Alberta is facing many challenges as the next boom approaches. It is more than likely that bounty of this boom will once again only benefit the rich and the larger corporations while yet again the people of Alberta must take a few of the crumbs that slip off the head table. The last part of the Parkland Institute report deals with what we can do make Alberta a better province for everyone, not just certain classes of society.
“1 STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Shift away from a business approach to one based on core service delivery and away from reliance on generosity and charity to one based on rights.
Recommendation 1: Develop a more inclusive and supportive attitude toward community service providers including:
• increased funding that is stable and longer-term;
• funding for staffing compensation equal to comparable direct public sector programs;
• accountability that is based on appropriate and manageable indicators and data collection; and
• funding and support to expand on community hub models for community-based service grouping and delivery.”
Accountable and based on data rather than whims of the rich? Novel idea.
“2 A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL ALBERTANS:
Improve access to quality social programs, increasing leisure time and reducing stress on families.
Recommendation 2: Provide greater support to improve the quality of life for all Albertans including: increased spending and program expansion related to culture and leisure, childcare and early learning, education, health care; and reduce working hours through shorter work weeks and increased vacation. Key recommendations include:
• expand community based public health services for Aboriginal communities and implement no child left behind policy;
• fully fund and deliver early learning programs based on the public school model (including junior and full-day kindergarten);
• fund universities to reduce tuition rates to $1,000 per year across all programs;
• increase paid leaves and reducing work hours to match European averages; and
• create adequate publicly funded, non-profit child care spaces at $7 per day.”
Will it be expensive to implement? Oh yes, but no more expensive that paying for the results of our current societal choices in terms of health care, police and prisons.
“3 INVESTING IN HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Recommendation 3: Fulfill promise to eradicate homelessness by 2019 by complying with commitment of $3.3 billion in spending and building the necessary 8,000 new housing units.”
Are we just 8,000 units of affordable housing away in Alberta from making it a reality that no person needs to die of exposure during the winter? Instead of squabbling over powerlines and utility deregulation(still a bad idea) why isn’t this at the top of the political agenda?
“4 ENSURING DIGNITY AND AN ADEQUATE INCOME FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE
Recommendation 4: Strengthen the province’s social safety net through the development of programs that are universal, accessible and delivered in a non-stigmatizing manner. This includes:
• phase in a livable guaranteed annual income (GAI) to bring together programs for seniors, people with disabilities, unemployed workers, students and low income workers; and
• while working towards the GAI, social assistance rates need to be increased to the poverty line, rates must be indexed to inflation, asset levels increased, application process simplified, eligibility expanded and wait time shortened.”
Whot? Free handouts for the lazy?? How dare they? There will always be people who unfairly profit at societies expense, we stigmatize the poor because the rich do not want us to closely examine their privileged state and the dodges they are currently employing to game the system in their favour. Better to hit the poor hard and then cry for more police and prisons to warehouse the poor, all the while neglecting the conditions responsible for a good portion of the criminality.
5 PROTECTING WORKERS:
Improve income security, equality and quality of life through expanded worker protections.
“Recommendation 5: Provide more comprehensive protection and assistance to those working full-time, full-year to ensure an adequate standard of living. This includes:
• implement a living wage policy;
• strengthen labour protections including both employment standards and labour organizing procedures; and
• abandon the temporary foreign worker program, and expedite and better support foreign credential recognition.
Nothing radical here, just making working conditions adequate for all Albertans, not just those lucky enough to be part of a union.
“6 DEMOCRACY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Recommendation 6: Reform the democratic process to ensure that it accurately represents Alberta’s population diversity and distribution. This includes:
• adopt a proportional representation electoral system;
• establish an independent body with representation from Aboriginal, newcomers and women’s groups;
• implement an accountability and reporting system based on well-being indices; and
• work with Aboriginal groups to increase funding for and expand a comprehensive, community-based, culturally appropriate policy agenda with targets for improving quality of life and reducing disparities.”
PR would be a breath of fresh air in the stagnant backwater that is Alberta politics. Proof? The PC have been in power for longer than I have been alive, it really is time for a change.
“7 PROGRESSIVE REVENUE REFORM
Recommendation 7: Re-establish the link between taxes and public services. Revenues should be returned to levels that allow continued support commensurate with changing demographics and inflation for public goods like health care, education, and social programs that Albertans feel are citizenship rights. This includes:
• reinstate progressive taxes, with increased progressivity at the top end and brackets indexed to inflation;
• raise corporate taxes to the Canadian average;
• reinstate the liquor tax;
• remove gambling revenues from general revenues and instead adequately fund arts and culture, communities and early learning from progressive taxes; and
• collect all natural resource rents and keep them out of general revenues for use in building a future for the province.”
