Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Having a bunch more finance jobs in Alberta is clearly a benefit to having an APP.

There are 2 downsides that I think are almost entirely offsetting.

1) those jobs would be at AIMCO, and they are (imo) terrible. We've had this discussion before, but they sold volatility going into Covid, and instead of admitting the error and correcting they were like "nothing we could have done, all asset classes went down". Except, you know, volatility, the one asset class where they had a huge short.

2) Albertans wouldn't get to share the cost of those highly paid finance professionals with the rest of Canada any more.

I think Smith is an idiot, but if we could get the CPP's private investment division moved to Calgary as part of a deal to stay that'd be a big win, imo.

That's not even a win. You'd be taking the deal makers away from the financial centre of Canada. Here are where the CPP investment offices are, notice a pattern?

https://www.cppinvestments.com/contact-us/

That'd be like shooting ourselves(and every other Canadian) in the dick but being happy because we were allowed to own a gun.


Hell, if our APP ends up existing we'd have a better chance of good returns having the office in Toronto.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I don't like how both sides of the environmental debate speak only in extremes and absolutes.

Canada's best option towards climate change is to pour money and resources into research, and then making that research free to the world.

They can pay for this through natural gas and oil sales, while there is still a market.

Canada just doesn't have a big enough footprint environmentally to make a dent in global emissions. There is no point in doing self harm to our country and not being rich enough to fund research to fix the problem on a bigger scale.

You can have it all.

But we will have a huge impact once places near the equator become unlivably hot.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

https://twitter.com/user/status/1718308828763082999

This guy makes an interesting case in favour of the proposed APP. A couple of CP members have entered the conversation.

My viewpoint from a non-finance average joe and likely one of the progressives he's talking about.


"There is a take on an AB Pension Plan I have NOT seen in the debate square"
Pretty sure this take has already been said? Jerbs?

"In that vein and if AIMCO managed the money in a truly independent (governance) and effective way (outcomes), then we would be crazy to not want to have those jobs based here"
What are "those" jobs exactly? How many jobs will be needed to manage the APP? How big is AIMCO now and how big will they become?

"Knowledge economy clusters"
Had to look this one up. Would this really be enough to spur on a local knowledge based financial economy to the point we could compete outside of Alberta? Would we accept less returns in our fund to create this economy?

"The larger the Assets Under Management (AUM) in an entity like AIMCO or CPP, there are multiple obvious benefits
1) Scale of overhead costs which reduces management fees, net performance over time
2) Attraction of global financial talent.
3) A financial cluster attracts secondary and tertiary innovation and investment opportunities"
All this reads to me is we'll leave a massive fund that has all these benefits, to make a smaller fund, all because points 2 and 3 then support alberta not toronto or another city.

"but if everything was equal, we would hugely benefit having the capital controlled and centred here over downtown Toronto or Ottawa"
Why does it matter where it's controlled? He fails to show what this huge benefit is, other than some knowledge economy.

"I am really trying to understand why we WOULDN'T want to bring this business home for Albertans benefit, especially Edmonton's."
Because he dismisses nearly everything else, by saying
"if AIMCO managed the money in a truly independent"
- Big IF
"No matter the size of the amount that would be transferred to Alberta control, (that's just math and will be easy to determine)"
- The amount doesn't matter? But he alluded that it's the size of the fund that will make the difference.
"I recognize that there is a perceived political risk of government interference in investment decisions, so that risk must not be allowed to come to fruition"
- Is it really perceived at this point? I almost expect it. Do we rely on the UCP to create a law that prevents themselves from directing funds? Would they even obey it? We know they skirt rules and there is no accountability anymore.

"We have to talk about this as part of the debate, because lord knows the political flamethrowers are on full blast against the idea, and not strangely it seems to be from the bureaucratic classes, unions, citizens who for some reason trust the Federal CPP framework and not one we would have greater citizen control over. IMO it's mostly political spin and if governance and independence policy was maintained, bring the money home."
For some reason trust the Federal CPP.... Um, do we have a reason not to?
One that would have greater citizen control over.... How exactly does an APP give citizens greater control? Because federally our party doesn't get voted in but provincially it does? But that shouldn't matter, if the independence part of AIMCO he touts is true.
"bring the money home." Sounds like TBA verbage. Money would be coming home only if it's invested within Alberta, which I rather have a very diverse fund investing in other places as well.

"We as Albertans have disproportionately greater say in the leadership of our Province than we do of our Country. Central Canada has the power in federal electoral politics. "
Ah yes, so that's the point then. What does this matter if we truly want our leadership to not be making decisions in our fund?

"Hold our government accountable, to be sure, but don't just hand it over to another level of government we have much less ability to hold accountable"
So the big final say here is not jobs, not economy, but we simply can't trust those damn feds because we don't have any say in the federal election and can't hold them accountable. Someone tell me what's wrong with the CPP again that we have to hold the feds accountable to?

