal income tax. It currently owns the resource, and it is irresponsible both to current and future taxpayers not to maximize the value of this resource.

NOTE: While I think the gov't should maximize the amount if pulls out of royalties, I don't think it should spend this money on current program spending and/or lower taxes. As a non-renewable resource, it should be monetized and have its benefits paid indefinitely via payments from an endowment fund to either lower taxes and/or invest in the province - not for current program spending and lower current taxes. The current approach is very short-sighted and actually causes economic inefficiency as it is increasing inflation and making development more expensive.

[mykalberta]

[quote=Bend it like Bourgeois]I wouldn't be so sure that the PCs are trying to rig this in Klein's favour.
The man is not popular in lots of circles these days and while I'm pretty sure the party will close ranks and support him, they may not.
[quote]

They better.

He has his issues like every other leader but all-in-all he hasnt been that bad.

Its unfortunate Stock took the bait of Federal Politics cause he would have been the shoe in long ago, personally I think Ralph has waited this long cause he doesnt have a successor he thinks is compitent (spelling).

MYK

[Fozzie_DeBear]

[quote=mykalberta][quote=Bend it like Bourgeois]I wouldn't be so sure that the PCs are trying to rig this in Klein's favour.
The man is not popular in lots of circles these days and while I'm pretty sure the party will close ranks and support him, they may not.

They better.

He has his issues like every other leader but all-in-all he hasnt been that bad.

Its unfortunate Stock took the bait of Federal Politics cause he would have been the shoe in long ago, personally I think Ralph has waited this long cause he doesnt have a successor he thinks is compitent (spelling).

MYK

Stock? As in STOCKWELL DAY?

I would rather...

see the Leafs, Canucks and Oilers win the Stanley Cup consecutively...
have Dion Phaneuf traded for a future consideration...
have fotze and Lanny tutor my kids on etiquitte...
and eat a grenade

...than have Stockwell lead us through the 14th...errrrr...21st century

But that is just my ventromedial prefrontal cortex talking
________
Live sex