The first sentence is the most important – “Re-establish the link between taxes and public services.” This linkage needs to be reestablished so people can see the results of their taxes working for them making their lives better. The current decline in the standards of living in Alberta can be traced back to when this link was broken and we have been picking up the pieces ever since.
“Alberta is at a crossroad. This report has highlighted what it means to have economic growth at the expense of social cohesion. With over 80 per cent of incomes concentrated in only half of households and the lowest ranking in the nation for sense of belonging to their communities, Alberta needs a new policy framework. This report provides the framework for a new development path; one where economic growth serves social goals and where disparity is minimized, ensuring an adequate income, quality of life and dignity for all Albertans.”
Could not say it better myself. :)
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
33 comments
April 20, 2011 at 10:12 am
Vern R. Kaine
“It is more than likely that bounty of this boom will once again only benefit the rich and the larger corporations while yet again the people of Alberta must take a few of the crumbs that slip off the head table.”
Those who take the risk and have exceptional skills should be the ones who benefit most. It’s only those who lack the guts to take the risks and the skills to improve their situation who disagree.
And besides, a boom “only benefits the rich?” Really? Crumbs? Hardly. Last “boom” my old neighbor’s 18-year old son was driving a $65,000 truck that his work provided for him on top of a $65,000 starting wage, and his 16-year old sister was making $15/hr as a grocery clerk while both were still living at home. My tenant was making $35/hr in a parts warehouse for a job that was only worth maybe $10. They should all be making more? Based upon what, exactly? Their pulse? Their humanity? The fact that they each “hated” the oil barons? They earned what they earned because of the market and the oil barons that Alberta Libbies so hate.
The anti-business types are all in the same place doing the same thing whether oil is at $17 a barrel or $170, which is whining with their hands out when they make none of the investment and take none of the risk that business owners do themselves. For some reason, however, they still believe they deserve more. I say let them go after it. Let them trade the safety of their paycheck for a set of dice that they can roll in business for themselves rather than ask the government to steal for them what they have not rightfully earned. Other people do it and they can, too, otherwise they sound like spoiled kids living in their parents’ basement for free with no education and no job hating and refusing to do chores. Like them, the majority of people not benefiting from this boom will be those whose own entitlement issues and fear of risk have forced them once again to be left behind.
If more of what’s collected tax-wise can go to people for upgrading skills, or building shelters, or better health care, or helping with tuition rates, I’m all for it, but we’re really talking only a small fraction of people here that truly need the help.
Really, having lived in Alberta and now other States and Provinces as well, Albertans really should stop their whining. Everything you all have, no matter how removed from the oil industry you may be, is there because of it and the minute you cashed your first paycheck, you supported it no matter what you try and say otherwise.
Plus, no one other than capitalists can run that industry, either, because it’s only capitalists who truly know how to foresee, prepare for, and live through an economic storm. The Alberta people are smart enough to know that which is why the majority of them continue to elect PC’s (even weak, liberal ones like Stelmach!) and not some other party which would surely hand the province’s resources over to the French, Russians, or Chinese so as to appear non-racial.
Can things be better? Sure. But in the meantime, your doctors are still the highest paid, your nurses are still the highest paid, and your teachers are still the highest paid all while the province continues to shell out far more to the other provinces to pay for their federal services than it’s allowed to keep or receive for itself. You get business in your province because of the low taxes, not in spite of it, and everyone I know down here would trade what you’ve all got for what we’ve all got in a heartbeat environmentally or corporately so your businesses really aren’t all that bad.
Besides, if life’s so rough there, come down here to Nevada, California, or New York and try things out for yourself, or perhaps try your luck in Quebec or Newfoundland instead. You’ll see first-hand all those Parkland-style policies doing wonders there! :)
I like that Parkland exists as a voice for the other side, and Alberta really needs to do as much as it can to protect its wetlands and environment (the one thing Stelmach did do right was save our lake there) but respectfully unless everyone’s ready to literally hand their properties back to the Indians tomorrow, all this “help the downtrodden” stuff while you’re cashing your paychecks drawn ultimately from big oil all sounds a little hypocritical, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 6:36 pm
The Arbourist
It’s only those who lack the guts to take the risks and the skills to improve their situation who disagree.
As far as audaciously ham handed overt generalizations go this one is near the top of your list Vern. Although it does set the scene for shoehorning the bootstrapping yourself up/noble entrepreneur meme into the conversation.
Last “boom” my old neighbor’s 18-year old son was driving a $65,000 truck that his work provided for him on top of a $65,000 starting wage, and his 16-year old sister was making $15/hr as a grocery clerk while both were still living at home. My tenant was making $35/hr in a parts warehouse for a job that was only worth maybe $10. They should all be making more?
Arguments from anecdata are not particularly useful, although they do appeal to emotion.
The anti-business types are all in the same place doing the same thing whether oil is at $17 a barrel or $170, which is whining with their hands out when they make none of the investment and take none of the risk that business owners do themselves.
I did not see in the post anything particularly “anti-business”. I do see many suggestions for making society more egalitarian and reasonable for everyone to live in.
Everything you all have, no matter how removed from the oil industry you may be, is there because of it and the minute you cashed your first paycheck, you supported it no matter what you try and say otherwise.
I guess Fort Edmonton and other fur trading posts that are now established cities in Alberta were actually founded on oil money. That darn inaccurate historical record.
Plus, no one other than capitalists can run that industry, either, because it’s only capitalists who truly know how to foresee, prepare for, and live through an economic storm.
Hmmm… the people at Enron, World.com, Goldman Sachs etc. seem to have a slightly different track record when it comes to ‘living through the economic storm”. Publicly owned utilities can do very well during the boom bust cycle and often can soften the often catastrophic market gyrations for the rest of the economy.
The Alberta people are smart enough to know that which is why the majority of them continue to elect PC’s
You mean rural Alberta is pandered to and the voting regions are gerrymandered so thoroughly that people still manage to vote against there best interests? We have a problem if that constitutes “smart”.
But in the meantime, your doctors are still the highest paid, your nurses are still the highest paid, and your teachers are still the highest paid all while the province continues to shell out far more to the other provinces to pay for their federal services than it’s allowed to keep or receive for itself.
Err…no.
“b | Stalled Social Spending: Alberta spends less on average than many other provinces on a per capita basis. As a percentage of GDP, total spending of combined provincial and municipal governments in Alberta fell from a high of 21 per cent in 1991-1993 to only 13.4 per cent in 2007. For comparison, the OECD average was 21 per cent, while at the top end Sweden and France spend 29 per cent.”
You get business in your province because of the low taxes, not in spite of it, and everyone I know down here would trade what you’ve all got for what we’ve all got in a heartbeat environmentally or corporately so your businesses really aren’t all that bad.
Relatively speaking, but still no…
“a | The Tax Cut Agenda: The flat tax was a transfer of wealth to high-income Albertans. Middle-income Albertans actually pay more tax than in most other provinces, while the top income bracket pays by far the lowest taxes in the nation. Alberta also has the lowest corporate taxes in the nation and collects by far the lowest taxes in the nation, $10.7 billion less than BC, the next lowest province in 2008.”
Ah, Alberta where we penalize the middle class for daring to be successful. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well as long as you’ve already ‘made it’
“Key causes of Alberta’s disparity: The erosion of social infrastructure through the adoption of a flat-tax regime and 25 years of governments spending too little on social assistance programs have exacerbated inequalities as have labour market policies and offloading to community services agencies.”
all this “help the downtrodden” stuff while you’re cashing your paychecks drawn ultimately from big oil all sounds a little hypocritical, doesn’t it?
Positing change for a more egalitarian society is hypocritical. You work with what the current conditions are. With a political climate that is more focused on the people of Alberta rather than the business of Alberta we could make a great deal of what the Parkland Institute puts forward work. Other countries(see Sweden, Norway and Finland) are successfully implementing similar policies and are reaping the social benefits of such policies. So it can work and it can be profitable to both business and society.
LikeLike
April 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Alan Scott
Last I looked Canada had an unemployment rate of 7.7 %. I have to believe that you Canadians are doing so well in part because of your great oil industry . You arabs of the North are much smarter than us green socialist Americans . What would you say of invading us and saving us from ourselves ? We have this guy who is running the place and he is not doing so good .
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 1:53 am
Vern R. Kaine
As far as audaciously ham handed overt generalizations go this one is near the top of your list Vern. Although it does set the scene for shoehorning the bootstrapping yourself up/noble entrepreneur meme into the conversation.”
Ha ha. Audacious? So you’re saying that someone doing 15hrs a day shoveling dirt should earn more than someone working 15hrs a day programming a computer? That a person who risks their money in a new business should receive less benefit than the person they employ? More closer to home, I seriously doubt you believe a janitor who works double your hours or someone in your profession with 1/10th your skills should be paid better than you are.
Arguments from anecdata are not particularly useful, although they do appeal to emotion.
No, they refer to facts beyond the statics and a realistic reference point that hopefully should appeal to common sense. Contrarily, your comments about a boom “only benefiting the rich” and leaving “crumbs” for everyone else – I would consider that to be not only a factless statement but an overly emotional one as well.
My wage anecdotes are true, and other examples of the high wages paid to relatively unskilled workers can be found independently as well. $500 hiring bonuses and $11/hr McDonald’s wages were real, as was the labor shortage. Just ask any business owner trying to hire anyone with even a pulse at that time. Your comment that a boom only benefits the rich and that only crumbs are left for the rest is just plain wrong.
“Alberta also has the lowest corporate taxes in the nation and collects by far the lowest taxes in the nation, $10.7 billion less than BC, the next lowest province in 2008.”
Low corporate taxes attract and keep business. It’s that simple. As for the quote above, are they referring to Alberta’s collection of ALL taxes, such as sales tax, or just corporate tax?
And yes, taken in context with your “big business/crumbs” comment, this is clearly an anti-business statement that Alberta corporations don’t pay their “fair share”, that they get off easy compared to those in other provinces. Well I’m not sure other provinces’ share can be reasonably used as a yardstick. For one, what portion of those taxes does Alberta actually get to keep versus sending off to Ottawa? For another, what’s the efficiency level as far as what of the taxes makes it into the social system? Ex: for every $1 collected, $0.10 goes into the social system vs. for every $2 collected, the same $0.10 goes in.
“Hmmm… the people at Enron, World.com, Goldman Sachs etc. seem to have a slightly different track record when it comes to ‘living through the economic storm”.
This statement shows how both wrong and naive liberals can be when it comes to anything about business. First, you’re naming two defunct organizations and a third that should be not only defunct but in jail with the rest of them. Weak examples, to say the least. Second, you’re naming three out of what’s probably at most a list of 5-10 companies on your big business “hit list” that, to liberals, seems to represent all that “big business” is.
But they don’t represent anything. These companies aren’t the norm, they’re the headline-worthy exceptions. They are three out of over 580,000 companies with 10,000 employees or more in the U.S. – hardly a true representation by any stretch of the imagination. And of those over 580,000 or so companies, you’ll find that even of those that are <10 years old their executives have, approx. 15 years experience in running businesses – enough years to experience at least 1 market downturn, sometimes two. Even in Canada there are over 2,000 businesses with over 500 employees. Are you seriously pretending to know the "greedy" mindset of them all by what, singling out the 5 that are oil & gas?
You guys act like you have intimate knowledge of the workings and mindsets of business when you're about as far from knowing it as anyone could be. What's the saying about ignorance and easy targets? But to your point, if your opinion is that a government can better manage itself through economic periods than someone who has been in a company keeping it LEGALLY profitable for over 25 years in a much more competitive environment can, or simply that big business has no track record for management in volatile commodity markets or down economies, I'd say that's once again a purely emotional statement based more upon anti-business sentiment than any sort of facts.
I guess Fort Edmonton and other fur trading posts that are now established cities in Alberta were actually founded on oil money. That darn inaccurate historical record.”
Wtf does fur trading or historical record have to do with this point, or your paycheck? You get your paycheck out of provincial funding and tuitions, no? You don’t think the money for educational salaries comes out of the oil & gas revenue the province receives? Maybe 100 years ago Hudson’s Bay Company was doing more to fill the coffers, but pretty sure the bulk of the cash the government makes today (directly and indirectly) comes from oil. If I’m wrong that ed salaries don’t come from general revenue, be so kind as to tell me how much. By the way – handed the title of your house back to the Indians yet?! ;)
“b | Stalled Social Spending: Alberta spends less on average than many other provinces on a per capita basis. As a percentage of GDP, total spending of combined provincial and municipal governments in Alberta fell from a high of 21 per cent in 1991-1993 to only 13.4 per cent in 2007. For comparison, the OECD average was 21 per cent, while at the top end Sweden and France spend 29 per cent.”
That may be so, but these numbers may be flawed. Does it include transfer payments that go to social spending? Alberta has contributed over $147 billion Federally since 1961 which would certainly include money for “social spending”, and has contributed the most, and the most consistently, out of any province. BC, by comparison has contributed less than $10b. Second, they’re comparing the spending of a province versus the spending of an entire country here? Provincial economies are hardly equal to national economies when comparing such numbers.
That being said, I would easily concede that if social spending has stalled and corresponding unbiased studies show that services to Albertans have also decreased that there exists an obvious correlation. The real issue to me, however, is whether the “tax the rich!” mantra of the left really would correct things. Based upon the argument that seems to be proposed, I don’t buy into is the insinuation that simply raising corporate taxes will actually pay for it all. Theoretically? Sure. Realistically? I doubt it, but I haven’t looked at Alberta’s specific numbers close enough.
Regardless, the problem I have with reports like these is that when taken at face value, they feed comments like yours about greed, crumbs, and hoarding from the top to support the “raise taxes” conclusion at the bottom. To me it creates (continues) this anti-business, anti-enterprise discourse that ultimately, in my opinion, starts the discussion from the wrong perspective on both sides putting both sides on the defensive, and leads to the policies in NY and California that not only kill business in those states but also harms the services those businesses support as well.
If Parkland really wants to do something cool, they should do a “social spending fix” for the province similar to the “Fix the Budget” app that the NY Times has on its site. Then I think the liberal vs. conservative discussions could be more constructive on matters such as social spending.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 2:02 am
Vern R. Kaine
Hey Alan, until they find his “real” birth certificate (haha!) who knows – he may just be FROM Canada after all! :)
In all seriousness, Canada’s been ignored for many reasons over the years by much of the U.S. population, and I believe to its peril. There’s much they should be learning from their northern neighbors when it comes to energy and health care, for instance.
As for invading, as long as it’s not by submarine they’d maybe have a chance!
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 3:01 am
Alan Scott
Verne ,
We will have to agree to disagree on health care . On energy Canada is benefiting from supplying us with oil because we have totally bought into the green energy hoax .
I found the submarine joke amusing . The British unloading their junk subs on Canada is similar to the French giving their Chauchat machine guns to American troops in WW1 . Although some experts dispute this, the Chauchat is rated to be the worst gun ever produced , at least in large numbers .
If Obama really is from Canada, you’d think he could convince them to lower the price of oil for their bestest buddies down here . He royally pissed off the Saudis, so they cut production .
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 8:51 am
The Arbourist
Your comment that a boom only benefits the rich and that only crumbs are left for the rest is just plain wrong.
That would mean the inequality would be on the decline in Alberta. It is not, the rich are benefiting and the poor are suffering because of the pro-business agenda that dominates Alberta society.
“The government’s shift to a flat rate tax (FRT) has
undermined a reliable and equitable citizen contributory
revenue stream. It has meant incredible volatility
in revenues and unstable funding and spending levels
for social services. Most importantly, it has exacerbated
inequalities. The flat tax was a transfer of wealth
to high income Albertans. Middle income Albertans
actually pay more tax than most other provinces while
the top income bracket pays by far the lowest taxes in
the nation (See Figure 6). Page 32 of the actual report.
Low corporate taxes attract and keep business. It’s that simple.
Low corporate taxes attract and keep business at the expense of the society they happen locate in at the time. There, fixed it for you.
Second, you’re naming three out of what’s probably at most a list of 5-10 companies on your big business “hit list” that, to liberals, seems to represent all that “big business” is.
Given the amount of damage they have done to the societies that have housed them they are a very good representation of what unfettered, under regulated businesses can do. The collusion and betrayal of the public trust is a constant and steady reoccurring fact when it comes to business, “big” or otherwise when adequate regulation is not in place.
But to your point, if your opinion is that a government can better manage itself through economic periods
I am, and government does as the window for government planning and commitment is more than next quarter’s profits. The government is a institution put in place to serve the public needs over the long term, it is a structural function of the institution. Private companies are not structured this way nor do they share the same goal or economic incentives.
I’d say that’s once again a purely emotional statement based more upon anti-business sentiment than any sort of facts.
I appreciate your opinion but as long as we’re categorizing, your pro business screeds reek of the usual corporate pro-business propaganda that is slowly destroying the US and is becoming more popular here. The redistribution of wealth via taxes and other redistribute measures improve the health and welfare of all in society.
Some Facts About Inequality in the United States
“The US has the highest inequality rate in the industrialized world.
The top 1% now owns over 70% of all financial assets.
From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of Americans tripled their
after-tax income while the bottom 90% lost 20%.
CEOs in 1970 earned $25 to 1 for the average worker. Today it is
$500 to 1.
While the average person lost 25% of their 401k during the 2008
financial crisis, the richest 400 gained $30 billion.
If our income had kept pace with compensation distribution rates
established in the early 1970s, we would all be making at least
three times as much as we are currently making. How different
would your life be if you were making $120,000 a year, instead of
$40,000? -David DeGraw”
So you have me wrongly pegged as merely anti-business. I am anti-the way things are done in the US because it is the antithesis of what a healthy society should look like. The pro-business model is just one facet that is causing the ruination of civil society. Look at where the US falls on every graph of societal well being…the model is one the is clearly not successful and one that should not be emulated.
The real issue to me, however, is whether the “tax the rich!” mantra of the left really would correct things.
Of course it would, as equal more egalitarian society have better outcomes for all levels of society. Again, refer to the data at equalitytrust.org and draw conclusions for yourself.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 12:10 pm
The Arbourist
Contrarily, your comments about a boom “only benefiting the rich” and leaving “crumbs” for everyone else – I would consider that to be not only a factless statement but an overly emotional one as well.
This seems to support the notion that we have been doing well economically… only that we’re not….
Economist Ha-Joon Chang weights in on the success of the current economic paradigm: – Excerpt from the review of his book from The Independent.
So perhaps the worldview you espouse is not quite as solidly based in reality so much but rather doctrinal elite opinion?
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Let’s start at the beginning (again)! You’re saying that booms (quote) “only” benefit the rich. This is false. For one, average annual household incomes in Alberta have gone up consistently. Check here: http://www.discoveryfinance.com/average-annual-household-income-canada.html For another, unemployment has been relatively low compared to the other provinces. As evidenced here (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Alberta+unemployment+rate+rises+despite+gains/4226386/story.html) the boom benefits laborers and part time workers as well. Those are hardly “the rich” and the wages they make are hardly “crumbs”.
Your title referred to inequality. If your opening statement was that the boom in Alberta should result in more/better social services for the poor in Alberta I would, based upon your citations, seem to agree with that. The FRT may be inappropriate for the current and upcoming economy and may indeed need to be changed. If it can be done while still keeping Alberta competitive and attractive to business, I really don’t see a problem with it – assuming government has a specific plan for the increased revenue supported by voters, and is held accountable to it by both voters and the media.
“your pro business screeds reek of the usual corporate pro-business propaganda that is slowly destroying the US and is becoming more popular here.”
They’ll only “reek” if you hold deadfast to a dogmatic belief and fail to step inside one single Alberta business to expand your viewpoint to define what business actually is, who the rich actually are, and how both actually think.
If my comments sound fanatically pro-capitalist to you, then you’re blocking out everything else I’ve been saying. I can support and be comfortable with higher taxes; something I’ve said numerous times. I’m strongly in support of a more Canadian-style health care in the U.S.. I’m against raising taxes but only when it’s pushed for primarily by populist rhetoric. There are times where I think they should be lowered or kept the same.
You, however, based on your statements, cannot seem to support lowering taxes under any circumstances whatsoever, because you seem to hate all business for their profiteering and evil. You never make the distinction between “regular” businesses and those we see in the headlines doing bad things. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you say anything positive about a single business, ever, and your underlying belief seems to be that business in general has got off more/less scott-free and that they must pay retribution to the poor. I disagree with that on many fronts.
Regardless, though, here’s the thing: there’s a difference between not liking parts of capitalism and hating capitalism altogether. Not liking parts of capitalism opens honest dialogue towards improving it that appreciates perspective from another side. I’m all for that – capitalism can always be improved as we try and seek a balance between individualism and socialism with capitalism as the vehicle.
Hating capitalism, however, starts with “crumbs” statements like yours, which I believe leads to nothing but more hyperbole and anti-capitalism, anti-business rhetoric. Eventually this leads to politicians campaigning on prevailing, uninformed attitudes, and ultimately you get situations like you have in states like California, New York, and New Jersey. If people on the left don’t make the distinctions about business, then your politicians won’t, either, and situations like the three states mentioned above will happen in more and more states.
The ideological protest will always be there on both sides, but when you see MOST businesses protesting higher taxes, this is the end-result that they fear.
California example #1
http://www.castlepublications.com/cabe.htm
California example #2:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/08/antibusiness_states_awash_in_r.html
California’s in the situation it’s in because it took a leftist anti-business sentiment way too far.
“Given the amount of damage they have done to the societies that have housed them they are a very good representation of what unfettered, under regulated businesses can do.”
No, they’re an example of what CRIMINALS can do, especially those supported by government. The other 580,000 businesses operate legally and have done just fine without over-regulation and are great corporate citizens. Go to a local minor hockey game if you need proof. All good businesses recognize the symbiotic relationship with their community.
“So you have me wrongly pegged as merely anti-business.
I know you’re not totally anti-business deep down, but I’ve seen nothing pro-business to back up your claim. It’s what comes across with opening statements like the “crumbs” statement just as my discourse may come across as dogmatically for profiteering when I defend the other side.
I agree on the inequality that is happening (and has happened) in the U.S., and the risk of it happening in Alberta by following similar plutocratic views. Although we will likely disagree on the true underlying cause of the disparity, or what can get us out of it, I do not for a second propose that it’s something that doesn’t need to be addressed. You seem to believe more government is the bulk of the solution, I don’t. I don’t see how anyone can say more government is the solution when GE is now Obama’s “Halliburton”, things the left applauds until they (hopefully) realize this is just more of the same. That’s not capitalism and is not free enterprise, so I’m likely just as against it in that sense as you are, but that still doesn’t mean I think punishing the other 2,900 large businesses in Canada or the other 580,000 large businesses is necessarily the way to go.
Anyways, I’m sorry to nitpick but as you know, I tend to go after the “business-hater” comments at face value. I shouldn’t take away from the bulk of the argument and your point – that the FRT may be a leading contributor to Alberta inequality and should be either eliminated or changed and at any rate, the inequality needs to be addressed.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Chang’s comment, if in context, is flawed. He’s talking two separate things here:
Hate to break it to you, but the private sector IS the job creator. They are the risk takers, therefore they do deserve the rewards. Guys like “Bob”(?) are the reason there are such thing as jobs, and universities, and playgrounds for kids. We’ve “been told” that Bob is the wealth creator and job creator? No, reality is that that’s exactly what he is.
Here’s where Chang is also off the mark:
Instead of settling for just a “job”, a business person choses to risk his capital for greater return, and thus he should be entitled to it if he succeeds – but also entitled to his failure if he doesn’t. In a capitalist society, successful risks are rewarded and failures are punished. If Chang’s saying otherwise, then what he’s talking about isn’t capitalism. If Bob is socializing his losses, then he’s not a capitalist, and the problem, then, lies not with business and capitalism so much as it lies with the middle class’s apathy and lack of involvement with government.
The business climate he describes re: boardrooms is reserved for the very top, not the bulk of businesses. Even still, CEO is miniscule compared to overall company performance and does little to impact its overall returns. Regardless, board positions fall under securities and corporate legislation which falls upon the government to oversee, which falls upon the voters (and shareholders) to uphold. How many of the middle class have ever read an annual report of any of the stocks their pension fund or mutual fund invests in? I bet you can’t name five board members or the companies’ boards they sit on. Why? People ultimately don’t care. They just care about the returns they get, and regardless, CEO salary is a drop in the ocean in the big companies when it comes to that. I don’t agree with excessive salaries (especially when the business is losing money), but still – the whole CEO pay thing as far as the overall numbers are concerned are really just an emotional talking point.
“Thus we have to cut public spending…”
No, we have to cut public waste. Spending and waste mean two different things. Capitalists aren’t against public spending, they’re against public waste the same as they’re against waste in their own businesses. They believe, as I do, that some public services are better handled by the government and others are better handled by private industry.
Real businesspeople and capitalists get bent out of shape when they’re being punished for the government’s own waste and inefficiency. They fight higher taxes when the government continues to waste money. If government was proposing to moderately raise taxes AND cut waste simultaneously, you’d see a different response from the business community. I think you’ll find that most ideologists on the right, as on the left, don’t actually own their own employer-businesses.
“Since the 1980s we have given the rich a bigger slice of our pie in the belief that they would create more wealth”
I buy some of that argument, but not all of it. Thanks to technology, the world’s moved at an increasingly faster pace. Look at the increase in knowledge and data as well. Demands on workers became higher and shifted from brawn to intellect. Some took advantage of the trend and got on top, others either hoped or expected that things would continue to stay the same.
“that ‘they’ create more wealth”? The individual should have been creating their own wealth. How many people took the time to educate themselves that all “safe” and “guaranteed” investments in the market at that time were producing only -2% and +2% real rate of return, even when the “safe” investments were paying over 10%? Or that if you put away $0.06 cents in the 60’s to try and afford a postage stamp in your retirement in the 90’s, you couldn’t afford one based on those same rates?
Instead of taking personal responsibility and getting educated, most of the middle class tried to fake being upper class during this time, and were irresponsible by confusing discretionary income with credit. Some invested that credit, others didn’t. Look at the rise in luxury furnishings, luxury clothing and accessories (like Coach bags), and cars at that time for proof. See any $200 sunglass stores closing down even now? The majority of middle class tried to live a lie, and they gambled their future to do it. They’re what’s called “the dumb money” in the investment world and they played it out to a “t”. Chang’s words that they expected others to carry them along instead of looking at themselves speaks volumes.
The fact is that the rich have given us tons of opportunities to grow our wealth, especially starting back in the 80’s. The middle class who were smarter learned that the returns were out there for the guy making $20k a year just as they were out there for the guy making $200k a year.
