Quantcast
Alberta 2017 Budget - Page 4 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 141

Thread: Alberta 2017 Budget

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by smokedog


    If you the analysis of economist with Phds are pointless, which I'm sure they would disagree. What would you call the opinions and analysis generated by individuals who don't have an education in economics? Like the ones were seeing on this forum?

    To me, I just want an honest answer. I don't care if it's from the CBC or Trump
    You would have to be specific about the information you are trying to glean.


    One of the limiting factors for modern "economics" as a class of academia is that unlike "real" scientists, economists tend to not want to recognize the limitations of their knowledge. Physicists relish in the acknowledgement of what they don't know. They have a much firmer grasp on epistemology. So if you are dealing with a field of study which has a demonstrably poor record for understanding the limitations of what they know - indeed the limitations of what they CAN know - then why would you have much confidence in anyone who claims to have some paper degree on the subject.

    So when an economist says that "the budget is good", what they aren't telling you is that they don't really know. It's just a guess, and probably no more valid than yours. It may even be less, because you don't have a false sense of knowledge on a subject.

    The truth is that we don't know what this shit budget will do to the Alberta economy. Just like we don't really know what human caused climate change will do to the world. But sometimes with these things, you don't really want to find out.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    16
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Buster


    You would have to be specific about the information you are trying to glean.


    One of the limiting factors for modern "economics" as a class of academia is that unlike "real" scientists, economists tend to not want to recognize the limitations of their knowledge. Physicists relish in the acknowledgement of what they don't know. They have a much firmer grasp on epistemology. So if you are dealing with a field of study which has a demonstrably poor record for understanding the limitations of what they know - indeed the limitations of what they CAN know - then why would you have much confidence in anyone who claims to have some paper degree on the subject.

    So when an economist says that "the budget is good", what they aren't telling you is that they don't really know. It's just a guess, and probably no more valid than yours. It may even be less, because you don't have a false sense of knowledge on a subject.

    The truth is that we don't know what this shit budget will do to the Alberta economy. Just like we don't really know what human caused climate change will do to the world. But sometimes with these things, you don't really want to find out.
    Just a question - if an economist said this is a 'shit' budget would you agree with that economist compared to an economist would said it's a 'good' budget?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by smokedog


    Just a question - if an economist said this is a 'shit' budget would you agree with that economist compared to an economist would said it's a 'good' budget?
    Yes. But not because either one of them is an economist.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
    Danielle Smith did a pretty good job making Joe Cici look like a bafoon this morning

    She set him up and he didn't even see it coming. She asked what factors the NDP are using to determine the timeline for when they'll stop running deficits and start seeing a surplus. He mentioned predictions regarding the economy. She then hammered him about what the debt to GDP ratio is right now and where he predicts it'll be by 2019. He said its hard to estimate where it will be because it's impossible to predict what the economy is going to do. Um, ok, what? So she said, well how can you predict where the economy will be for your debt deficit predictions but can't predict the economy for debt to GDP predictions? His response? Um, well, we're trying to build a future for al Albertans.

    This s government is truly incompetent. Now just to be clear the previous one was as well, but this one seems to be more obviously incompetent? Joe Cici in particular.
    Who? The turncoat?

    No one has a crystal ball, but budgets have to be based on some sort of numbers. The aren't the same thing.

    Stupid question honestly.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Buster


    Yes. But not because either one of them is an economist.


    Naturally, he would believe the one wearing the same time foil hat as him.

    Everywhere in the world austerity has been forced on the people has had terrible consequences. It has never worked.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by smokedog


    Just a question - if an economist said this is a 'shit' budget would you agree with that economist compared to an economist would said it's a 'good' budget?
    I should say: I wouldn't care what either of them said either way.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,749
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Originally posted by smokedog


    Just a question - if an economist said this is a 'shit' budget would you agree with that economist compared to an economist would said it's a 'good' budget?
    lol there is a reason an economics degree doesn't sit under the science department at the U of C.

    It is pretty hard unless you have a degree in economics or a related field to truly determine whether a budget is good or bad. You can't even trust most economists as it isn't a hard science and political ties absolutely influence what they say to the public.

