Alberta business livid with energy savings program contract going to Ontario company

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That's not their business model bra. Screwin in lightbulbs and pluggin in powerbars bra.

Maybe install a couple of thermos Stats whatever those are bra

Lightbulbs, powerbars paycheck bra.

Powerbar bra's eh.........

[McG]

is this expense really necessary? think about it for a second.

there is a carbon tax applied that removes money from the economy and allocates it to the least efficient spender, the government.

instead of using those funds to help reduce debt, invest in green tech, help families, etc., the NDP government has chosen instead to purchase light bulbs, shower heads, and doo-dads to reduce energy consumption.

So if you drive a vehicle, you pay more and theoretically drive less (but doubtful that you do), but the NDP want you to use less electricity and water.

Wouldn't a more efficient way be to get rid of a tax and reduce the burden on every person that drives in this province, so that they can then spend the money as they see fit, including on efficiency measures like thermostats, shower heads, led light bulbs for their house?

To reduce fuel consumption, why don't they just mail everyone a free tire pressure gauge?

[polak]

I don't think anyone (including NDP supporters) are a fan of how the Carbon Tax is being spent.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by McG

is this expense really necessary? think about it for a second.

there is a carbon tax applied that removes money from the economy and allocates it to the least efficient spender, the government.

instead of using those funds to help reduce debt, invest in green tech, help families, etc., the NDP government has chosen instead to purchase light bulbs, shower heads, and doo-dads to reduce energy consumption.

So if you drive a vehicle, you pay more and theoretically drive less (but doubtful that you do), but the NDP want you to use less electricity and water.

Wouldn't a more efficient way be to get rid of a tax and reduce the burden on every person that drives in this province, so that they can then spend the money as they see fit, including on efficiency measures like thermostats, shower heads, led light bulbs for their house?

To reduce fuel consumption, why don't they just mail everyone a free tire pressure gauge?

I'm quite sick of this argument that the government is somehow the least efficient spender of money. Though this is the wrong thread to do it in because this light bulb thing is the definition of waste.

The amount of waste in simple interest payments, and purchasing of items with low utility put regular people as terribly inefficient spenders. Now this creates a value judgement on people but purchasing starbucks is not a good allocation of capital. It costs more than the equivalent drink of equivalent quality and is purely a branding exercise. The government would be better off introducing a starbucks tax and forcing mandatory savings for people if we want to efficiently allocate available capital.

The government can be an efficient provider of goods and services in markets that do not require risk and innovation.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't think anyone (including NDP supporters) are a fan of how the Carbon Tax is being spent.

You know what....the Carbon Tax is asinine, in its implementation, execution and fundamental concept its essentially pure idiocy.

The funds going into General Revenue, the Rebates, the lightbulbs. Madness. All of it.

But if they'd said:

"Look...we're in the hole...its so deep I think I saw Satan's Butthole the other day...we've gotta pay off our credit cards somehow."

At least at that most people could shrug their shoulders, resign themselves to it and move along.

But instead, we are still that deep in the hole and this method of extra revenue generated by the Carbon Tax is more or less being pissed away on General Revenue, the Rebates and the lightbulbs.

Fubar.

[polak]

Putting a price on carbon makes plenty of sense.

Spending it on BS like this insane.

[Clarkey]

Any bets on the final all-in cost per bulb (if the NDP doesn't hide the costs).

I'm thinking in the $30-40 range.

F$&@!

[Frequitude]

So long as "lowest cost" was counted net of any foregone tax revenue I don't really care.

Still though, such a wasteful dumb idea. Just let me write any of this stuff off against my taxes.

[McG]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm quite sick of this argument that the government is somehow the least efficient spender of money. Though this is the wrong thread to do it in because this light bulb thing is the definition of waste.

The amount of waste in simple interest payments, and purchasing of items with low utility put regular people as terribly inefficient spenders. Now this creates a value judgement on people but purchasing starbucks is not a good allocation of capital. It costs more than the equivalent drink of equivalent quality and is purely a branding exercise. The government would be better off introducing a starbucks tax and forcing mandatory savings for people if we want to efficiently allocate available capital.

The government can be an efficient provider of goods and services in markets that do not require risk and innovation.

Brain blown. NDP economics right there. Please tell me which markets do not require risk or innovation. yeah, that's right. none.

I'm quite sick of people saying that the government is equal or better at allocation of capital than private businesses or industry. That's what you mean isn't it? Efficient provider is a value statement, not a numerical one. Numerically, the government is least efficient between itself, industry and private business. Businesses exist to maximize profit; please tell me how the government runs a massive deficit with debt payments if it is efficient? Please also tell me why a government shouldn't be doing anything more than breaking even in its operating budgets?

Do you know what a government with a profit should be doing? refunding taxes. Do you know what a government running a deficit should be doing? reduce spending and reallocate or increase taxes.

And this "starbucks" tax is exactly the definition of NDP think; "i know what is best for you". Who are you to judge what people choose to spend their money on? I'm not kidding about this, but quite literally who are you to determine what people choose to spend their earnings on? I personally don't buy at starbucks, but I don't begrudge those that do, or whatever people choose to buy.

And interest payments? wow. People may choose a supplier that charges a higher rate of interest than another, but what exactly do you think happens to the interest income for the financial institution? And where do you think the capital comes from to loan out to these people that pay the interest payments? (hint: savings) and what do you think happens when goods and services are purchased with loans and mortgages? (hint: consumption drives the economy)

Why should you care what people spend their money on? read some adam smith and then come back and tell me about the invisible hand and your "starbucks" tax.

The government is not meant to be an efficient allocator of capital. It is not intended or expected to compete with private industry. It is intended to act for security, protection of citizens, and public order. A debate can easily be had about what else it should or shouldn't be involved in, but the fact of the matter is that it is not ever intended to be an efficient allocator of capital. The government should not be competing with its own citizens to provide goods and services.

I've written too much. if you seriously believe that the government is an efficient allocator of capital, please continue to think that.

[Kjesse]

McG,

Perhaps run for office?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Delgar

McG,

Perhaps run for office?

I hope so. Higher taxes to plug deficits is on the table. Sorely needed at this point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by McG

Brain blown. NDP economics right there. Please tell me which markets do not require risk or innovation. yeah, that's right. none.

I'm quite sick of people saying that the government is equal or better at allocation of capital than private businesses or industry. That's what you mean isn't it? Efficient provider is a value statement, not a numerical one. Numerically, the government is least efficient between itself, industry and private business. Businesses exist to maximize profit; please tell me how the government runs a massive deficit with debt payments if it is efficient? Please also tell me why a government shouldn't be doing anything more than breaking even in its operating budgets?

Do you know what a government with a profit should be doing? refunding taxes. Do you know what a government running a deficit should be doing? reduce spending and reallocate or increase taxes.

And this "starbucks" tax is exactly the definition of NDP think; "i know what is best for you". Who are you to judge what people choose to spend their money on? I'm not kidding about this, but quite literally who are you to determine what people choose to spend their earnings on? I personally don't buy at starbucks, but I don't begrudge those that do, or whatever people choose to buy.

And interest payments? wow. People may choose a supplier that charges a higher rate of interest than another, but what exactly do you think happens to the interest income for the financial institution? And where do you think the capital comes from to loan out to these people that pay the interest payments? (hint: savings) and what do you think happens when goods and services are purchased with loans and mortgages? (hint: consumption drives the economy)

Why should you care what people spend their money on? read some adam smith and then come back and tell me about the invisible hand and your "starbucks" tax.

The government is not meant to be an efficient allocator of capital. It is not intended or expected to compete with private industry. It is intended to act for security, protection of citizens, and public order. A debate can easily be had about what else it should or shouldn't be involved in, but the fact of the matter is that it is not ever intended to be an efficient allocator of capital. The government should not be competing with its own citizens to provide goods and services.

I've written too much. if you seriously believe that the government is an efficient allocator of capital, please continue to think that.

Canadian Telecom industry is probably the best example of where government services deliver better services at a lower cost. We'll call it the MTS experiment.

Note my statement wasn't absolute, the government can be more efficient at delivering services and goods to consumers. It isn't always worse and in some cases can be better. This concept that the privatization will always lead to more efficient delivery is false. And the concept that people will always spend their money better than the government is also false. The absolutism of your position is what I take issue with.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by GGG

Canadian Telecom industry is probably the best example of where government services deliver better services at a lower cost. We'll call it the MTS experiment.

Note my statement wasn't absolute, the government can be more efficient at delivering services and goods to consumers. It isn't always worse and in some cases can be better. This concept that the privatization will always lead to more efficient delivery is false. And the concept that people will always spend their money better than the government is also false. The absolutism of your position is what I take issue with.

MTS has some of the worst service and speed stats in all of North America and possibly the first world. You get what you pay for. Outside of Winnipeg you are basically on rotary phone service. Who cares if you get $5/month unlimited morse code rates.

To turn your argument on it's head, take a look at U.S. markets that have full competition and look at their service levels and low consumer rates...

Are you the first NDP voter to out yourself?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by belsarius

What a non-starter of a complain story. Did everyone just gloss over the part where they are starting up a Calgary warehouse and hiring 70 people? Do you think that they are going to ship all these people from Ontario in to do the job and send them home on the weekends?

Yes it is an Ontario based company, but there are tonnes of companies headquartered in other places operating in Alberta. They won the RFP, they had the "do-dads" and they could do it at the lowest price and will employ Albertans and they will lease a building in Alberta to do it.

Seriously, just yelling at clouds again.

Is there ANY NDP nonsense you wont spin and/or defend?

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by GGG

Canadian Telecom industry is probably the best example of where government services deliver better services at a lower cost. We'll call it the MTS experiment.

Note my statement wasn't absolute, the government can be more efficient at delivering services and goods to consumers. It isn't always worse and in some cases can be better. This concept that the privatization will always lead to more efficient delivery is false. And the concept that people will always spend their money better than the government is also false. The absolutism of your position is what I take issue with.

