Quebec Riots start up again

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Hooray for you?



Clearly you do not live in Quebec. Therefore, students protesting in Montreal have no impact your life in anyway. Quebec allocating its provincial budget one way or another does not impact your life in any meaningful way.

With all of this in mind, when you hope that people die in a fire, it makes you look like an ranting, frothing lunatic.

As long as I'm making transfer payments to a government that manufactures so many artificial subsidies that blow out their defeciet way out, it affects me. In fact it affect everyone in this province. You may think that sounds arrogant, but it's factually correct. At some point, someone actually has to care that the way they run their entire economy is broken.

[GP_Matt]

Has anyone seen a breakdown of university prices versus enrolement levels and graduation levels. I seem to recall seeing one in the past but don't recall where.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

As long as I'm making transfer payments to a government that manufactures so many artificial subsidies that blow out their defeciet way out, it affects me. In fact it affect everyone in this province. You may think that sounds arrogant, but it's factually correct. At some point, someone actually has to care that the way they run their entire economy is broken.

Firstly, you don't "make transfer payments" to anyone.

Secondly, provincial spending and deficits have zero effect on the equalization program.

Your statement is therefore factually (and utterly) incorrect.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Firstly, you don't "make transfer payments" to anyone.

Secondly, provincial spending and deficits have zero effect on the equalization program.

Your statement is therefore factually (and utterly) incorrect.

If transfer payments didn't exist, there would be less need to tax in Alberta. Factual statement.

Transfer payments reduce the burden of receiving provinces to properly manage their budgets. No need to balance, because our transfer payment will help patch/delay the problem.

Quebec has absolutely disconnected from the reality that what they do has to be subsidized by outside sources. In the long run, free anything is taken for granted. It creates entitlement and doesn't properly prepare labour for competitive, free markets. When people who get things for free compete with others who have to work for it, I have my money on the latter every time.

[Boxman]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If transfer payments didn't exist, there would be less need to tax in Alberta. Factual statement.

Transfer payments reduce the burden of receiving provinces to properly manage their budgets. No need to balance, because our transfer payment will help patch/delay the problem.

Quebec has absolutely disconnected from the reality that what they do has to be subsidized by outside sources. In the long run, free anything is taken for granted. It creates entitlement and doesn't properly prepare labour for competitive, free markets. When people who get things for free compete with others who have to work for it, I have my money on the latter every time.

True, but the budgets here aren't better off. No need to balance anyways.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Boxman

True, but the budgets here aren't better off. No need to balance anyways.

The Conservatives have a spending problem, but they are much, much better off.

[Boxman]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Has anyone seen a breakdown of university prices versus enrolement levels and graduation levels. I seem to recall seeing one in the past but don't recall where.

Hmm, it seems like there might be a lot of factors involved with enrolment and graduation levels in addition to cost. I'm sure that cost has a big impact on decisions though.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

What an odd thread.

There are basically three arguments going on simultaneously:

1) The value of education
2) The supposed 'entitlement' culture of Quebec
3) The objective and practicality of civil disobedience

If nothing else it is outing the capitalist pigs and the commie scum and pitting them in a pitched battle based on ideas that were likely originally planted in their post-secondary educations.

I do wonder who is going to pay for the hospital bills for the protestor and cop that were injured. I also wonder who will pay for the damages to vehicles and property. Lastly, I wonder who will pay for the police resources used during this latest riot, which, I assume is probably close to about $70 per protestor, give or take. Fortunately for me, I don't live in Alberta anymore so these 'clean up' funds won't be coming from me (this time). I suspect that some of the protestors weren't students at all but rather "professionals" in the field of shat disturbing.

I would never argue with the value of some education, I would argue with the value of all education.
It makes perfect sense that society benefits from all its citizens being able to read write and perform basic intellectual and academic tasks.

It also makes perfect sense that a society benefits from a number of professions, doctors, engineers carpenters etc and it is in societies interest to subsidize them.

It makes no sense to say that because a doctor is useful that a communications or English lit major is equally of benefit to society and that we should subsidize them.

It also makes little sense to arbitrarily decide that all degrees should be 4 years long, the less useful least academically rigorous ones are probably at best 2 years work, are viewed that way by employers and should not be covered by loans or grants, they should be seen for what they are, a hobby.

Universities should be changing to encourage flexible part time studies as the norm, and a lot of what they teach should be realistically seen as being not that important to either the student or the society and priced accordingly.

[Boxman]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It makes no sense to say that because a doctor is useful that a communications or English lit major is equally of benefit to society and that we should subsidize them.

It astounds me that universities are able to roll out whatever programs they feel like to attract more students, and still get tuition subsidies. There seems to be zero oversight over where education dollars are going. We pay to help educate people because we need thinkers and doers, not slackers.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Boxman

It astounds me that universities are able to roll out whatever programs they feel like to attract more students, and still get tuition subsidies. There seems to be zero oversight over where education dollars are going. We pay to help educate people because we need thinkers and doers, not slackers.

Personally I think a certain number of 'seats' in various courses should be fully subsidized as the goverment assess need, so if we need 400 librarians or 300 english teachers in the next 4 years then thats how many grants will be paid for, if you want to take the course and havn't been picked as one of those 'needed' candidates then you pay full wack.

This would also help to 'encourage' uni's to get the length and cost of courses down.

[Boxman]

Whoa waxing a little Central Planning Committee there. They tried that with med school and it's working out better for the doctors than it is for us.

In the military they fund education and then have mandatory service - but a lot of good people aren't interested in that sort of thing. You want to have well-rounded english teachers too!

College and trade schools have really limited spots determined by government funding, but we're seeing that nowhere near the number of seats we need are getting funded. They have applicants for skilled trades coming out the ears in these colleges but the funding isn't there. Meanwhile schools everywhere seem to have been able to add limitless seats in useless programs.

Man if they put me in charge, I could fix everything!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

If transfer payments didn't exist, there would be less need to tax in Alberta. Factual statement.

Transfer payments reduce the burden of receiving provinces to properly manage their budgets. No need to balance, because our transfer payment will help patch/delay the problem.

Quebec has absolutely disconnected from the reality that what they do has to be subsidized by outside sources. In the long run, free anything is taken for granted. It creates entitlement and doesn't properly prepare labour for competitive, free markets. When people who get things for free compete with others who have to work for it, I have my money on the latter every time.

I see. You oppose all equalization programs on principle (opposition to anything free) alone. I suppose that is fair enough. Your principle does create one problem however: what do you propose we do with the ~14 billion dollars (approximately $4,000 per Albertan, compared to the ~$1,000 per person that Quebec nets in Equalization payments) in resource royalties that the Government of Alberta receives each year? Money does not get any more free than that.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I see. You oppose all equalization programs on principle (opposition to anything free) alone. I suppose that is fair enough. Your principle does create one problem however: what do you propose we do with the ~14 billion dollars (approximately $4,000 per Albertan, compared to the ~$1,000 per person that Quebec nets in Equalization payments) in resource royalties that the Government of Alberta receives each year? Money does not get any more free than that.

SE/N LRT, 8th Ave Subway, Airport LRT, a few more Bow Towers and Edmonton gets the rest. Or if you don't like that, maybe we could reduce our tuition/daycare costs to Quebec levels, set up a language police to get rid if the signs in Chinatown that aren't at least 75% English and start campaigning for our idenpendence.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by SebC

SE/N LRT, 8th Ave Subway, Airport LRT, a few more Bow Towers and Edmonton gets the rest.

I get it. Free money is good for Alberta, just not for those spoiled babies in Quebec.

Originally Posted by SebC

Or if you don't like that, maybe we could reduce our tuition/daycare costs to Quebec levels, set up a language police to get rid if the signs in Chinatown that aren't at least 75% English and start campaigning for our idenpendence.

Alberta certainly has the ability to reduce tuition and daycare costs to Quebec levels if it chose to do so. I suppose it needs to be pointed out again for the thousandth time; Quebec does not spend more money than Alberta. Both provinces spend roughly $14,000 per resident per year (source). Quebec simply spends its money on different things.

It saddens me to say it, but the spoiled babies of Confederation these days are smug, self-entitled Albertans.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I get it. Free money is good for Alberta, just not for those spoiled babies in Quebec.

Alberta certainly has the ability to reduce tuition and daycare costs to Quebec levels if it chose to do so. I suppose it needs to be pointed out again for the thousandth time; Quebec does not spend more money than Alberta. Both provinces spend roughly $14,000 per resident per year (source). Quebec simply spends its money on different things.

Or maybe Quebec can do things at lower cost because the government doesn't have to compete for labour with oil. I'm not 100% against equalization, but when when the equalizee can afford things the equalizer can't, there's a problem. The formula needs to account for the fact that a government just can't get as much bang for its bucks when it has to compete with a stronger private sector. Furthermore, paying for growth is more expensive than simply maintaining a status-quo (due to having capital costs on top of operating costs). And then you have the possibility of excessive equalization making the country as a whole poorer due to being a disincentive to efficient allocation of labour.

And oil money isn't exactly free, it comes with things like environmental liabilities and requires investment to achieve and sustain (e.g. Highway 63 doubling, paying off BC for Northern Gateway, etc.). It is made stronger by a business-friendly tax environment.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hey, why is jammies trying to take my job as resident snob around here? I've got at least 2 more years of schooling on him.

More than that - 1 year university, 1 year SAIT, and didn't even finish my diploma because I was lazier than Theresa Spence. I've had to assemble my snobbery by dint of fabulous good looks, overwhelming intellect and a magnanimous empathy for the little, lesser people around me - as long as they stay a respectful distance.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Pot?

I'm perfectly happy with my smug sense of superiority as I wasn't the one claiming I didn't have such a thing. That was - hypocritically - you.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I get it. Free money is good for Alberta, just not for those spoiled babies in Quebec.



Alberta certainly has the ability to reduce tuition and daycare costs to Quebec levels if it chose to do so. I suppose it needs to be pointed out again for the thousandth time; Quebec does not spend more money than Alberta. Both provinces spend roughly $14,000 per resident per year (source). Quebec simply spends its money on different things.

It saddens me to say it, but the spoiled babies of Confederation these days are smug, self-entitled Albertans.

And there it is!!!!

I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by SebC

Or maybe Quebec can do things at lower cost because the government doesn't have to compete for labour with oil. I'm not 100% against equalization, but when when the equalizee can afford things the equalizer can't, there's a problem. The formula needs to account for the fact that a government just can't get as much bang for its bucks when it has to compete with a stronger private sector.

Fair point. I agree (and have argued this for some time.) However, this is a relatively minor improvement that could be made to the program. Failure to account for the specifics of local labour markets hardly justifies (a) dissolution of the equalization regime; or (b) the constant demands that Quebec allocate its provincial budget according to the whims of certain Albertans.

Originally Posted by SebC

Furthermore, paying for growth is more expensive than simply maintaining a status-quo (due to having capital costs on top of operating costs).

Those figures are per capita, and so, at least for the most part, should account for spending on new residents. Also, Alberta's government obviously reaps both the costs and the many benefits of a growing population.

Originally Posted by SebC

And then you have the possibility of excessive equalization making the country as a whole poorer due to being a disincentive to efficient allocation of labour.

Inuitively, one might think so. However, it looks like the opposite may be true:

Although not as well recognized, Equalization also provides efficiency benefits. Interest in the efficiency implications has largely been left to economists but the potential gains from Equalization have been a focus of their research. A notable contribution in that area is Flatters and Boadway (1982). The efficiency issue that equalization is seen to address is fiscally induced migration. Fiscally induced migration refers to mobile factors of production (i.e., labour and capital) locating in jurisdictions where they are less productive in order to take advantage of low taxes for the level of services and/or high public services for the taxes levied on those factors. That is, fiscal considerations such as a low tax rate high service combination in one jurisdiction which others cannot match, can induce efficiency diminishing factor migration. Or more simply, differences in fiscal capacities can distort labour and capital markets and reduce national output. Inefficiency inducing fiscal capacity differences may arise from differences in the characteristics of the tax base or, more obviously in Canada, natural resource ownership. It is an advantage for society to have its factors of production located where they are most productive and not induced by distorting fiscal considerations to locate elsewhere. Well designed equalization programs offer a means to correct or offset distorting features of the fiscal landscape and enhance economic efficiency and national productivity.

Fiscally induced migration is not a trivial concept to employ ivory-tower academics. Certainly, at levels experienced, it is not the main driver of factor location but it exists and its effects on migration are cumulative over time.19 Wilson calculates the benefits of reduced fiscally induced migration due to changes made in the Equalization program from 1971 to 1977 and compares those to the change in costs (Wilson, 2003).20 He estimated gains of $1.61 for each dollar of cost.21 The economic benefits and costs of an equalization program depend upon the design and the fiscal environment in which it operates. Just what the benefit to cost ratio of the current Equalization program might be has not been estimated but Wilson’s analysis demonstrates the potential economic benefits. Those economic benefits augment the equity benefits which Canadians already clearly value.

There is another aspect of interprovincial migration that deserves mention. This aspect also has to do with recognizing fully who benefits from Equalization. Clearly, the residents of Equalization recipient provinces benefit from Equalization because those transfers enable better services and/or lower taxes. Residents of other provinces may gain economically as well. Above, we noted the national efficiency improvements resulting from reducing the distorting effects of fiscally induced migration. But, even in the absence of fiscal distortions, Equalization can provide economic benefits to non-recipient provinces. Interprovincial migration is significant in Canada as Canadians pursue their most attractive opportunities. Normally, we expect net out migration from Equalization recipient provinces. Those migrants carry with them a bundle of human capital – human capital that largely represents the investments of the provincial governments from which they come. Education is the most obvious factor but healthcare is another consideration. To the extent that Equalization improves provincial public services, and so education and healthcare, migrants bring with them more human capital than they would otherwise. That improvement in human capital benefits those provinces with a net inflow of interprovincial migrants. Greater productivity and higher tax revenues are economic benefits.

SOURCE: Alberta and Equalization: Separating Fact from Fiction (an excellent read for anyone interested in the Equalization program btw.)

Originally Posted by SebC

And oil money isn't exactly free, it comes with things like environmental liabilities and requires investment to achieve and sustain (e.g. Highway 63 doubling, paying off BC for Northern Gateway, etc.). It is made stronger by a business-friendly tax environment.

No, that's true. But neither is revenue from Quebec's hydro-electric resources or revenue derived from Ontario's manufacturing or transportation industries. And there is no doubt that the returns on investment in the energy industry far exceed those in any other industry.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

And there it is!!!!

I knew you wouldn't disappoint.

Do you have a point? A counterargument? Something to add to the discussion?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Those figures are per capita, and so, at least for the most part, should account for spending on new residents. Also, Alberta's government obviously reaps both the costs and the many benefits of a growing population.

I think you missed my point here. A new resident costs more than an existing resident (all else being equal), so simply looking at things on a per-capita basis does not capture this effect. Exisiting residents require that you pay the doctors. New residents require that you pay the doctors and build new hospitals.

Originally Posted by Makarov

Inuitively, one might think so. However, it looks like the opposite may be true.

I did say "possibly". There's a cost to moving people too. I suspect that the net effect would most likely depend on the level of equalization (with promotion of inefficiency at the high end).