Alberta 2017 Budget

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by killramos
So any coles notes on what they are actually spending the money on?

People need to be laid off. And I'm a public sector worker and I am saying that. They borrowed a couple billion specifically to keep people employed. No layoffs/firings are allowed at this time.

Its ridiculous. I get trying to keep staff on and not wanting to just drop the hammer, but at some point (especially if work load has decreased) ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

[Feruk]

We already have a quasi-PST, it's just called a "carbon tax."

Originally posted by Gestalt
Plus, a government can create it's own financing, at crazy low rates.

Gotta comment on this as I've heard this statement lots before. What exactly do you think happens when rates rise 2%+ (pretty much a given by 2018/2019) AND we take further credit rating cuts?? You borrow cheap, but pay back expensive.

We are not the USA that can make up money, we are Greece that's locked to Canadian currency.

The number I thought was the most out to lunch was their estimation on yearly debt payments. Just plain stupid of our government to assume rates won't rise and you won't take a credit cut.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
People need to be laid off. And I'm a public sector worker and I am saying that. They borrowed a couple billion specifically to keep people employed. No layoffs/firings are allowed at this time.

I agree with you, but you've gotta consider that in order to lay off staff, you have to lay off proportionately a lot more than you'd think. Every person you lay off now generates less revenue in the form of taxes for the government.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by suntan
The last thing the NDP want to do is bring in a regressive tax.

They should just bring in $120/bbl oil.... amirite guys?!

Lets face it. You can say what you want about NDP fiscal policies (I'm not a fan either), but at the end of the day over 90% of that $71B of debt comes down to the fact that there is a lot of infrastructure and services that need higher oil prices to stay running/maintained.

Sure they can gut healthcare or education. They could stop building interchanges and freeways. But that would just bring even MORE complaining than dealing with the fallout of a red budget.

Remember when Ralph Klein shut down hospitals? Of course you do, because your parents probably STILL complain about it today.

Remember when new communities were built like wildfire and schools weren't? Of course you do because schools are still overcrowded or require long bus rides for some kids.

Considering Alberta's golden goose is slowing production, perhaps it might be time to consider the gold rush on hold for the time and bring back a sales tax instead of digging deeper into the red.

[zhao]

In notleys defense this is sorta what you should be doing in a recession as a government; spending now to take advantage of cheap costs to build projects and to give people jobs. It's why Edmontons economy is actually not fuckef as hard as Calgary. We had some government projects on the go here to prop us up when oil crashed.

It's also retarded to only build big public projects in booms when workers and materials are in high demand.

But, if you want to blame someone, blame Trudeau for not acknowledging Alberta has been paying far more than it's fair share and it's time to pay some of that back with federal help now that our economy is in the shitter.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by zhao
But, if you want to blame someone, blame Trudeau for not acknowledging Alberta has been paying far more than it's fair share and it's time to pay some of that back with federal help now that our economy is in the shitter.

You won't see that until Albertans are paying provincial taxes at comparable rates to the rest of Canada.

[Buster]

Originally posted by zhao
In notleys defense this is sorta what you should be doing in a recession as a government; spending now to take advantage of cheap costs to build projects and to give people jobs. It's why Edmontons economy is actually not fuckef as hard as Calgary. We had some government projects on the go here to prop us up when oil crashed.

It's also retarded to only build big public projects in booms when workers and materials are in high demand.

But, if you want to blame someone, blame Trudeau for not acknowledging Alberta has been paying far more than it's fair share and it's time to pay some of that back with federal help now that our economy is in the shitter.

Actually, this is precisely what the government should not be doing. Governments are reasonably competent (or at least they are less-incompetent) at providing some services that benefit from group expenditures: some infrastructure, some education services, emergency, defense.

What they are patently ill-equipped to do is "manage" economies in this fashion.

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.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by sputnik

Of course you do, because your parents probably STILL complain about it today.

No, my parents recognize Klein made a tough choice to make sure that Alberta was a self sufficient province with the best economic opportunities available to future generations, not saddling them with debt that will never be repaid.

