Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not even sure it's idealism. We are facing massive, apparently intractable public finance deficits in an era of stagnating economies and relentless demographic atrophy. The math is terrifying. So people ignore the math, either because they're innumerate (which covers most voters) or because they'd simply prefer not to think about how this stuff will look more than about five years out.

Our public finances are basically a mini-van careening down a rutted mountain road at night with no headlights, while the passengers and driver argue over which radio station to listen to.

The biggest red light for me isn't the actual budget itself, even though a deficit in the $10 billion range for a province to me is pretty unacceptable.

The biggest red light is that the Alberta Government itself is running a deficit on its operations budget, and that's a serious serious bleed.

Right now the tax revenue is shrinking because less people are working, that's not even an argument anymore. You can't keep hammering the remaining tax base with more and more taxes because at some point, the taxes become regressive, and it also impacts economic confidence.

If the government is going to spend into a deficit in bad economic times, that's acceptable as long as you don't blow your brains out, and its effective spending.

But running a debt just to turn the lights on in the morning is a fundamental failure point and has to be addressed.

I disagree with any concept of a sales tax being introduced, that's been done with the Carbon Tax which is a consumer tax and is going to general revenue, its also a tax across all income brackets that's going to impact people without a lot of disposable income in the first place.

At this point, there has to be some sanity introduced in terms of government spending and inefficiencies, when things were good, you could afford to be ineffective, when you have a ton of money rolling in, you can get away with pissing it away.

But now we're in the situation where the money isn't coming in, and might not be coming in for a while and the margin for error and stupid spending and ineffective services with a high price tag are concepts that will kill this province.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm curious, Cyclops. What are your qualifications to speak? Given you are basically arguing that a "computer geek" and an accountant have no right to an opinion, where do you derive your rights from?

I have an opinion, the same as you and the same as everyone else in here. But because people don't agree with my opinion or it doesn't fall in line with their opinion then I'm labeled a fool.

[V]

I wouldn't worry about it. CC is basically a simple minded echo chamber. There are opinions to be concerned with, and then there is whatever CC is going on about that day.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I have an opinion, the same as you and the same as everyone else in here. But because people don't agree with my opinion or it doesn't fall in line with their opinion then I'm labeled a fool.

Rightfully so, I might add.

Anyway, the global economy is currently facing some headwinds, and will continue to do so for some time due to significant systemic issues like demographics, stagnating innovation, and wealth inequality. Global capital net-flows are decreasing. The free-market system that brought us such abundant, and widespread wealth is going through some significant shocks.

Governments everywhere are strapped for ideas as to how to respond appropriately. As many have mentioned, public finance models will have to be reformed significantly to avoid the risk of collapsing altogether.

It is on this point that our current government is appallingly ignorant. Personally, I have no issue with so-called progressive goals. I want wages to be high, the poor to be taken care of, and universal health-care. However, if you think that our current government has made any innovative headway on those files, you are fooling yourself.

We have been remarkably shielded from global economic woes for the past 10 years. Now we are sitting where everyone else is, and does no one any good to pretend otherwise.

[Weitz]

nm

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not even sure it's idealism. We are facing massive, apparently intractable public finance deficits in an era of stagnating economies and relentless demographic atrophy. The math is terrifying. So people ignore the math, either because they're innumerate (which covers most voters) or because they'd simply prefer not to think about how this stuff will look more than about five years out.

Our public finances are basically a mini-van careening down a rutted mountain road at night with no headlights, while the passengers and driver argue over which radio station to listen to.

Don't forget the massive liability to public finances presented by climate change which will start to sink in at the approximate times as the demographic and productivity challenges become difficult to ignore.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am a licensed political scientist with over 10 years working in politics, and I endorse Resolute and Locke's views!

Is this your way of saying you have a Poli Sci degree? Or does some kind of license actually exist?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is this your way of saying you have a Poli Sci degree? Or does some kind of license actually exist?

It's my way of being a joke.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This must be that hyper-left wing CalgaryPuck I've been reading about.

Why anyone would ever call this place a talking-points echo chamber I have no idea.

The cabal of NDP supporters has been real quiet lately when it comes to discussing politics. I can only assume it's due to shame and embarrassment.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cyclops

I have an opinion, the same as you and the same as everyone else in here. But because people don't agree with my opinion or it doesn't fall in line with their opinion then I'm labeled a fool.

If it helps, you aren't being labeled a fool for having an opinion. But the way you express them has so far been a mixture of deflection tactics and the steadfast belief that Notley is on the right track because... reasons.