    That is why it was so moronic for Britain to hold a referendum for brexit. Only 1 or 2% of the voters actually truly understood what they were voting for/against.
    Last edited by J-hop; 03-17-2017 at 04:37 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,977
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Originally posted by Gestalt


    Who? The turncoat?

    No one has a crystal ball, but budgets have to be based on some sort of numbers. The aren't the same thing.

    Stupid question honestly.
    Well we have the NDP in a majority government for a reason, it's just too bad that some of those reasons aren't in here defending the results of their choice.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cowtown
    My Ride
    10' 4Runner SR5
    Posts
    6,345
    Rep Power
    59

    Default

    People don't believe real scientists as it is. To think they'd listen to social scientists would be a total miracle.
    Ultracrepidarian

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,157
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by msommers
    People don't believe real scientists as it is. To think they'd listen to social scientists would be a total miracle.
    Isn't social science an oxymoron?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,749
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Originally posted by msommers
    People don't believe real scientists as it is. To think they'd listen to social scientists would be a total miracle.
    Funny thing is at U of C the economics degree actually sits under Arts.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,192
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by Gestalt
    Who? The turncoat?

    No one has a crystal ball, but budgets have to be based on some sort of numbers. The aren't the same thing.

    Stupid question honestly.
    Sure, say what you want about Daniele Smith, I'm not a big fan of her political career either, but who asked the questions is irrelevant anyways, surely that much you understand?

    But you missed the point completely anyways. Cici sure seemed to have a crystal ball when it came to predicting economic growth and how it related to a future deficit and surplus. Then quickly managed to lose the same crystal ball when the same info was required to answer a question about future GDP to debt ratio. So they either don't have a prediction of future economic growth making their predictions of future deficits or surplus' complete bullshit. Or they do have a prediction of future economic growth but don't want to share how it will relate to the debt to GDP ratio because they know it's a scary number. Either way it's a fuckng clown show.
    Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
    Before I start pwning all the members with my findings.
    Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
    Plus, is it true you can feed a pig elephant dong and it will still grow and build meat?
    Originally posted by Toma
    rx7_turbfoags best friend
    Toma the homophobe?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pallet Town
    Posts
    809
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Look at things perspectively and globally.

    Compared to the rest of the world at this exact point in time... We are doing just fine.

    I would say things are bad if I had to club Rob Anders over the head to get to a loaf of bread.
    0.5 gram microsd delivered by 12,000 pound combustion vehicle and driver.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Buster



    Everyone benefits much more when the government lets the market take care of labor rates. When the government tries to do it, it just makes the situation worse. That is not to say market solutions are pain-free. Pain on one hand, and wealth incentive on the other hand are features, not bugs of the market's ability to correct for these things.
    Yes, and no. It depends on the depression. If you're looking at something huge, like a world depression, or national depression, yes, government meddling in the wrong way can really fuck things up. Take the great depression in the US for example: The US government freezing manufacturing wages is exactly what caused the great depression to be the great depression. It drove up the cost of goods and caused people to be laid off in droves (the only way businesses could lower costs) as demand for goods fell (as people couldn't afford them) and it became a vicious circle. I'm against wage freezes, and well, so is our government, usually (the ndp can take thier $15 minimum wage and shove it).

    But with hiccups in the economy giving us a localized depression, or a minor national depression, no, I say ride out the short term storm and pump up government spending a bit to flatten out the dip. If nothing else take advantage of cheap labour rates to build projects rather than spending a little less money on EI, welfare, and other programs (that's my real reason for supporting massive government spending in depressions, it just makes sense from the value you get. why buy high when you can wait for a shitty time and buy low?)... programs that allow workers to sit at home and do nothing on the government dime, contributing nothing to the betterment of the country. Yes, some inefficient pork in the economy that should probably have been killed off and cut away will survive, but in a minor depression IMO who cares.

    The other advantage to not slashing government spending in a recession is firing off government employees will generally mean those with the least seniority will be let go, not those who are the most useless (and if they let those with seniority go, it usually means huge severance checks, which again, is spending money on something of almost zero value to the province... and in my experience those who jump on the severance checks are not those who are the most useless, but those who are the smartest, who know they can easily make it in the private sector)...... which does nothing for the betterment of the country when you can't find good staff when the economy recovers because they all eventually found work elsewhere. You can not easily replace researchers, doctors, nurses, professors, etc also. There are certain types of businesses you do not let die off if you ever want to see them in your country again also.


    Governments exist to manage the population. Meddling with the economy is pretty much one of the core features of a first world government. Economics are understood far better today then they were 100 years ago too, and I'd say there are definitely times when the laissez faire approach should be used, and there are definitely times when it shouldn't be used, and our government is actually pretty decent at choosing which one to use. We haven't seen anything like the great depression since the great depression.

    Also, technically massive government spending (ww2), followed by laissez faire economics (after 1945 the US government slashed corporate income tax) ended the great depression.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by zhao


    Yes, and no. It depends on the depression. If you're looking at something huge, like a world depression, or national depression, yes, government meddling in the wrong way can really fuck things up. Take the great depression in the US for example: The US government freezing manufacturing wages is exactly what caused the great depression to be the great depression. It drove up the cost of goods and caused people to be laid off in droves (the only way businesses could lower costs) as demand for goods fell (as people couldn't afford them) and it became a vicious circle. I'm against wage freezes, and well, so is our government, usually (the ndp can take thier $15 minimum wage and shove it).

    But with hiccups in the economy giving us a localized depression, or a minor national depression, no, I say ride out the short term storm and pump up government spending a bit to flatten out the dip. If nothing else take advantage of cheap labour rates to build projects rather than spending a little less money on EI, welfare, and other programs (that's my real reason for supporting massive government spending in depressions, it just makes sense from the value you get. why buy high when you can wait for a shitty time and buy low?)... programs that allow workers to sit at home and do nothing on the government dime, contributing nothing to the betterment of the country. Yes, some inefficient pork in the economy that should probably have been killed off and cut away will survive, but in a minor depression IMO who cares.

    The other advantage to not slashing government spending in a recession is firing off government employees will generally mean those with the least seniority will be let go, not those who are the most useless (and if they let those with seniority go, it usually means huge severance checks, which again, is spending money on something of almost zero value to the province... and in my experience those who jump on the severance checks are not those who are the most useless, but those who are the smartest, who know they can easily make it in the private sector)...... which does nothing for the betterment of the country when you can't find good staff when the economy recovers because they all eventually found work elsewhere. You can not easily replace researchers, doctors, nurses, professors, etc also. There are certain types of businesses you do not let die off if you ever want to see them in your country again also.


    Governments exist to manage the population. Meddling with the economy is pretty much one of the core features of a first world government. Economics are understood far better today then they were 100 years ago too, and I'd say there are definitely times when the laissez faire approach should be used, and there are definitely times when it shouldn't be used, and our government is actually pretty decent at choosing which one to use. We haven't seen anything like the great depression since the great depression.

    Also, technically massive government spending (ww2), followed by laissez faire economics (after 1945 the US government slashed corporate income tax) ended the great depression.
    I did a quick read (twice), so I might have missed one....but everything you wrote here is precisely the opposite of correct lol
    Last edited by Buster; 03-17-2017 at 09:07 PM.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    You're a walking contradiction aren't you?

    You just spent this entire thread hazily promoting what amounts to laissez faire economics and now claim it's incorrect.

    You're bashing economics as a social science, but you're pretending you have the answers to the economy yourself.

    You bash economists for not being humbled by how much they do not know, yet you know it all and any opinion that is slightly different is 100% wrong.



    So what would be a good budget for Alberta?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by rx7_turbo2

    Sure, say what you want about Daniele Smith, I'm not a big fan of her political career either, but who asked the questions is irrelevant anyways, surely that much you understand?

    But you missed the point completely anyways. Cici sure seemed to have a crystal ball when it came to predicting economic growth and how it related to a future deficit and surplus. Then quickly managed to lose the same crystal ball when the same info was required to answer a question about future GDP to debt ratio. So they either don't have a prediction of future economic growth making their predictions of future deficits or surplus' complete bullshit. Or they do have a prediction of future economic growth but don't want to share how it will relate to the debt to GDP ratio because they know it's a scary number. Either way it's a fuckng clown show.
    Yes, that's pretty much the perfect explanation of what they're doing. It's either one or the other; their info is shit and made up, or their info is accurate but there is a whole lot in the data that is going to make them look real bad.

    If you want to play fortune teller and predict the future, your credibility goes from dubious to complete shit in half a second when you start ignoring questions that you'd already have the answers to to be accurate on what you already said.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by zhao
    You're a walking contradiction aren't you?

    You just spent this entire thread hazily promoting what amounts to laissez faire economics and now claim it's incorrect.

    You're bashing economics as a social science, but you're pretending you have the answers to the economy yourself.

    You bash economists for not being humbled by how much they do not know, yet you know it all and any opinion that is slightly different is 100% wrong.



    So what would be a good budget for Alberta?
    Sorry, I was being trite, and I was pressed for time.

    Generally speaking, I have little faith in people to manage an economy - it's a system that is too complex. The advantage of a free market is that it allows for the full bandwidth of all of the players in the market to be utilized. Everyone working to maximize their own interests is a far more "intelligent" mechanism than some hubris-filled economist advising some politician of average intellectual capacity. The law of unintended consequences immediately renders to be damaging your ideas about counter-cyclical investing by government. To say that we can manage an economy is to put far too much confidence on our abilities. My viewpoint is far more humble.

    My criticism of economics and economists as a field of study is that they do not - in general - take this humble approach. They believe that study and observation can lead to reasonable predictions, which can lead to prescient policy decisions. It just doesn't work.

    I don't pretend to know what works. All I know is what we should do if you operate under the assumption that we can't know what works. I hope you see the difference.

    Now, to your point about the government softening a recession. I think we can agree that the marketplace thrives when we have efficient price discovery. Almost every single thing a gov't does to try to combat a recession is specifically designed to prevent price discovery. (Actually a lot of government policy is arranged for this purpose). So the best thing to do is actually to have labour rates reset themselves quickly, rather than slowly.

    Modern governments do exist to meddle with the economy. But that's hardly their ideal role. It's the difference between "is" and "ought"

    As for stimulus spending - that ridiculous ship has sailed. There are a number of fundamental problems with stimulus spending: it misdirects resources, it does not increase aggregate consumption, the jobs are temporary, etc.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    170
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Well, I can agree with most of that.

    Yes, if you are looking at just the math, quick and dirty corrections have ended depressions quickly. In a big depression leave it be economics is now currently the popular opinion. My example of what happened during the great depression and after ww2 is game, set, and match on proof of laissez-faire economics working.

    I'm not disagreeing that your ideology gets results, but I do not like dealing in absolutes. If all your solutions involve a round peg, occasionally you'll be dealt a problem with a square hole and it wont work. (I personally think this recession is a bit of a square hole)

    Just because there is a recession caused by someone manipulating the price of oil to kill off competition/ regain market share, doesn't mean there is anymore fat that needs to be cut out of the economy than there normally is. You also need to insulate certain sectors because they take too long to rebuild your skilled workforce/companies/infrastructure in them. You don't need to prop up Joe's oil service company, but you don't close down the university of Calgary because you need to trim some fat and it is running at a loss. You prop that thing up because you need it in the long term.

    Even if you do not agree with increasing government projects to flatten the dip in the economy, most people would probably agree when prices are low, that's when it makes the most sense to buy. What a great time to buy, provided we dont turn into detroit v2.0.

    There is also an argument for stability vs instability. Huge quick corrections sure cause a lot of instability. While government spending can drag things out, it avoids the economy hitting extreme lows, and makes things more stable. Stability is good for an economy in the long term; its good for future investment, its good for a lot of things.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Seth1968


    Isn't social science an oxymoron?
    Boy, would you be surprised. Advertising, marketing, election campaigns, news.

    It's all social science.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS: MRU BUS PASS Jan 2017- Apr 2017

    By ace4life in forum Event Tickets / Attraction Passes
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 12-07-2016, 10:16 PM
  2. FS: Upass Jan 1 2017 - April 30 2017

    By pholai in forum Event Tickets / Attraction Passes
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 12-05-2016, 10:38 PM
  3. Alberta Mortgage Fees Going Up This Summer: Alberta Budget 2015

    By TimLacroix in forum Real Estate / Finance
    Replies: 18
    Latest Threads: 04-02-2015, 11:09 AM
  4. Low Budget / No Budget Lighting Studio

    By BerserkerCatSplat in forum Photographer's Corner
    Replies: 26
    Latest Threads: 01-16-2006, 01:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •