Alberta Politics Thread

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The guy who seemingly believes that Notley's taxes can't be causing businesses to fail as if their owners can't see the giant ocean of government created red ink coming their way says he isn't burying his head in the sand. Okay.

Classic Slava. Wants the NDP to make us poor so we will have to run to him to fix our troubled finances. If he had it his way, you'd be saving 10% of your income, earning dividends from a diversified portfolio, and living a lifestyle you could never have previously afforded, all while building for a secure retirement. Dirty pool.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

All finance ministers are BS artists.

I actually feel bad for Ceci. From brief interactions, and the opinions of people I trust who know him better, he's a really good guy. But as the only member of the NDP caucus with any experience in government, he was thrust into a role that he's not suited for.

Its nice that he's a nice guy, but at this point he's incompetent and his whole fall back to, if we cut the budget we'll gut the civil service is cheap politics all the way to defend the un-defendable.

No we don't have to slice off all of the front line workers and the teachers and bunny rabbits and others. But there does have to be a reduction in services. If your borrowing money to turn the lights on in the morning you're doing it wrong.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I would not agree that "all" finance ministers are BS artists, but its pretty clear Cici has been thrust into a role far above his ability. Worse, he is being directed by a group which does not actually grasp the situation.

No, the worst part is he is by far and away the most qualified person for that role in this government. I hope everyone is happy.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Classic Slava. Wants the NDP to make us poor so we will have to run to him to fix our troubled finances. If he had it his way, you'd be saving 10% of your income, earning dividends from a diversified portfolio, and living a lifestyle you could never have previously afforded, all while building for a secure retirement. Dirty pool.

Really what I'm hoping for (as someone who makes a living as a small business owner and in the capital markets), is that the taxes mean we pay everything to the government and they just divide all the money equally. Its planned obsolescence, but think of the beautiful utopia!

[Tinordi]

Lets play the counterfactual card. Say WRP was in power the last 18 months. How would Alberta's fiscal situation be materially different? What specific policies would they have done besides sprinkling fairy dust?

Globally, investment in the oil sector is down $700 billion. No I'm sorry to tell you that policy "uncertainty" or "taxes" had essentially zero impact on investment in oil and gas. Policy uncertainty has had no bearing on the fact that the Canadian patch is cash flow negative leaking $2 in costs for every $1 in revenue.

Investment in the broader economy is down because of the figures above.

So yes, we all want someone to blame. We all want to think that there's some causal connection between the government and our economy but in this instance, we need to accept that as a province we live by the resource economy and we die by the resource economy. That was a long-term policy built over generations of PC governments that the success of this province hinged on oil and gas development.

The outlook is particularly grim as well. We may well have witnessed the peak of the Canadian oil patch 8 years ago.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Lets play the counterfactual card. Say WRP was in power the last 18 months. How would Alberta's fiscal situation be materially different? What specific policies would they have done besides sprinkling fairy dust?

Globally, investment in the oil sector is down $700 billion. No I'm sorry to tell you that policy "uncertainty" or "taxes" had essentially zero impact on investment in oil and gas. Policy uncertainty has had no bearing on the fact that the Canadian patch is cash flow negative leaking $2 in costs for every $1 in revenue.

Investment in the broader economy is down because of the figures above.

So yes, we all want someone to blame. We all want to think that there's some causal connection between the government and our economy but in this instance, we need to accept that as a province we live by the resource economy and we die by the resource economy. That was a long-term policy built over generations of PC governments that the success of this province hinged on oil and gas development.

The outlook is particularly grim as well. We may well have witnessed the peak of the Canadian oil patch 8 years ago.

This makes the same mistake that blaming the government for the failure does though. Yes of course investment is down, but the uncertainty didn't help. So could any government have weathered this storm after being elected last year? I don't think so because the time for that was in the decade leading up to it when we (as a province) failed to prepare. Did we need a royalty review and these increases in costs while we faced the crisis though? No.

IMO you can't blame the government entirely, but you also can't blame it all on the price collapse.

[puckedoff]

Market analysts and corporates alike are calling for 'lower for longer' oil prices, gas prices will stay low due to shale gas in the US and vast oversupply.