Canada has some of the highest phone rates in the world. This is not because of free market, it is because our government has allowed a small number of companies to control the market and basically price fix. The government should do a better job in regulating monopolistic industries rather than running them.

Government should work for its people, not the other way around.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is there ANY NDP nonsense you wont spin and/or defend?

How is this comment valuable to any discussion?

[Iceman90]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

For these types of contracts, I would hope they look at more than just the dollar value. By employing Albertans, that keeps tax dollars in the province. That should play into it, no?

It can be an Ontario company that hires Albertans to do the work.

[McG]

Originally Posted by GGG

Canadian Telecom industry is probably the best example of where government services deliver better services at a lower cost. We'll call it the MTS experiment.

Note my statement wasn't absolute, the government can be more efficient at delivering services and goods to consumers. It isn't always worse and in some cases can be better. This concept that the privatization will always lead to more efficient delivery is false. And the concept that people will always spend their money better than the government is also false. The absolutism of your position is what I take issue with.

And to be clear, i'm not mad or angry or anything. I used to work for MTS at one point and its not a great example.

I'll give you the industry though...particularly land lines way back when or internet cables now. In places where it is not economically viable and there is not a private industry in place, where an item is deemed in the public good, then the government would be fulfilling its role by helping to put land lines for phones or internet cable when no other alternative exists.

I understand that absolutism isn't the best way to discuss things because there are always examples that fall out.

But consider this. Do you think that government employees spend money better when they are private citizens or when they are government employees?

I would like to suggest Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand for some bedtime reading. the short version is "his notion that individuals' efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society."

Remember your Starbucks tax? I don't buy Starbucks, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value to the person that does. If they are willing to pay the cost, Starbucks accepts the transaction, makes profit, and moves on. Except that the coffee wasn't made in a replicator, it was a bean at some point, and had many factors of production in order to get to the coffee cup. Here is the thing. Do you know if Starbucks pays more for that bean than other suppliers? I mean the whole way through. I'm going to guess that Starbucks tries to minimize costs to maximize profits. What would the government do? would they minimize costs to maximize profits? No. There is your first efficiency. The second is what Starbucks does with the profit. Dividends. And who gets them? The owners. Who has the risk? The owners. if you have mutual funds, that is also you and I. What do we do with dividends? We spend them or invest them or save them. Doesn't matter. What does the government do? even if they were willing to minimize costs, they should not be maximizing profits. Or should they? What if the government opened its own coffee shop and competed with Starbucks. As tax payers/consumers, we should want competition to bring Starbucks prices down. For sure, the government coffee shop shouldn't be selling the coffee at break even or worse, at a loss. Maybe the government could have a drivethrough tax, and offset the cost of the coffee.

So now we have a drivethrough tax, Starbucks is more expensive, and we are going to give the coffee away for free with cost offsets from the drivethrough tax because it is socially responsible. See where this is going? Where is the efficiency there? Free coffee? Great! except it isn't. Except free coffee likely puts starbucks out of business, with jobs and factors of production lost all down the line. Out of business is bad for everyone but most importantly it is bad for the government. Think of all of the income tax and consumption taxes that they will lose when people aren't working and the job is gone. And everyone has to pay for the lost government revenue.

And now we come to doodads, shower heads and led lights. When this little initiative ends, will there be any LED or shower head or doodad suppliers in the province? Why would there be?

Privatization means that decisions will be made to minimize costs and maximize profits. That means efficiency. It doesn't mean the best service levels, it means the best use of the factors of production.

People will always spend their money better than the government. Proof? You spend your money better than I can spend your money. If you don't see that, you should vote NDP and let them tell you how to spend your money.

In Canada, we have developed a nasty and expensive habit of not only telling people how to spend their money, but actually spending it for them. That isn't a political statement because all political parties in Canada do it. Some just do it better than others.

And that's the end of my point.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by McG

I would like to suggest Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand for some bedtime reading. the short version is "his notion that individuals' efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society."

While wealth of nations is a good way to find out what Adam smith said, Thinking Fast and Slow is a much better primer on how people actually act.

National Security, Fire, Roads, Health care, and retirement planning are all areas where governments routinely make better decisions or better deals than individuals. Basically anything that requires long term planning or a lot of negotiating power to get a good deal is better handled by the government than by the average individual.

People will always spend their money better than the government. Proof? You spend your money better than I can spend your money. If you don't see that, you should vote NDP and let them tell you how to spend your money.

In Canada, we have developed a nasty and expensive habit of not only telling people how to spend their money, but actually spending it for them. That isn't a political statement because all political parties in Canada do it. Some just do it better than others.

And that's the end of my point.

And that proof completely fails. While I can spend my money better then you can, we are both individuals. The government is not an individual and as such your proof fails as is a false analogy. The relative strengths of governments and individuals are such that governments are better at some things, while individuals are better at others. That one individual is worse than another is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Delgar

McG,

Perhaps run for office?

Where do I volunteer for the campaign.