Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[peter12]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Ivory tower intellectuals are the worst, I agree.

Second worst is all of my buddies who failed high school who went on to make 6 figures doing manual labour up north thinking they're so much better than everyone else because they suffer from terminal dunning-kreuger

Third worst is probably me :[

Do ivory-tower intellectuals really exist?

What people really irrationally hate are "experts." This is one of the main reasons for our current decayed state of things.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This fellow disagrees

https://twitter.com/user/status/1113416483990798336

The state of Kansas disagrees.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...-side-tax-cuts

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The state of Kansas disagrees.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...-side-tax-cuts

I'd suggest you move to Kansas, you'd probably find it's a little different than Alberta.

Further, one study certainly doesn't discredit the hundreds of studies and expertise offered by one of Alberta's most accomplished economists.

Is this link right from AUPE's newsletter?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do ivory-tower intellectuals really exist?

What people really irrationally hate are "experts." This is one of the main reasons for our current decayed state of things.

I have someone in my circle of friends who is a coddled rich kid who is doing a sociology major (he's in his 30s, i dont think he will ever complete a university education at this rate)

yes, ivory tower intellectuals exist

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

The state of Kansas disagrees.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-...-side-tax-cuts

It all comes down to Notley's credibility on job creation because the balance off is with all the jobs created in the public sector, jobs in the private sector have plummeted and small business is hitting the skids right now. And yes some of it can be attributed to oil prices, but at the same time, Notley and the NDP put policies in place that contributed to those losses.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I have someone in my circle of friends who is a coddled rich kid who is doing a sociology major (he's in his 30s, i dont think he will ever complete a university education at this rate)

yes, ivory tower intellectuals exist

I don't think anyone would consider someone part-way through a bachelor's degree as an "intellectual", let alone an "ivory tower intellectual".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I have someone in my circle of friends who is a coddled rich kid who is doing a sociology major (he's in his 30s, i dont think he will ever complete a university education at this rate)

yes, ivory tower intellectuals exist

Why is he your friend?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why is he your friend?

hes not, he's a friend of a friend lol

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I'd suggest you move to Kansas, you'd probably find it's a little different than Alberta.

Further, one study certainly doesn't discredit the hundreds of studies and expertise offered by one of Alberta's most accomplished economists.

Is this link right from AUPE's newsletter?

There's plenty you can criticize from using one states experience and assume it will be the same here, but c'mon, cause Kansas is different than Alberta this article is nonsense? That argument is useless, you basically restrict any argument to what Alberta has done before because every state and province are different and don't have identical populations, resources and economies.



Also, if you read the article there were three independent studies that all came to the same conclusion that the tax cuts had little if any positive affect. Read the article before slamming it. There's plenty there you can use to rebut his point, criticize that the article dismisses the studies that tried to explain away the lack of growth, but actually read the article before just coming up with a horrible retort about unions. I don't agree or disagree with either of you, but your response was so poorly thought out I had to respond.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This is pure BS. The economy isn't 'recovering' because of the regulatory environment.

i never said it was.

Here's potential election outcomes for you:

- UCP wins, CPC wins, Carbon tax abolished in both places, Alberta is more cost competitive with the world in it's most important industry

- UCP wins, LPC wins, Albertan's pay the federal carbon tax, lose some control of how the carbon funds are spent in Alberta, UCP spends money on legal challenges with other provinces. Investment climate with regards to carbon policy stays relatively similar to today.

- NDP wins, LPC wins, Status quo. Investment climate continues to be non-competitive with other global jurisdictions.

- NDP wins, CPC wins, Carbon tax abolished federally, but remains provincially. Investment climate in Alberta is immediately worse relative to other Canadian provinces and global jurisdictions.

On this one specific issue regardless of federal election outcome, voting for one party has asymmetrically better prospects and the other party has asymmetrically worse prospects.

I don't understand what this has to do with evidence based policy initiatives. You're talking craven political interests, I'm talking real world pragmatism.

And BTW with regards to 'diversification' many falsely equate positive oil and gas investment with lower non- oil and gas investment. This is patently false. We have resources, do we develop them to their potential or do we not? If we do, that's jobs and money Alberta reaps, if we don't that's jobs and money that we forgo.

I didn't mention diversification, which leads me to believe you've started off on an ideological tangent.

I'm talking evidence based policy directives here. The policies in place now appear to be to continue to develop those resources while encouraging consumers and industry to use those resources less intensely. Seems like a pretty straightforward, mainstream economics directive.

Some posters will waive that away and suggest that's because of the biased worldview of ivory tower economists like Trevor Tombe, but I don't think you count yourself among those ranks, do you?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

i never said it was.



I don't understand what this has to do with evidence based policy initiatives. You're talking craven political interests, I'm talking real world pragmatism.


I didn't mention diversification, which leads me to believe you've started off on an ideological tangent.

I'm talking evidence based policy directives here. The policies in place now appear to be to continue to develop those resources while encouraging consumers and industry to use those resources less intensely. Seems like a pretty straightforward, mainstream economics directive.

Some posters will waive that away and suggest that's because of the biased worldview of ivory tower economists like Trevor Tombe, but I don't think you count yourself among those ranks, do you?

You aren't talking real world pragmatism at all. The policies in place are bleeding capital investment because our carbon regime is more punitive than other competitors for investment capital. That's not pragmatic.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree that if you look at the teacher to non teacher ratio of the CSB it does not look good and that there is likely waste in that system that could be cut. They also have to have a lot of services to make up for inadequate parenting, abusive parenting, learning disabilities, and other issues that require these non-teaching personal. Can they do better absolutely

No one is saying that wealthy parents should have to pay for their child to access the public school system. They do deserve free PUBLIC education. They do not deserve a subsidized private education.

So if full public funding was available to private schools, wouldn't that in fact increase everyone's child's access to the private system, and hence put choice in the hands of parents on what the best school to send their kids to is. And wouldn't this also encourage the development of more private schools relieving the burden on the system, and overall improving the entire education system as the dollars will follow the kids, and parents will presumably choose the best options available.?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I have someone in my circle of friends who is a coddled rich kid who is doing a sociology major (he's in his 30s, i dont think he will ever complete a university education at this rate)

yes, ivory tower intellectuals exist

No, no, no. That's a failson, sir.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This fellow disagrees

https://twitter.com/user/status/1113416483990798336

Come one. He's far from impartial.

Big tax cuts in the US have helped the economy out for a sure.

They also created larger gaps in inequality since most of those savings went to corporate bottom lines. Not to workers. The rich get richer and the rest of us are worse off.

Second due to the massive corporate tax cuts the US deficit increased 17%.

It doesn't mean that would happen here but it also doesn't mean it won't.

Mintz is biased.

There isn't much that supports the concept of corporate tax cuts creating jobs. It does help profits though.

[transplant99]

I never claimed he was impartial and if you have an issue with his results, take it up with him.

I just offered a counter to a claim that many dont agree with.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

There isn't much that supports the concept of corporate tax cuts creating jobs. It does help profits though.

As does lowering overtime compensation requirements and the minimum wage. It’s almost as if there’s a pattern developing

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Dentoman

Thanks! I learned something new today.

On its way to being the most over-used term on the internet of 2019... It's this years "gas lighting"

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Ace

So if full public funding was available to private schools, wouldn't that in fact increase everyone's child's access to the private system, and hence put choice in the hands of parents on what the best school to send their kids to is. And wouldn't this also encourage the development of more private schools relieving the burden on the system, and overall improving the entire education system as the dollars will follow the kids, and parents will presumably choose the best options available.?

Yes.

[stone hands]

I mean dunning-kruger is an interesting real life psychological phenomena that is present basically everywhere, its no surprise that raised awareness of it will lead people to applying it more often

in fact, the wider spread the term becomes the better as people might take a moment to step back and wonder if they should be speaking/thinking with such authority about things they really dont have any clue about

[Looch City]

Looking forward to the Leader's Debate tonight!

I expect this thread will be as lively as ever.