I mean, it's pretty clear that robaur is as orange as an Oompa loompa and would follow Notley right into an active volcano. I haven't made up my mind on you yet, but it would be helpful if you supported your opinions with more than "but everyone else sucks" and similar deflection tactics.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's my way of being a joke.

Part of me just wanted to quote this for posterity, but I also wasn't sure. There are all kinds of licenses and designations out there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by V

I wouldn't worry about it. CC is basically a simple minded echo chamber. There are opinions to be concerned with, and then there is whatever CC is going on about that day.

Seriously, glad to see that you have nothing to add that's actually intelligence.

Hey I have an idea, why don't you take things to a personal level.

Come on sport throw out some really good insults, I can take it.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Don't forget the massive liability to public finances presented by climate change which will start to sink in at the approximate times as the demographic and productivity challenges become difficult to ignore.

Are you referring to the environmental consequences of climate change here or the economic consequences of shifting to a greener energy base?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Are you referring to the environmental consequences of climate change here or the economic consequences of shifting to a greener energy base?

Environmental consequences. Most new and cogent studies looking at the economic cost are agreeing that over the long-term of transitioning to clean energy will have lower net costs. It's a pretty standard finding that low-carbon development pathways are cheaper, especially with high energy efficiency deployment and the massive reduction in renewable costs.

Initially the costs appear high because the transition means that actual people, such as folks in Calgary working in oil and gas lose their jobs. For loss averse people, which we all are, those costs are highly multiplied. But if you look at costs over the coming 3 decades low carbon does appear to be cheaper and economic growth assumptions rosier. It's just the initial shocks, which are not trivial, that are the prisms by which people perceive.

Edit: But one finding is abundantly clear, not doing anything about climate, even with high initial costs, will bring very high costs in the coming decades/generations. That's my point, we have known systemic issues such as demographics, and unknown systemic issues that are potentially even worse like climate change that are going to put immense strain on public budgets. We need new paradigms to begin to address them. But there will be blood, no matter what.

[PsYcNeT]

If we had only elected the Alberta Liberals in we wouldn't even be in this mess.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

The cabal of NDP supporters has been real quiet lately when it comes to discussing politics. I can only assume it's due to shame and embarrassment.

The expiry date has passed on blaming the previous government, so they are out of excuses now.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Environmental consequences. Most new and cogent studies looking at the economic cost are agreeing that over the long-term of transitioning to clean energy will have lower net costs. It's a pretty standard finding that low-carbon development pathways are cheaper, especially with high energy efficiency deployment and the massive reduction in renewable costs.

Initially the costs appear high because the transition means that actual people, such as folks in Calgary working in oil and gas lose their jobs. For loss averse people, which we all are, those costs are highly multiplied. But if you look at costs over the coming 3 decades low carbon does appear to be cheaper and economic growth assumptions rosier. It's just the initial shocks, which are not trivial, that are the prisms by which people perceive.

Edit: But one finding is abundantly clear, not doing anything about climate, even with high initial costs, will bring very high costs in the coming decades/generations. That's my point, we have known systemic issues such as demographics, and unknown systemic issues that are potentially even worse like climate change that are going to put immense strain on public budgets. We need new paradigms to begin to address them. But there will be blood, no matter what.

It's patently ridiculous to believe that there are any costs associated with Alberta being a couple degrees warmer. In fact, we will probably be better off economically in a warmer climate. These "costs" you propose are imaginary. Otherwise anywhere with a climate 2 degrees warmer than Alberta would be suffering. They are not.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's patently ridiculous to believe that there are any costs associated with Alberta being a couple degrees warmer. In fact, we will probably be better off economically in a warmer climate. These "costs" you propose are imaginary. Otherwise anywhere with a climate 2 degrees warmer than Alberta would be suffering. They are not.

That is some spectacular logic.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's patently ridiculous to believe that there are any costs associated with Alberta being a couple degrees warmer. In fact, we will probably be better off economically in a warmer climate. These "costs" you propose are imaginary. Otherwise anywhere with a climate 2 degrees warmer than Alberta would be suffering. They are not.

Well, it is decent to think of the other people in the world once in a while.

[llwhiteoutll]

Do you honestly believe that what Alberta is doing will either have an effect on climate change overall or cause countries like the US, China and India to all of a sudden do the same?

The carbon tax (despite Notley refusing to call it that) is simply backdooring a consumption tax on higher income earners under the incredibly weak guise of doing something about the climate.