Alberta Politics Thread

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

You're under the assumption that there will always be another region to expand to that can make you that $1M?

Here's a basic math question for you:

Which scenario earns you more money, making a smaller profit or no profit at all?

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You just made up numbers in your scenario though, of $1 million and $500 000. Have you considered that it may go from $250 000 to -$250 000, making it unprofitable?

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Have you considered that I meant profits when I was using those examples?

..and then I posted the "what are you even talking about" image, because your comment made zero sense. I stand by that. It certainly doesn't in any way explain why a company would go from profitable to losing money and still be able to operate in Alberta.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Let's change the subject because one angry guy said something to deflect from the fact that the Premier's government is flat out incompetent and measuring the impact of their carbon tax.

Standard NDP playbook.

What's wrong with you?

This is an AB politics discussion, meaning lots of items are discussed at once.

The carbon tax needs to be discussed, and no one has tried to shut that discussion down in the slightest. We can still point out that the discussion should remain civil.

Take a breath and then post.

The best part of your post is you directly state that one political party would rather change the discussion on an item they are being criticized on then discuss it, as if that was a NDP/ left wing tactic only.

Very odd post.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Whether it was a ride share or a limo service is kind of irrelevant, she didn't drive off by herself in a hummer. Multiple people used one vehicle instead of 2-4. The article is a very poor attempt at attacking her, regardless of the facts, it's poorly written, even when they tried to make wall look somewhat environmentally friendly, any person with half a brain would realize how 1 passenger on a bus is not environmentally friendly.

So somehow Notley taking an SUV counts as a carpool, but Wall taking the bus counts as 1 person?

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or does it come naturally?

In case you can't figure it out, I'm sure they both have staff. Reread the article, he was the one PREMIER to not take the bus.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

..and then I posted the "what are you even talking about" image, because your comment made zero sense. I stand by that. It certainly doesn't in any way explain why a company would go from profitable to losing money and still be able to operate in Alberta.

My original post was talking about expansion, not relocation. Moving from a profitable location to a non-profitable one obviously makes no sense, but for example a grocery chain opening up a new store in an area where they will make less than in an existing area of operations does, and it happens because otherwise they are losing out on that market and risking their competitors taking away that potential share of the market. Every Walmart doesn't make the same amount of profit, but they aren't going to not open new stores just because the new store won't make the same amount of money as an existing store. If the return on investment is still high enough they will continue to open new stores to remain competitive and maintain their share of the market, that was my point. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

[Locke]

I think the thing that irks me the most is the fact that its just Notley coming up with excuses.

"Oh, theres no work in Alberta? Move to BC."

"Oh, we're making fuel too expensive? Take the train."

"Walk more."

The fact of the matter is that Rachel Notley doesnt walk the walk while expecting the rest of us to make sacrifices.

So how much does she really care about the environment?

Does she need an entire motorcade or can she bike to the Legislature?

She probably doesnt even recycle...

[Fuzz]

Yes, I understand that. Going back to the original point of the conversation, (waaaay back!) between the carbon tax, minimum wage increase, and other tax increases it will become unprofitable for business to operate in Alberta and will choose to re-locate to other jurisdictions(if this is deemed more profitable) or not come to Alberta in the first place. You claimed that wouldn't happen because the companies would still make profit, just less. The rest of us understand it will happen, and it happens all the time.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

So somehow Notley taking an SUV counts as a carpool, but Wall taking the bus counts as 1 person?

Are you deliberately being obtuse, or does it come naturally?

In case you can't figure it out, I'm sure they both have staff. Reread the article, he was the one PREMIER to not take the bus.

I'm going off what was written in the article. The article states Notley AND her staff got into the SUV. The article also states wall was the only premier to take a bus, it makes no mention of his staff, so I'm sticking with what's being written. How is that obtuse? Yes they both have staff, but they make no mention about where wall's went, so we can assume either case, we could also assume that given the nature of the article, they likely would have mentioned his staff being on the bus if they were, that assumption does not guarantee they were not though. Again it was a very poorly written article.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

I think the thing that irks me the most is the fact that its just Notley coming up with excuses.

"Oh, theres no work in Alberta? Move to BC."

"Oh, we're making fuel too expensive? Take the train."

"Walk more."

The fact of the matter is that Rachel Notley doesnt walk the walk while expecting the rest of us to make sacrifices.

So how much does she really care about the environment?

Does she need an entire motorcade or can she bike to the Legislature?

She probably doesnt even recycle...

Actually she was well known for commuting on her bike regularly before she became Premier. I'm sure the new position has a lot of priorities and security requirements where she needs to motorcade now, but it's not like she hasn't already been doing this for years.

The article also has no context. Maybe the other Premiers had time sensitive work to get done and didn't have time to sit on a bus, maybe Brad Wall had a later flight to catch. Just another right wing puff piece designed to make Notley look bad.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'm going off what was written in the article. The article states Notley AND her staff got into the SUV. The article also states wall was the only premier to take a bus, it makes no mention of his staff, so I'm sticking with what's being written. How is that obtuse?

You're right, it's not obtuse. It's downright willful ignorance on your part.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Actually she was well known for commuting on her bike regularly before she became Premier. I'm sure the new position has a lot of priorities and security requirements where she needs to motorcade now, but it's not like she hasn't already been doing this for years.

The article also has no context. Maybe the other Premiers had time sensitive work to get done and didn't have time to sit on a bus, maybe Brad Wall had a later flight to catch. Just another right wing puff piece designed to make Notley look bad.

Its a waste of column inches because she doesnt need any help.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

My original post was talking about expansion, not relocation. Moving from a profitable location to a non-profitable one obviously makes no sense, but for example a grocery chain opening up a new store in an area where they will make less than in an existing area of operations does, and it happens because otherwise they are losing out on that market and risking their competitors taking away that potential share of the market. Every Walmart doesn't make the same amount of profit, but they aren't going to not open new stores just because the new store won't make the same amount of money as an existing store. If the return on investment is still high enough they will continue to open new stores to remain competitive and maintain their share of the market, that was my point. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

What if the changes proposed seriously challenge the return on investment calculation as to actually change the investment decision? Have you considered that a lot of the policy changes are actually that material for a huge swath of businesses in Alberta?

Or is it simply that you can only really see or understand what you can see six feet in front of you and that as long as there are new stores going up in places in Alberta that you feel comfortable in your conclusion that the government can continue making policy changes that hurt profitability of businesses and that the negative consequences are overblown? Maybe there would be more McDonald's and Wal Mart's going up if there were better policy. Do you consider the potential lost opportunity costs of investments not made?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

You're right, it's not obtuse. It's downright willful ignorance on your part.

Ignorance of hypotheticals? I'm not denying it's possible, you appear to be adamant though that something you have zero facts to back up happened with certainty. Which scenario sounds more ignorant to you?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Actually she was well known for commuting on her bike regularly before she became Premier.

She was well know to have protested against pipelines, the "tarsands" and the energy industry in general before she became Premier. I guess she's doing some token talking but she's also gone ahead and continued to hire anti-pipeline advocates into the positions of power in Alberta.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by chemgear

She was well know to have protested against pipelines, the "tarsands" and the energy industry in general before she became Premier. I guess she's doing some token talking but she's also gone ahead and continued to hire anti-pipeline advocates into the positions of power in Alberta.

Well two out of three pipelines were approved, I'd say track record so far on the pipeline position isn't the worst we've seen.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by GGG

Stop eating meat. Get rid of your house. Don't live in a country where you have to heat your house. Maybe you make a minor difference in your footprint.

But you live in a first world country, you need to cut out 95% or so of your footprint for everyone in the world to live like you.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Let's just all live in straw huts and eat bugs. Maybe that will satisfy the climate change zealots.

Interestingly, the NDP are starting to do one of the two things that would actually materially affect the carbon emission totals from Alberta in the next decade - drive out a material number of people out of the province. The other would be to pull a 12 Monkeys eco-terrorist maneuver. I look forward to the start of NDP death panels in 2017.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Whether it was a ride share or a limo service is kind of irrelevant, she didn't drive off by herself in a hummer. Multiple people used one vehicle instead of 2-4. The article is a very poor attempt at attacking her, regardless of the facts, it's poorly written, even when they tried to make wall look somewhat environmentally friendly, any person with half a brain would realize how 1 passenger on a bus is not environmentally friendly.

OMG this is an amazing spin, I applaud you sir.

But it does show the hypocrisy of our nations leaders that a bus was rented to ferry them around, and these so call carbon conscientious leaders chose not to use it. But the guy against the Carbon tax does.

But I congratulate you on trying to make Wall the villain of this story and some how make Notley look positively virtuous.

Well done sir.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

OMG this is an amazing spin, I applaud you sir.

But it does show the hypocrisy of our nations leaders that a bus was rented to ferry them around, and these so call carbon conscientious leaders chose not to use it. But the guy against the Carbon tax does.

But I congratulate you on trying to make Wall the villain of this story and some how make Notley look positively virtuous.

Well done sir.

I wasn't attacking wall, I was critiquing the journalist who wrote the article. I'm not trying to make wall or Notley look good or bad here, I just think it's ridiculous to attack her for carpooling rather than taking a bus when no one knows the reason why she made that choice.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Which scenario sounds more ignorant to you?

The most ignorant scenario is always the one you pulled out of your own ass. Just like all your math failures and economic straw men.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The classic "this person doesn't agree with me so they are wrong and/or stupid" You can learn a lot in life by actually having conversations with people you disagree with rather than avoiding them and trying to shame their opinions through potshots.

Yeah, no. You're conflating a lack of basic conversance in the topics under discussion with a differing opinion. You generally seem to be well meaning, and are respectful to other posters, so I don't think the reaction you get is meant to be taken personally, at least from most of the people on here. But there's a reason that people respond to you with utter bewilderment instead of disagreement. That Jackie Chan meme Fuzz posted isn't meant to convey frustration, it's literally called "my mind is full of f***". It's used when someone can't believe they're actually having the conversation they're having - as if someone's attempting to convince you that two and two make five. Where do you even start in responding to something like that?

It's hard to have a conversation when someone seems to just ignore basic first principles every few posts, and your response is to act surprised and ask where you've gone wrong, as if there are just a few minor errors in your statements that need correcting.

[LanceUppercut]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

What's wrong with you?

Hey man, you just triggered me, I need a safe space because I can't handle it.