"Like I said. If everything is equal - it makes sense to me to have those assets closer to home and where we have greater political control over."
OH BOY, the whole point is to NOT have political control over, you know, the thing he alluded to earlier on?

"I want a pension manager that is just concerned about making $ for the pension fund not funnelling it to govt projects. If AB businesses aren’t making $ for the benefit of pensioners, then it needs to be invested elsewhere. The point is make $ for retirees to live comfortably.

That's always the point."

If that's always the point, then we should be happy where we are currently with the CPP.

Bottom line for me, is the CPP has only one goal, and that is to provide pensions to Canadians. Not prop up jobs or an economy. That's it, I want it to be there when I retire, and currently there is more risk for my pension by leaving the CPP. I see no need to rock the boat.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's not even a win. You'd be taking the deal makers away from the financial centre of Canada. Here are where the CPP investment offices are, notice a pattern?

https://www.cppinvestments.com/contact-us/

That'd be like shooting ourselves(and every other Canadian) in the dick but being happy because we were allowed to own a gun.


Hell, if our APP ends up existing we'd have a better chance of good returns having the office in Toronto.

In 2023 I really don't think it matters whether the private investment deal makers have offices in Calgary or Toronto for their returns. Those deals are getting done by email, phone, zoom, etc.

Besides, the best investment returns of all time have come from Omaha, Nebraska. I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to demonstrate that having money managed in financial capitals improves returns.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

My viewpoint from a non-finance average joe and likely one of the progressives he's talking about.


"There is a take on an AB Pension Plan I have NOT seen in the debate square"
Pretty sure this take has already been said? Jerbs?

"In that vein and if AIMCO managed the money in a truly independent (governance) and effective way (outcomes), then we would be crazy to not want to have those jobs based here"
What are "those" jobs exactly? How many jobs will be needed to manage the APP? How big is AIMCO now and how big will they become?

"Knowledge economy clusters"
Had to look this one up. Would this really be enough to spur on a local knowledge based financial economy to the point we could compete outside of Alberta? Would we accept less returns in our fund to create this economy?

"The larger the Assets Under Management (AUM) in an entity like AIMCO or CPP, there are multiple obvious benefits
1) Scale of overhead costs which reduces management fees, net performance over time
2) Attraction of global financial talent.
3) A financial cluster attracts secondary and tertiary innovation and investment opportunities"
All this reads to me is we'll leave a massive fund that has all these benefits, to make a smaller fund, all because points 2 and 3 then support alberta not toronto or another city.

"but if everything was equal, we would hugely benefit having the capital controlled and centred here over downtown Toronto or Ottawa"
Why does it matter where it's controlled? He fails to show what this huge benefit is, other than some knowledge economy.

"I am really trying to understand why we WOULDN'T want to bring this business home for Albertans benefit, especially Edmonton's."
Because he dismisses nearly everything else, by saying
"if AIMCO managed the money in a truly independent"
- Big IF
"No matter the size of the amount that would be transferred to Alberta control, (that's just math and will be easy to determine)"
- The amount doesn't matter? But he alluded that it's the size of the fund that will make the difference.
"I recognize that there is a perceived political risk of government interference in investment decisions, so that risk must not be allowed to come to fruition"
- Is it really perceived at this point? I almost expect it. Do we rely on the UCP to create a law that prevents themselves from directing funds? Would they even obey it? We know they skirt rules and there is no accountability anymore.

"We have to talk about this as part of the debate, because lord knows the political flamethrowers are on full blast against the idea, and not strangely it seems to be from the bureaucratic classes, unions, citizens who for some reason trust the Federal CPP framework and not one we would have greater citizen control over. IMO it's mostly political spin and if governance and independence policy was maintained, bring the money home."
For some reason trust the Federal CPP.... Um, do we have a reason not to?
One that would have greater citizen control over.... How exactly does an APP give citizens greater control? Because federally our party doesn't get voted in but provincially it does? But that shouldn't matter, if the independence part of AIMCO he touts is true.
"bring the money home." Sounds like TBA verbage. Money would be coming home only if it's invested within Alberta, which I rather have a very diverse fund investing in other places as well.

"We as Albertans have disproportionately greater say in the leadership of our Province than we do of our Country. Central Canada has the power in federal electoral politics. "
Ah yes, so that's the point then. What does this matter if we truly want our leadership to not be making decisions in our fund?

"Hold our government accountable, to be sure, but don't just hand it over to another level of government we have much less ability to hold accountable"
So the big final say here is not jobs, not economy, but we simply can't trust those damn feds because we don't have any say in the federal election and can't hold them accountable. Someone tell me what's wrong with the CPP again that we have to hold the feds accountable to?

"Like I said. If everything is equal - it makes sense to me to have those assets closer to home and where we have greater political control over."
OH BOY, the whole point is to NOT have political control over, you know, the thing he alluded to earlier on?

"I want a pension manager that is just concerned about making $ for the pension fund not funnelling it to govt projects. If AB businesses aren’t making $ for the benefit of pensioners, then it needs to be invested elsewhere. The point is make $ for retirees to live comfortably.

That's always the point."

If that's always the point, then we should be happy where we are currently with the CPP.

Bottom line for me, is the CPP has only one goal, and that is to provide pensions to Canadians. Not prop up jobs or an economy. That's it, I want it to be there when I retire, and currently there is more risk for my pension by leaving the CPP. I see no need to rock the boat.

Good post.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

In 2023 I really don't think it matters whether the private investment deal makers have offices in Calgary or Toronto for their returns. Those deals are getting done by email, phone, zoom, etc.

Besides, the best investment returns of all time have come from Omaha, Nebraska. I think you'd be extremely hard pressed to demonstrate that having money managed in financial capitals improves returns.

The whole Toronto vs Edmonton/Calgary argument is just ignorance and coming from a position of piling on reasons to not change the CPP. Some of the best funds in Canada are managed out of Calgary by Mawer. In today’s world location doesn’t really equate to competitiveness.

In my mind this should only be viewed from the lens of whether the creation of the APP would be as independent as the CPP and whether AIMCO could manage it as well.

[FacePaint]

Why pay more to administer the funds though? Wouldn't the money be better off staying in a larger pool creating more benefits for retirement than duplicating resources?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Too bad you elite don’t get enough of the vote.

It's such a tell about the inferiority complex of these types. Always railing about the "elite" with one hand, then bragging about income and the people with no jobs on the other

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's such a tell about the inferiority complex of these types. Always railing about the "elite" with one hand, then bragging about income and the people with no jobs on the other

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

I just find it funny, if you’re so much smarter why does avg Albertan’s vote in Smith?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's such a tell about the inferiority complex of these types. Always railing about the "elite" with one hand, then bragging about income and the people with no jobs on the other

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

It is definitely funny watching Yoho use both “elite” and “poor” as insults.

Aggressively lower middle class.

[Fuzz]

"Elite" isn't about wealth, it's their shorthand for "people that are much smarter than me," and their is a reason they need to trot it out so much...

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Yoho

I just find it funny, if you’re so much smarter why does avg Albertan’s vote in Smith?

We've been over this, the average Alberta voter is stupid and votes against their own best interests. Go ahead and look at how many rural medical facilities are closed right now, or how they feel about coal mines polluting their farm land, or being told they have to accept an oil well on their land, but don't get to make the decision to have solar or wind on their own land for profit...for reasons, or will have to pay higher taxes to cover a provincial police force, or how they smile and cheer when they get lied to directly, multiple times, and go ahead and vote for them anyway.

Voters are dumb, get over it.

[PsYcNeT]

EDIT Eh I don't care enough today

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We've been over this, the average Alberta voter is stupid and votes against their own best interests. Go ahead and look at how many rural medical facilities are closed right now, or how they feel about coal mines polluting their farm land, or being told they have to accept an oil well on their land, but don't get to make the decision to have solar or wind on their own land for profit...for reasons, or will have to pay higher taxes to cover a provincial police force, or how they smile and cheer when they get lied to directly, multiple times, and go ahead and vote for them anyway.

Voters are dumb, get over it.

Yup: "What's Wrong With Kansas" Canadian style

[timun]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is definitely funny watching Yoho use both “elite” and “poor” as insults.

Aggressively lower middle class.

Originally Posted by timun

“By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

— Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt by Umberto Eco

Eco also had this to say:

Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

Facists gonna fascism.

[Yoho]

Alberta first!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1719499517048017209

Meanwhile in common sense Sask.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1719381274828091839

[iggy_oi]

Did she vote to keep a carbon tax or the liberals’ carbon tax?

[Harry Lime]

That tweet relayed the opposite sentiment to the press conference that Notley had on the subject after Trudeau's boneheaded tax repeal in the Atlantic provinces. I glanced up at the tweeter, and of course it's Smith.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that Notley just pointed out that a province can't vote against a federal mandate.

[Fuzz]

This is a typical Smith/Yoho one-two of Smith dropping shallow insinuations in big font, and Yoho reading more deeply into it. Yoho, why do you let yourself get dummied so often?

"I just want to say it is, in fact, a cold comfort – literally – for Canadians living anywhere else in the country, including in Alberta," said Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley, discussing Ottawa's recent carbon tax break.

Notley made the comments Tuesday in the legislature as she introduced a motion to call on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government to extend the carbon tax relief to more home heating.

The NDP's motion was defeated because the UCP put forth a similar motion.

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-p...ting-1.6625741

Yes, evil Notley looking to put a carbon tax on your child's blood. So she voted against completely getting rid of the carbon tax, but they put forward a motion for a home heating exemption. Smith used that to rile up the province's Yoho's, and it looks to be working.

So I recently said Alberta voters are dumb, and Smith knows exactly how easy it is to trick them. Lucky us.

[Faust]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin