Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well, prepare for disappointment. We're just arguing in circles, and there's not point. I say they way overspent in 2015 and BBS says yes, but they had to. We're never going to convince each other, so it just doesn't matter.



No, I'm not making excuses for the UCP. I'm saying that while I will likely end up voting for the NDP, I do worry about them fiscally, and here's why. It's not "age-old conservative talking points", it's the facts of what they did and what they refused to do when they put out their budgets. It's not like I made this up...S&P and Fitch told them before they released the budgets that they shouldn't do this, and they did it any way! That's why the credit rating got cut. That's just literally what happened.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I said was, that the change in revenue that resulted in the NDP deciding to overspend rather than cut spending was out of their hands (a major drop in resource revenue).
By contrast the change in revenue that resulted in the UCP deciding to overspend rather than cut spending was in larger part due to their own flawed policy (cutting corporate tax rates).

Both chose to, in your words, borrow money for operations.
In the case of the NDP, they made that choice due to external factors.
In the case of the UCP, they made a conscious choice on the revenue side that resulted in that outcome.

And sure, you may not be making excuses for the UCP, but that's because you are completely ignoring that they did the exact same thing, but ,as I've said several times, it was due to their own choice to cut revenues, and borrow for operations.

If you're worried about the NDP fiscally the UCP must scare the hell out of you.
The NDP's cardinal sin seems to be not cutting spending when revenue dropped.
How about the UCP, who looked at the books, cut the revenue side, ensuring that they would do exactly what you are so upset with the NDP about, and then said "Damn the torpedos" and then didn't cut spending...which you seem to want to give them a pass for.

The NDP fell into a hole.
The UCP dug a hole and then jumped right in.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I said was, that the change in revenue that resulted in the NDP deciding to overspend rather than cut spending was out of their hands (a major drop in resource revenue).
By contrast the change in revenue that resulted in the UCP deciding to overspend rather than cut spending was in larger part due to their own flawed policy (cutting corporate tax rates).

Both chose to, in your words, borrow money for operations.
In the case of the NDP, they made that choice due to external factors.
In the case of the UCP, they made a conscious choice on the revenue side that resulted in that outcome.

And sure, you may not be making excuses for the UCP, but that's because you are completely ignoring that they did the exact same thing, but ,as I've said several times, it was due to their own choice to cut revenues, and borrow for operations.

If you're worried about the NDP fiscally the UCP must scare the hell out of you.
The NDP's cardinal sin seems to be not cutting spending when revenue dropped.
How about the UCP, who looked at the books, cut the revenue side, ensuring that they would do exactly what you are so upset with the NDP about, and then said "Damn the torpedos" and then didn't cut spending...which you seem to want to give them a pass for.

The NDP fell into a hole.
The UCP dug a hole and then jumped right in.

I know, I know, we've been over this. I say something that happened with the NDP and is literally just what took place. And the response is "But the UCP?!"

Let me ask you this, do you think that the NDP looks good on their own (fiscally), or it it just with the train wreck that follows? In other words, are they actually good fiscally, or good in comparison? To me those are two different arguments.

I'll say they look good against the UCP and not great when you look at them on their own. To ideological and stubborn to make the difficult decisions when it mattered.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure, but there was a contributing factor in that the NDP made virtually zero cuts to anything and increased spending. The reality is they were told by ratings agencies not to take that path, and did anyway.

I get that we’re going to have the NDP back in power. I also understand there’s no other reasonable option at this point, and I’m probably grudgingly voting that way as well. But one of that means they were good fiscally.

I'm going to try and have someone with a better grasp of macro-economics than me explain this to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

If the Alberta governments reaction to massive private sector job losses was major cuts, they would have made the problem worse.

It is now, during an unexpected boom, with massive surpluses that we need to show some restraint, but the economically responsible party is not currently in power.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by #-3

I'm going to try and have someone with a better grasp of macro-economics than me explain this to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes

If the Alberta governments reaction to massive private sector job losses was major cuts, they would have made the problem worse.

It is now, during an unexpected boom, with massive surpluses that we need to show some restraint, but the economically responsible party is not currently in power.

Haha, where did Keynes say we should borrow for operations again?

[Monahammer]

You are not reading what people are typing, OR not understanding what, OR at this point just being intentionally obtuse and doing this in bad faith.

[Izzle]

It seems like Slava is being paid to both sides the issue.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know, I know, we've been over this. I say something that happened with the NDP and is literally just what took place. And the response is "But the UCP?!"

Let me ask you this, do you think that the NDP looks good on their own (fiscally), or it it just with the train wreck that follows? In other words, are they actually good fiscally, or good in comparison? To me those are two different arguments.

I'll say they look good against the UCP and not great when you look at them on their own. To ideological and stubborn to make the difficult decisions when it mattered.

In your opinion.

The decisions were based on sound economic theory. I get that you are a deficit hawk and don't agree with Keynesian economics, we've been over that, but the constant belaboring them for being stubborn or moronic or stupid or whatever is tiring - instead of just saying you don't agree with the theory, you constantly make digs that their actions were wrong because they aren't what you would have wanted.

I get it though, I think neoliberal/supply-side/trickle down is stupid, moronic and stubborn. I guess the difference for me is we have decades of evidence showing us that the Keynesian economic strategy works for the masses, while the neoliberal strategy works only for the rich.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, where did Keynes say we should borrow for operations again?

Government deficit spending was first identified as a necessary economic tool by John Maynard Keynes in the wake of the Great Depression. It is a central point of controversy in economics

It's not hard to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deficit_spending

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'll say they look good against the UCP and not great when you look at them on their own. To ideological and stubborn to make the difficult decisions when it mattered.

On their own based on what? What’s the benchmark?

It’s fine to me if people want to say “the NDP was terrible financially” but I’ve asked a few times and nobody seems to be able to point to a government in the last 10-15 years that actually did it better. They’re bad compared to what… a myth? an ideal?

If the NDP were terrible it should be extremely easy to point to a modern provincial government that has set the benchmark to which the NDP is being compared. I am genuinely curious.

[woob]

Slava, looking at any political party on their own often leads to them not looking good. There's examples of this across provinces, across Federal politics, etc. Why are you holding NDP to a higher base line here when anazlying them individually? It really seems like you are holding them to a different set of standards than the other parties when forming your judgement of their governing.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, where did Keynes say we should borrow for operations again?

Money is money, you've created a complete false dichotomy between operations and capital. When your biggest problems are spiraling job loses and drops in consumer spending, the responsible thing is to make sure your spending will be as concentrated in your local market as possible (as in wages).

They could have gone out and spent the same amount of money on a new turbine for a power plant, and there might have been a better ROI for that, than making sure that our government offices were full. But the turbine would not have been built here, the guy who built it would not have bought is groceries here, and when the job market did rebound he would not be up to speed on the work that needed to be done in Alberta. So when your primary goal is the long term health of the economy, some times you needed to look beyond 1 line in the ledger.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by belsarius

In your opinion.

The decisions were based on sound economic theory. I get that you are a deficit hawk and don't agree with Keynesian economics, we've been over that, but the constant belaboring them for being stubborn or moronic or stupid or whatever is tiring - instead of just saying you don't agree with the theory, you constantly make digs that their actions were wrong because they aren't what you would have wanted.

I get it though, I think neoliberal/supply-side/trickle down is stupid, moronic and stubborn. I guess the difference for me is we have decades of evidence showing us that the Keynesian economic strategy works for the masses, while the neoliberal strategy works only for the rich.

Well of course that's my opinion. That's what we do on here right? I'm telling you what I think and you say what you think and we consider this a good use of our time for some reason.

I actually agree with Keynes, but on the capital spend. When the NDP (and prior PC governments for that matter) borrowed for capital projects it makes sense.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by #-3

Money is money, you've created a complete false dichotomy between operations and capital. When your biggest problems are spiraling job loses and drops in consumer spending, the responsible thing is to make sure your spending will be as concentrated in your local market as possible (as in wages).

They could have gone out and spent the same amount of money on a new turbine for a power plant, and there might have been a better ROI for that, than making sure that our government offices were full. But the turbine would not have been built here, the guy who built it would not have bought is groceries here, and when the job market did rebound he would not be up to speed on the work that needed to be done in Alberta. So when your primary goal is the long term health of the economy, some times you needed to look beyond 1 line in the ledger.

I just completely disagree. I think that borrowing to build capital projects and borrowing for operations are completely different. If I borrow money to say build an addition on my house, that's fine. If I borrow money to pay my utility bill though, that's not fine.

And while I'm loathe to use a household budget as a government budget, I think that analogy makes sense here.

[GordonBlue]

my wife messaged me and said we have an NDP sign in our front yard.
Neither of us asked for one, but we must have clicked a box on a survey at one point.

We're going to keep it. If nothing else it will tick off the neighbors on one side, who to put it politely, don't like people who are different than them.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just completely disagree. I think that borrowing to build capital projects and borrowing for operations are completely different. If I borrow money to say build an addition on my house, that's fine. If I borrow money to pay my utility bill though, that's not fine.

And while I'm loathe to use a household budget as a government budget, I think that analogy makes sense here.

The government isn't a household. Productive people are it's asset, spending on salaries is an investment in its-elf that garners returns. Capital spending on goods originating outside of the market, or capital spending that takes too long to trickle into the market are the things you need to avoid when your goal is the bolster the economy.

I think that's the thing you don't understand.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just completely disagree. I think that borrowing to build capital projects and borrowing for operations are completely different. If I borrow money to say build an addition on my house, that's fine. If I borrow money to pay my utility bill though, that's not fine.

And while I'm loathe to use a household budget as a government budget, I think that analogy makes sense here.

So how I am seeing your point is that if the end result is a tangible asset, then we can borrow to get it. If the asset is a public good service that is intangible we shouldn't be borrowing on it. I don't understand why there is a difference?

If the government builds a school, it pays to hire people who will do the work and then spend the money they earn in the economy growing GDP and increase tax revenue, and increased demand in the market for private goods and services.

If the government hires more nurses, it pays to hire people who will do the work and then spend the money they earn in the economy growing GDP and increase tax revenue, and increased demand in the market for private goods and services.

The difference between the two is you get something tangible (a building) vs intangible (increased public health) but in terms of government stimulus, what is the difference?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know, I know, we've been over this. I say something that happened with the NDP and is literally just what took place. And the response is "But the UCP?!"

Let me ask you this, do you think that the NDP looks good on their own (fiscally), or it it just with the train wreck that follows? In other words, are they actually good fiscally, or good in comparison? To me those are two different arguments.

I'll say they look good against the UCP and not great when you look at them on their own. To ideological and stubborn to make the difficult decisions when it mattered.

Yes, I think the NDP are just fine fiscally especially given the challenges they faced. When things got back to normal, look at the numbers. They did in fact make the tough decisions. They chose to recognize that they were in a very unusual circumstance and they made the hard decision to keep spending levels where they were, and look what happened, we didn't end up with massive cuts and after 4 years it all came out in the wash.

The UCP on the other hand, I see as actively bad fiscally.
They made an actively bad decision to put themselves in a position to have to choose to cut spending or borrow to cover operations, and they made the same decision the NDP made, to keep spending steady (actually the increased it).

You say the NDP couldn't make the hard decision. I say they did. You just don't like the choice they made on the matter.
I say the UCP made several dumb decisions, and were only bailed out by record resource revenue.

The NDP got unlucky and made hard choices to keep the province on it's feet.
The UCP made bad decisions that cut our feet out from under ourselves, and are only now out of that hole because they got INCREDIBLY LUCKY!

So do I think the NDP are good fiscally, or good compared to the UCP?
Yes. Yes I do.

[Eric Vail]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just completely disagree. I think that borrowing to build capital projects and borrowing for operations are completely different. If I borrow money to say build an addition on my house, that's fine. If I borrow money to pay my utility bill though, that's not fine.

And while I'm loathe to use a household budget as a government budget, I think that analogy makes sense here.

So, you get your power, water and gas shut off because you had a down month? At least you will have a nice sun room.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, where did Keynes say we should borrow for operations again?

Again, any chance you'll ask that same question of the UCP?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Eric Vail

So, you get your power, water and gas shut off because you had a down month? At least you will have a nice sun room.

Yeah, that's totally what I'm driving at.