So this $7bn that is being borrowed for operating is not a one-time blip. Regardless of who is in power, we need to address the fact that there are now things that we cannot afford. Royalty revenues are not going to save us, we need to really assess what is a nice to have vs a need to have.

[Tron_fdc]

So you mean we need to look at a revenue forecast and set a budget accordingly?

That would be weird. Not sure these guys understand what that is.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Lets play the counterfactual card. Say WRP was in power the last 18 months. How would Alberta's fiscal situation be materially different? What specific policies would they have done besides sprinkling fairy dust?

Globally, investment in the oil sector is down $700 billion. No I'm sorry to tell you that policy "uncertainty" or "taxes" had essentially zero impact on investment in oil and gas. Policy uncertainty has had no bearing on the fact that the Canadian patch is cash flow negative leaking $2 in costs for every $1 in revenue.

Investment in the broader economy is down because of the figures above.

So yes, we all want someone to blame. We all want to think that there's some causal connection between the government and our economy but in this instance, we need to accept that as a province we live by the resource economy and we die by the resource economy. That was a long-term policy built over generations of PC governments that the success of this province hinged on oil and gas development.

The outlook is particularly grim as well. We may well have witnessed the peak of the Canadian oil patch 8 years ago.

All true. Which is why the NDP needs to put their big boy pants on and make substantial cuts to spending in order to transition towards a provincial budget that is not inflated with energy royalties. The reason teachers, nurses, etc. in Alberta make 25K more a year than their counterparts in New Brunswick is because of energy revenues. Those revenues will be dramatically lower for the foreseeable future. Every year the provincial government delays making tough choices, the deeper the cuts will need to be.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Lets play the counterfactual card. Say WRP was in power the last 18 months. How would Alberta's fiscal situation be materially different? What specific policies would they have done besides sprinkling fairy dust?

Globally, investment in the oil sector is down $700 billion. No I'm sorry to tell you that policy "uncertainty" or "taxes" had essentially zero impact on investment in oil and gas. Policy uncertainty has had no bearing on the fact that the Canadian patch is cash flow negative leaking $2 in costs for every $1 in revenue.

Investment in the broader economy is down because of the figures above.

So yes, we all want someone to blame. We all want to think that there's some causal connection between the government and our economy but in this instance, we need to accept that as a province we live by the resource economy and we die by the resource economy. That was a long-term policy built over generations of PC governments that the success of this province hinged on oil and gas development.

The outlook is particularly grim as well. We may well have witnessed the peak of the Canadian oil patch 8 years ago.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

I deal with this every single day. It absolutely has an impact. The NDP are not the sole reason for the economy being in the tank but they are contributing to it, without a doubt.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So you mean we need to look at a revenue forecast and set a budget accordingly?

That would be weird. Not sure these guys understand what that is.

Ceci even said if oil prices increase it will add $750 million in additional revenue. That's still billions of dollars of bad governance. A classic budget update from the last bastion of NDP this country will see.

[Igniter]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Lets play the counterfactual card. Say WRP was in power the last 18 months. How would Alberta's fiscal situation be materially different? What specific policies would they have done besides sprinkling fairy dust?

No I'm sorry to tell you that policy "uncertainty" or "taxes" had essentially zero impact on investment in oil and gas. Policy uncertainty has had no bearing on the fact that the Canadian patch is cash flow negative leaking $2 in costs for every $1 in revenue.

Investment in the broader economy is down because of the figures above.

So yes, we all want someone to blame. We all want to think that there's some causal connection between the government and our economy but in this instance, we need to accept that as a province we live by the resource economy and we die by the resource economy. That was a long-term policy built over generations of PC governments that the success of this province hinged on oil and gas development.

The outlook is particularly grim as well. We may well have witnessed the peak of the Canadian oil patch 8 years ago.

I disagree strongly with this. I work for a global company who has decided to defer meaningful spending in Canada for the foreseeable future. They have a global portfolio, they can pick and choose what assets they fund at a given time. As a result, they are laying off more staff. This is not a company with a small presence in Canada either... they are significant (not saying who, but you can guess).

Their reasons include increased corporate tax, increased property tax and increased regulatory costs. While this is likely not as large of a driver as let's say, getting product to market (Tidewater Pipeline or LNG), it's a reason that is being echoed by many businesses in Alberta regardless of industry.

Policy that destabilizes or increases the cost of doing business can (will) shift investment to places that are more stable, or where the costs of doing business are so small that its worth the risk of destabilization (ie. emerging markets). Businesses that cannot shift investment to grow or find new revenue sources will be under threat of closure or staff reduction.

[jammies]

I'd guess the only party that would have done a better job would maybe have been the Alberta Party - at least in having good policies, although they'd have had the same issue as the NDP with having no experienced MLAs to put into cabinet positions. The Wild Rose would be furiously cutting taxes and cutting jobs, ending up in perhaps a slightly better deficit position but in far worse unemployment numbers, and the PCs would almost certainly be trying a strategy of inaction and propaganda dressing up that inaction as action, as they'd done for the last decade.

That's the beauty of it, no matter which of the three big parties you voted for, you'd be hearing about buyer's remorse if your guys had won. I don't disagree that the NDP has done a terrible job, but I do disagree that any realistic alternative would have been much better. I hope that next election, the almost inevitable voter anger channels itself more productively, but I know that it's more likely we end up with different circus starring different clowns.

[belsarius]

I don't understand how people correlate the size of government debt with the health of the economy. How does cutting 150,000 jobs to balance the budget help businesses? These are consumers who drive the economy and create jobs. Wage spending is about 20B and the NDP have kept that number basically steady since they took over, no cuts but no real additions either. The increases in the budgets relate almost entirely to economic stimulus to encourage growth and business.

I am not arguing that the additional costs will make an impact but in response to the question of how much, I would guess it's closer to 10% than 50%. Minimum wage hikes are proven to have a negligible effect on employment, corporate tax rates have no correlation to economic growth. The carbon tax absolutely is the biggest deterrent and most damaging short term policy, but in the longer run it helps give Alberta the social license it's been lacking.

They can cut, cut, cut, and balance the budget, but that doesn't mean one business will invest, in fact the loss of the government spending will have a negative effect on the GDP pushing the recession lower. I don't want to pass on a huge debt to future Albertans at all, and there should cuts, but an infrastructure debt is just as bad as a monetary debt. I am much happier watching the NDP trim the fat off of $500,000 salaries from agencies than cutting teachers and nurses.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

I'd guess the only party that would have done a better job would maybe have been the Alberta Party - at least in having good policies, although they'd have had the same issue as the NDP with having no experienced MLAs to put into cabinet positions. The Wild Rose would be furiously cutting taxes and cutting jobs, ending up in perhaps a slightly better deficit position but in far worse unemployment numbers, and the PCs would almost certainly be trying a strategy of inaction and propaganda dressing up that inaction as action, as they'd done for the last decade.

That's the beauty of it, no matter which of the three big parties you voted for, you'd be hearing about buyer's remorse if your guys had won. I don't disagree that the NDP has done a terrible job, but I do disagree that any realistic alternative would have been much better. I hope that next election, the almost inevitable voter anger channels itself more productively, but I know that it's more likely we end up with different circus starring different clowns.

The problem is that since the NDP is arguably making the situation worse (at the very least not doing anything to stop it getting worse) the next party will need to swing harder to the right.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I am not arguing that the additional costs will make an impact but in response to the question of how much, I would guess it's closer to 10% than 50%. Minimum wage hikes are proven to have a negligible effect on employment, corporate tax rates have no correlation to economic growth. The carbon tax absolutely is the biggest deterrent and most damaging short term policy, but in the longer run it helps give Alberta the social license it's been lacking.

I seriously disagree with all of that. If you look at the last year in Seattle the initial increase in minimum wage resulted in about a net of .70 cents an hour and the economy in Seattle is booming off the charts. Corporate tax is always a top three reason when locating a business. And social license is just laughable.

I moved a perfectly good business from Calgary to BC on July 1. If you blend up all the reasons the bottom line is I can make more money here now. Corporate tax is less, minimum wage is less, there is less uncertainty with provincial policies. All those reasons make people here more willing and able to spend money

Government debt is a long term factor in creating new business. There is no doubt it costs more to live and work in places with higher debt.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

All true. Which is why the NDP needs to put their big boy pants on and make substantial cuts to spending in order to transition towards a provincial budget that is not inflated with energy royalties. The reason teachers, nurses, etc. in Alberta make 25K more a year than their counterparts in New Brunswick is because of energy revenues. Those revenues will be dramatically lower for the foreseeable future. Every year the provincial government delays making tough choices, the deeper the cuts will need to be.

That's not particularly true. The reason those public servants make more was because they worked in a hot labour market. You simply can't separate the market for teachers with the market for oil and gas workers. They compete against each other for talent. This is a basic tenet of economics that is wholly lost in these reaches.

Now sure, we can ask to roll back wages. But as you know they're sticky and there will be a hell of a fight to do so. Is that where you want to spend your political capital? Maybe. But just saying that's how it ought to be is fairly disjointed from the reality of how it would happen.

The only gig left is sales taxes and other revenue increases.

[automaton 3]

NDP do not have a handle on this whatsoever. They've got their head in the sand on reducing expenses and encouraging investment while they tinker with "corporations are bad", their misguided lawsuit and their very expensive environmental pet projects.

We are going to be left with a hell of a mess to clean up when the NDP is finally out of office.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^On the plus side, BC has shown that given enough time, you can recover from this sort of debacle.

I wonder whether the cost to implementat a sales tax in this environment wouldn't completely eliminate any short term revenue gains, combined with an associated decrease in consumer spending diminishing other revenue sources at a time when people are already watching their wallets; corporate tax revenue would probably fall even more. I'm not opposed in principle to a PST but this seems like the worst possible time to put one into play.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I don't understand how people correlate the size of government debt with the health of the economy. How does cutting 150,000 jobs to balance the budget help businesses? These are consumers who drive the economy and create jobs. Wage spending is about 20B and the NDP have kept that number basically steady since they took over, no cuts but no real additions either. The increases in the budgets relate almost entirely to economic stimulus to encourage growth and business.

Borrowing money to run operations is not even close to an economic stimulation or creation of jobs. Its pissing money away that could be used to stimulate the economy or create jobs, or stabilize business.

Alberta spends 40% on health care out of its budget, yet has some of the worst wait times and delivery of services in the country, iirc from last years evaluation. So we're basically right now pissing money down a well in health care, and I don't blame doctors or nurses for this. But the whole thing is one bloat.

We are literally paying our utility bills on an over drawn credit card (borrowing to pay operations), we have a massive sunshine list, we have more public sector workers then we know what to do with.

And its nice that they are consumers, but that's a pretty small reason to keep something that's unaffordable.

Originally Posted by belsarius

II am not arguing that the additional costs will make an impact but in response to the question of how much, I would guess it's closer to 10% than 50%. Minimum wage hikes are proven to have a negligible effect on employment, corporate tax rates have no correlation to economic growth. The carbon tax absolutely is the biggest deterrent and most damaging short term policy, but in the longer run it helps give Alberta the social license it's been lacking.

A lot of this is yet to be seen, but there was just a report of small business bankruptsy's being up massively, and a lot of companies are coming out and saying that the main cause of these corporate deaths are a combination of minimum wage hikes (especially in hospitality) property taxes and corporate taxes, all as one solid punch. so its yet to be seen that minimum wage is negligible until we get a breakdown of the unemployment rolls, and corporate tax rate increases absolutely have an effect on the economy. And then when you combine those three with the over the horizon sucker punch that is the carbon tax coming. you'll see what you think is a ripple effect becoming a tsunami.

Originally Posted by belsarius

IThey can cut, cut, cut, and balance the budget, but that doesn't mean one business will invest, in fact the loss of the government spending will have a negative effect on the GDP pushing the recession lower. I don't want to pass on a huge debt to future Albertans at all, and there should cuts, but an infrastructure debt is just as bad as a monetary debt. I am much happier watching the NDP trim the fat off of $500,000 salaries from agencies than cutting teachers and nurses.

Its literally almost too late now that barn door has been left open. The combination of previous government incompetence, combined with the low oil prices, combined with the stupidity of this government has probably killed this province as a investment opportunity for a long time. Because of that you almost have to now go with the realization that like corporations the government and this province can no longer afford the governmental structure that's in place now.

Beyond the whole boga boga line of oh no they're going to cut teaches and doctors and nurse. There's a lot of fat and excess that can be cut before we get to that point.