Election 2015

[Remius]

Curious - will the the larger "economy" concerns outweigh the "holy mackeral, lookit how cheap gas is!"?  I know where I live, I can't remember the last time I've seen buck-a-litre gas here (the average price over the past few days).  Wonder if seeing that day-to-day will be a hard message to get over with a broader, "what's good for the SYSTEM" issue?

This is just it.  Consumers are seeing a real tangible effect on their wallets.  The problem is when the economy as a whole takes a hit that can affect taxes, jobs etc.  In Alberta we are just staring to see job cuts and housing demand drop.  Suncor is cutting 1000 jobs and Shell has announced 300 jobs cut.  And this is just the beginning since those jobs are core secondary job generators (constructions, service industry, medium manufacturing etc etc) If oil drops even further it will get worse before getting better.  Cheap oil and gas is great for the consumer but consumers need jobs to spend.  And Alberta may have to face hard decisions like tax hikes and or service cuts to make up the shortfall.

Now the flip side is that pronvinces like Ontario and Quebec will benefit from the weak dollar and low operating costs.  I'm just not sure that the gains can happen fast enough to compensate for the losses in Alberta, Sask and Newfoundland.  I heard that Ontario (due to unwise fiscal and environmental policies) might not have the capacity to supply the demand in such a short time frame.

The sad part for me, is that the Ontario Liberals will benefit from all of this through no actions of their own... :-\

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am hoping gold will continue to climb as that is good for BC, although copper is taking a hit, good for me as a shooter, but negated by the currency difference I suspect as most bullets are made in the US. The money saved on gas will be significant for the consumer, although likely this will increase demand, reducing supply, forcing the price up a bit.
Saudi can play any games it wants, but the reality is that Fracking has destroyed OPEC's power, even if all fracking stopped today, restarting it won't take long.
As for the elections, as a gun owner I don't want the Libs or NDP in, but I am highly unimpressed with the CPC, the best result is a minority CPC government where they can't go full retard.

 

[ModlrMike]

The sad part for me, is that the Ontario Liberals will benefit from all of this through no actions of their own... :-\

I'm not so sure. Most of the manufacturing power requirements are satisfied with electricity. No longer a cheap option in Ontario.

 

[Remius]

I'm not so sure. Most of the manufacturing power requirements are satisfied with electricity. No longer a cheap option in Ontario.

True but a lower dollar attracts business and the low cost of fuel cuts back on shipping costs.  Two very important factors for the manufacturing sector.

 

[Remius]

However this article seems to counter my presumption that Ontario may benefit.  I forgot that a lot of Ontario's manufacturing services provinces like Alberta, a fact that has kept that sector in Ontario from flatlining. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-recession-the-mindset-is-already-setting-in-1.2900940

 

[Remius]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pushes-north-american-leaders-summit-to-late-2015-1.2901809

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-postpones-three-amigos-summit-with-us-and-mexico/article22454108/

Another sign that we might be in for an early trip to the polls?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Another sign that we might be in for an early trip to the polls?  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Or not! The article seem to be based on information obtained from the security people, not the Government, and there is no indication as to either a reason for the postponement nor the source of it. It could be a demand for delay from the Americans as much as the Canadians or Mexicans. The last part of the article is just a statement of  fact (date of the election) that is put there to suggest something without any evidence of its validity and is pure speculation on the part of the journalist.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The problem with your proposal is being demonstrated right now- oil is a fungible product. It's price is set on the world market. The only way to decouple the North American oil market from the world oil market would be to for Canada and the U.S. to nationalize their oil and gas industries. Not going to happen.

I don't think we have to de-couple from the world market or nationalize anything. May be we just need to keep the oil we (Canada, US, Mexico) produce in North America and less reliance on foreign oil from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

As to when oil prices might start rising again, my WAG is in the spring; the weather is nicer and people will start traveling more. On the other hand the warm weather means less need for heating oil, so who knows. T

 

[Edward Campbell]

ff topic:  :sorry:

The problem with oil prices is that most of the OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia have weak, mismanaged economies. They failed to invest their oil wealth properly and decided to live off the "fat of the land." The Saudi's have a massively unproductive and hideously expensive welfare state; they need $100/bbl oil to just balance their budget; they are in real, serious fiscal trouble, right now.

Falling oil prices hurt us ... but they threaten to destroy both Russia and Saudi Arabia and few others; we can stand some pain for a helluva lot longer than they can.

As to the USA: fracking is a big, but very temporary deal; our oil sands have the capacity to produce for many decades, even centuries.

 

[a_majoor]

I don't think tracking is a temporary deal; don't forget that tracking can be (and is) used in old oilfields to extract oil that wasn't economical to extract in the past. The Bakken formation wasn't considered to have much economical oil until the late 1990's. A combination of resurveying it with modern methods and using modern extraction methods like horizontal drilling and fracking have made it one of the largest and most productive areas for oil exploration.

As well, the current Administration has largely kept oil exploration off federal lands (and California has it's own insanity), so the amount of oil that is accessible could be much larger than most people think. California alone is thought to have $15 trillion dollars worth of oil in various fields, shale and undersea formations, more than enough to cover its disastrous financials if Sacremento would only grant exploration and drilling licences...

 

[Kilo_302]

Alberta's oil has been completely mismanaged. We should have been taxing revenue at a far higher rate, the demand was there to sustain it. Then we take those funds and use them to diversify the economy. The coming recession in Alberta (and Canada by extension) was depressingly predictable. Flat tax rates and a commitment to free-market ideology all but guaranteed we would ignore examples like Norway.

The Terry Lynn Karl interview is pretty illuminating. She's spent most of her academic career studying the impact of oil on politics.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/12/18/Terry-Lynn-Karl-Interview/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/why-every-norweigian-is-a-kroner-millionaire/article21353835/

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would suggest to you that the real problem not the free market ideology of Alberta, or  the tax rate, it is that the oil revenue did not go to the Heritage Fund, like it was supposed to, it went to general revenues. Even then, successive governments could not suppress the appetite to spend it all, and more.

This is a spending, not a revenue, problem.

 

[Kilo_302]

I would suggest to you that the real problem not the free market ideology of Alberta, or  the tax rate, it is that the oil revenue did not go to the Heritage Fund, like it was supposed to, it went to general revenues. Even then, successive governments could not suppress the appetite to spend it all, and more.

This is a spending, not a revenue, problem.

Yes, but if you're not getting enough revenue to be able to both save and spend at the same time, it's a revenue/tax problem. The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces. Norway taxed oil revenue at 80%, so it was able to spend AND save. 80% might seem aggressive, but it didn't keep investments out at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11/oil-fund-norway-millionaires_n_4576887.html

If the Alberta government had wanted to actually negotiate terms rather than give its oil away it would be in a far better position than it is. I wouldn't call policy in Alberta "conservative" fiscal policy, because traditional conservative fiscal policy would have had a good balance of debt reduction, Heritage Fund contributions, and the usual government program spending. Heck, they could have even invested in diversifying the economy to ensure falling oil prices wouldn't have such a negative effect. But since taxes are political suicide in Alberta for some reason, the rest of Canada is going to foot the bill.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yes, but if you're not getting enough revenue to be able to both save and spend at the same time, it's a revenue/tax problem. The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces. Norway taxed oil revenue at 80%, so it was able to spend AND save. 80% might seem aggressive, but it didn't keep investments out at all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11/oil-fund-norway-millionaires_n_4576887.html

If the Alberta government had wanted to actually negotiate terms rather than give its oil away it would be in a far better position than it is. I wouldn't call policy in Alberta "conservative" fiscal policy, because traditional conservative fiscal policy would have had a good balance of debt reduction, Heritage Fund contributions, and the usual government program spending. Heck, they could have even invested in diversifying the economy to ensure falling oil prices wouldn't have such a negative effect. But since taxes are political suicide in Alberta for some reason, the rest of Canada is going to foot the bill.

THEN SPEND LESS! Eventually anyone and everyone, individual or state, whose expenditures > revenues, must either spend less or declare bankruptcy. There is never, ever any f'ing alternative. You can rob banks (legally if you're the state) or tax the people more and more, but, eventually the people (and the banks) will rebel and you WILL cut spending.

The Norwegian model works in Norway so long as spending is constrained, as it is, and the government can dictate to e.g. Statoil because it owns 65% of the stock. (Our, Canadian, foray into state owned petroleum companies (Petro-Canada) was a miserable failure.)

The rest of your post is, in my personal opinion, (totally, 100% discredited, by experience) Marxist drivel.

 

[Infanteer]

The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces.

Premier Jim Prentice disagrees with you:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/public-sector-contracts-new-taxes-prentice-ponders-unprecedented-actions/article22498520/

“We’re providing the highest-cost public services in Canada, by a significant margin. We have the best of everything. Yet at the same time, we have had the lowest taxes on every front. Alberta has only been able to do this by drawing down $10-billion annually of oil revenue. That revenue stream is gone,” Mr. Prentice said.

 

[Kilo_302]

THEN SPEND LESS! Eventually anyone and everyone, individual or state, whose expenditures > revenues, must either spend less or declare bankruptcy. There is never, ever any f'ing alternative. You can rob banks (legally if you're the state) or tax the people more and more, but, eventually the people (and the banks) will rebel and you WILL cut spending.

The Norwegian model works in Norway so long as spending is constrained, as it is, and the government can dictate to e.g. Statoil because it owns 65% of the stock. (Our, Canadian, foray into state owned petroleum companies (Petro-Canada) was a miserable failure.)

The rest of your post is, in my personal opinion, (totally, 100% discredited, by experience) Marxist drivel.

Then you're clearly not very familiar with Marx.

 

[dapaterson]

Groucho, Harpo or Chico?

 

[dapaterson]

Premier Jim Prentice disagrees with you:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/public-sector-contracts-new-taxes-prentice-ponders-unprecedented-actions/article22498520/

“We’re providing the highest-cost public services in Canada, by a significant margin. We have the best of everything. Yet at the same time, we have had the lowest taxes on every front. Alberta has only been able to do this by drawing down $10-billion annually of oil revenue. That revenue stream is gone,” Mr. Prentice said.

Please God let there be another Oil Boom I promise not to piss it all away next time.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Remius]

Groucho, Harpo or Chico?

Work Warehouse?

 

[Kirkhill]

Please God let there be another Oil Boom I promise not to piss it all away next time.

There is nothing new under the sun.

That were a generation and half ago DAP..... and most of the current generation weren't living in Alberta then if they were living at all.

Every generation invents sex.