[smokedog]

Just wondering if anyone on this board have an advanced degree (Master's or Phd) in economics? Because I was listening to various talk radio shows with economists and they said this a a good budget (not the best), but a good budget so there's no need to panic

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by smokedog
various talk radio shows

All hosted by CBC of course

[smokedog]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1


All hosted by CBC of course

Lol I guess you don't know the definition of various

var·i·ous
ˈverēəs/
adjective
1.
different from one another; of different kinds or sorts.


But honestly, does anyone here have a degree in economics (I'm not be sarcastic)? Because majority of the economists said it's a good budget. Because I don't like the budget. I think it crazy. But I'm not an economist

[suntan]

Originally posted by sputnik


You won't see that until Albertans are paying provincial taxes at comparable rates to the rest of Canada.

Do you even understand why Alberta contributes so much to the Federal treasury?

No, of course you fucking don't.

[suntan]

Originally posted by sputnik
They should just bring in $120/bbl oil.... amirite guys?!

Lets face it. You can say what you want about NDP fiscal policies (I'm not a fan either), but at the end of the day over 90% of that $71B of debt comes down to the fact that there is a lot of infrastructure and services that need higher oil prices to stay running/maintained.

Sure they can gut healthcare or education. They could stop building interchanges and freeways. But that would just bring even MORE complaining than dealing with the fallout of a red budget.

This is not an all-or-nothing scenario.

Everybody fucking realizes the gov't needs to run a deficit.

But that doesn't mean you go in balls deep.

If the goddamned bank told you you can borrow to get a $5 million house, would you go out and get a $5 million house? Well fuck, they totally told you you could! Why the fuck not??

Remember when Ralph Klein shut down hospitals? Of course you do, because your parents probably STILL complain about it today.

Yeah, I remember. No, my parents don't complain about it because they left Alberta decades ago.

Remember when new communities were built like wildfire and schools weren't? Of course you do because schools are still overcrowded or require long bus rides for some kids.

Yeah, I remember. Maybe the NDP should cap housing prices so that families can afford homes where the schools are?

[Buster]

Originally posted by smokedog
Just wondering if anyone on this board have an advanced degree (Master's or Phd) in economics? Because I was listening to various talk radio shows with economists and they said this a a good budget (not the best), but a good budget so there's no need to panic

You generally want to ignore economists. It's a pseudo-science at best. And a pointless social science at worst.

I think we will look back at this as an era where economists were given far too much respect in terms of policy decisions. We'll see it more like phrenology.

And the CBC is one of the worst media outlets to try to glean information on public policy. They have an obvious bias, and they generally follow-through on that bias how you would expect.

[suntan]

You can find an economist to support any economic view.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by smokedog


Lol I guess you don't know the definition of various

LOL, I guess you don't get that CBC has a "variety" of radio talk shows

[smokedog]

Originally posted by suntan
You can find an economist to support any economic view.

True - there were a few economist who said they shouldn't have ran the deficit too high

[smokedog]

Originally posted by Buster


You generally want to ignore economists. It's a pseudo-science at best. And a pointless social science at worst.

I think we will look back at this as an era where economists were given far too much respect in terms of policy decisions. We'll see it more like phrenology.

And the CBC is one of the worst media outlets to try to glean information on public policy. They have an obvious bias, and they generally follow-through on that bias how you would expect.

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

[suntan]

Economics is not a pseudo-science.

However, it is a science in its infancy. It is, at best, 60 years old. Consider: back when the stock crash in the 1920s happened, absolutely no one knew why it happened. And no one knew what to do about it.

Does inflation exist? Yes.

Does supply and demand exist? Yes.

Does price elasticity exist? Yes.

Does monetary policy exist? Yes.

[Buster]

Originally posted by suntan
Economics is not a pseudo-science.

However, it is a science in its infancy. It is, at best, 60 years old. Consider: back when the stock crash in the 1920s happened, absolutely no one knew why it happened. And no one knew what to do about it.

Does inflation exist? Yes.

Does supply and demand exist? Yes.

Does price elasticity exist? Yes.

Does monetary policy exist? Yes.

I didn't say "economies" don't exist. They obviously do.

But that doesn't validate the current manner in which we view those who study said economies.