Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Slava

To me this isn’t really the same argument though, and perfectly illustrates why you want professionals making these decisions. Rate of return isn’t everything, particularly in pension management. The main metric for a pension is their discount rate and maintaining funded status. If that means for AIMCO and their mandates they need a 6% return to do that, then 7.4% is fine. You can’t just say “they should be earning as much as humanly possible” because that’s not how these things are managed at all.

This is just easy for the media to report and makes it easy to politicize. Think of it this way: you have a goal to meet and can get there with a 5% return. Today we could get that with a GIC and that’s the course we take. No risk, you meet the target and everyone’s happy. In the meantime the stock indexes go up 8% and people attack that strategy as leaving money on the table. It’s not really what happened, but it looks that way and plays well in the media.

Exactly. Nevermind that a $4B loss represents ~2% of their portfolio... Not exactly a damning indictment.

People seem to think that AIMCO is a branch of the UCP, run with the typical nepotism and cronyism that we've all come to love and expect of the UCP... Which of course, couldn't be further from the truth, but I suppose must make people feel better for lashing out at something they know nothing about.

The reality is that AIMCO is kind of a big deal, and run by serious people, from all over. This isn't Danielle Smith parachuting in her inbred cousin to throw darts at a board.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

APTN does a fact check on Smith's claims of Cherokee ancestry, guess what?

Spoiler!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1592904685295661057

Brian Jean comes out ahead yet again!

[Fuzz]

^ Is that *cringe* real?

[Ozy_Flame]

The fact that indigenous heritage is being used as a political volleyball by white politicians is utterly vile.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

May is when we find out if American style politics work in Alberta.

Or just what kind of idiots people are.
Look at Calgary. The keep reelecting Sean Chu.
I don't have faith they won't also reelect the UCP.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The fact that indigenous heritage is being used as a political volleyball by white politicians is utterly vile.

Why do they even use it? isn't that a negative to present to their deplorable base?

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Why do they even use it? isn't that a negative to present to their deplorable base?

Grasping at straws already? And, yeah, I would think that it is a negative in the eyes deplorable base of freedumbs.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ Is that *cringe* real?

Oh yeah it was.

[belsarius]

It's funny how people keep saying that the government has no play in AIMCo's investments, when the law is specifically written that AIMCo must follow any directive issued by the Treasury Board. The government has total control over AIMCo if it wants it.

Section 19 - Directives. The Treasure Board may issue directives that must be followed by the Corporation, the board, or both, in carrying out their powers and duties under this act and the regulations

Now in practice, AIMCo is run by a normal statement of investment policies and goals, but according to the law as written, this can be deviated with a directive from Treasury. The NDP tried to amend the AIMCo act with Bill 208 last year to remove section 19's current wording and replacing it with specific wording about supplying a SIP&G instead.

So yes, as of right now it seems like the Alberta government is letting AIMCo do it's thing. But it is a very real possibility for the government instead to start sticking it's nose in and directing them to invest in items that are politically advantageous.

And with Smith in charge, that suddenly becomes a real possibility.

[The Fisher Account]

Originally Posted by belsarius

It's funny how people keep saying that the government has no play in AIMCo's investments, when the law is specifically written that AIMCo must follow any directive issued by the Treasury Board. The government has total control over AIMCo if it wants it.



Now in practice, AIMCo is run by a normal statement of investment policies and goals, but according to the law as written, this can be deviated with a directive from Treasury. The NDP tried to amend the AIMCo act with Bill 208 last year to remove section 19's current wording and replacing it with specific wording about supplying a SIP&G instead.

So yes, as of right now it seems like the Alberta government is letting AIMCo do it's thing. But it is a very real possibility for the government instead to start sticking it's nose in and directing them to invest in items that are politically advantageous.

And with Smith in charge, that suddenly becomes a real possibility.

This

[#-3]

Originally Posted by you&me

Exactly. Nevermind that a $4B loss represents ~2% of their portfolio... Not exactly a damning indictment.

People seem to think that AIMCO is a branch of the UCP, run with the typical nepotism and cronyism that we've all come to love and expect of the UCP... Which of course, couldn't be further from the truth, but I suppose must make people feel better for lashing out at something they know nothing about.

The reality is that AIMCO is kind of a big deal, and run by serious people, from all over. This isn't hasn't been Danielle Smith parachuting in her inbred cousin to throw darts at a board.

FYP.


I don't think anyone has been saying this is a problem. I think people are saying when you put crazy people who don't care about reality in charge of government its a real risk that should be taken seriously.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

APTN does a fact check on Smith's claims of Cherokee ancestry, guess what?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1592904685295661057

What?? My God...first of all...even if true...so what?

Regardless of whether you actually have Native Heritage or not, what have you actually done to help Native peoples?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by #-3

FYP.


I don't think anyone has been saying this is a problem. I think people are saying when you put crazy people who don't care about reality in charge of government its a real risk that should be taken seriously.

That's fair.

But when The Fisher Account says he wouldn't trust AIMCO to park his car, over a forgettable level trade loss, the implication seemed to be that they're already compromised due to UCP ineptitude or policies... Which is not right. (yet )

[D as in David]

Danielle Smith was on Jordan Peterson's podcast. You could give me the winning Powerball lottery ticket and you still wouldn't be able to convince me to watch it. A couple of minutes in and it was already clear that Feb-bashing was going to be part of the discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uui-E6xdr-Q

[Nancy]

Originally Posted by Locke

What?? My God...first of all...even if true...so what?

Regardless of whether you actually have Native Heritage or not, what have you actually done to help Native peoples?

It is fairly common in Southern states for people to falsely believe that they have Cherokee ancestry.

https://timeline.com/part-cherokee-e...n-cf6be035967e

The answer is paradoxical: it’s a way of communicating authentic white Southern identity.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Nancy

It is fairly common in Southern states for people to falsely believe that they have Cherokee ancestry.

https://timeline.com/part-cherokee-e...n-cf6be035967e

If I may, I think Locke is more maligning the tactical reasoning behind claiming this, more than the societal reason. This is also something I constantly am confused about.

What upside is there to claiming racial history? People of that community won't care, unless you are actively helping that community. The people you're courting are the very very slim and currently shrinking rump republican style voters who want to appear even handed while actually hiding cruel policies in their back pockets. Most voters in her current base are the hard style republican voter, who don't even want to appear even handed and just want to cause maximum pain to the other side, so these people are likely to look unfavorably upon cherokee heritage.

So all in all, it's taking a massive risk for vanishingly small upside. It's hallmark stupidity. If you don't think the casual disregard for racial history in the country isn't enough to go after her about on this one, then think of how remarkably stupid it is to parade around a claim like this when there's literally no upside. That stupidity should not be making decisions for our province.

Edit: here's my dumb metaphor of the day: It's akin to running out on to the deerfoot because you think you saw a $5 bill, only to find it's one of those funny money $5 bills from the dollarama.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

If I may, I think Locke is more maligning the tactical reasoning behind claiming this, more than the societal reason. This is also something I constantly am confused about.

What upside is there to claiming racial history? People of that community won't care, unless you are actively helping that community. The people you're courting are the very very slim and currently shrinking rump republican style voters who want to appear even handed while actually hiding cruel policies in their back pockets. Most voters in her current base are the hard style republican voter, who don't even want to appear even handed and just want to cause maximum pain to the other side, so these people are likely to look unfavorably upon cherokee heritage.

So all in all, it's taking a massive risk for vanishingly small upside. It's hallmark stupidity. If you don't think the casual disregard for racial history in the country isn't enough to go after her about on this one, then think of how remarkably stupid it is to parade around a claim like this when there's literally no upside. That stupidity should not be making decisions for our province.

Edit: here's my dumb metaphor of the day: It's akin to running out on to the deerfoot because you think you saw a $5 bill, only to find it's one of those funny money $5 bills from the dollarama.

The "upside" they also try to flex is to fend off calls that they are racist. "I have so and so ancestry, I can't be racist!" It's shallow and transparent to most people, but some buy it.

[Locke]

It is pretty much the Political equivalent of:

"I'm not racist, I have a Black friend."

A statement usually met with an almost violent rolling of the eyes.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The "upside" they also try to flex is to fend off calls that they are racist. "I have so and so ancestry, I can't be racist!" It's shallow and transparent to most people, but some buy it.

I outlined the people who "buy it". They're the vanishingly small group i spoke of. The rest actively disdain it or don't care. Again, upside so small it makes it a ridiculously stupid risk to take, even if you're like 25% or something.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I outlined the people who "buy it". They're the vanishingly small group i spoke of. The rest actively disdain it or don't care. Again, upside so small it makes it a ridiculously stupid risk to take, even if you're like 25% or something.

Smith isn't very good with numbers.