Templeton Growth Fund is one example, around since 1954. Even though the last 3, 5, and 10-year average annual returns have been negative, since inception it’s annual return has still been over 11% whether you put $20 into the fund or $20,000.
Put $10,000 into Templeton in 1998 and today you’d have over $66,800, which is an average annual rate of return of over 15%. At that rate your money doubles every 4.5 years. Think any of the “dumb money” in middle class is averaging 15%? Think they have a clue as to what Templeton’s investment style is?
There were, and are, tons of ways for the middle class to improve their wealth. Problem is, most want to just sit on their hands and let others take responsibility for them. It’s not the government’s or big business’s fault that most neglect to get smarter and take advantage of it. Ask Chang where he had his money during that time. I’m sure it was with those same “evil” corporations.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“So perhaps the worldview you espouse is not quite as solidly based in reality so much but rather doctrinal elite opinion?”
That would be far less exhausting, wouldn’t it?! haha
No, my reality is based upon five separate perspectives:
1) My direct and on-going work with the poor and minorities
2) My direct and on-going work with successful and struggling small businesses at the small, medium, and enterprise level
3) My own personal life experience at almost every point on the economic scale
4) That experience occurring on both sides of the border.
5) The thought leadership and academic discussion I subscribe to in the meantime.
I can’t see how this is any less “real” than opinions based on #5 alone: opinion papers, articles, and reports written by theorists, journalists, and dare I say moral or academic “elitists”.
If you want to know what my “elitist” view is, here it is: I respect, support, and admire those who do vs. those who simply talk. Those, to me, are the “elite”. It doesn’t matter to me if they’re rich or poor, in business or not, union or non-union, or even if I agree with their views. What makes them “elite” to me is that they’re out there putting themselves on the line risking and investing actual sweat and dollars in order to try and change things, and win or lose, they get things done. They try, fail, and get up again to try harder as opposed to those who remain swaddled in some security blanket crying, “more for me!” Do I consider myself part of this “sweat and dollars” elite? Not at all. I haven’t achieved the goals I want to achieve to reach that level (and I’d refuse the term anyways), but I would continue to support them regardless.
As far as “elitist” goes, here’s what I see: People on the left and the right that are largely academic whiners who talk and read a lot, but at the end of the day have both done little, and do little.
They pay less, tip less, work less, donate less, risk less, challenge less, and inspire less and yet they seem to complain more on average than any of the other people I’ve described and worked with above.
On the left, they act like they know all about the military, yet they’ve never been in it. They act like they know all about designing a “fair” tax system, yet none of them are accountants. They hate business and pretend to know business’s innermost thoughts and feelings yet they’ve never actually owned one or managed one. They hate slave labor yet they own every third-world-country-made piece of clothing and gadget imaginable.
To them, knowledge and perspective can only be academic. Everything else is impure, unrefined, uncivilized, and therefore invalid. As for action, they are are simply too good, too smart, and too “enlightened” to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty with the commoners, and their excuse is always that they “have no time”. And yet at the end of the day their opinion is supposed to matter more than the person who’s pulled themselves out of poverty, or has built, lost, and built a business, has had boots on the ground in combat, or has made the time beyond their daily job requirements to do this? I say bullshit.
Same goes for the far right. They can yap about the glory of free enterprise the same as someone can talk about the beauty and fascination of a unicorn. Same theory, same lack of reality or real experience, same b.s..
Nothing takes the place of actual experience. Otherwise, pictures would suffice for vacations, and books about children could suffice for actually having them. Where do you place actual experience vs. theory on the scale of importance from a 1 to a 10? I’ve been in the room when poor people, indigenous peoples, business owners, military, and others are surveyed and I’ve been in the room after to hear how they all bullshitted it. Similarly, I have a high degree of certainty that no “raise taxes” policy is going to actually trickle down to the grassroots level and do the things you want to do. Economic theory is often quite different from business reality. Look at how many times the CBO changes its tune on Obamacare.
Anyways, I think the point of your insinuation is that experience should be balanced with thought and data. I would agree, hence why I read continuously, why I’m here, and why I appreciate the sources you provide. I’m all for thought experiments up in the ivory towers to try and change or frame the experiences on the ground, however I’m one of the people who actually come down from the towers once in a while, get my hands dirty, and take a first-hand look around.
I think we have much different views on who we consider to be “elite”, and therefore, I disagree with your suggestion/insinuation. I do, however, come from the position of being a paid expert on leadership, management, change management, and corporate culture, therefore I believe my perspective on business and the way business “thinks” is both valid and qualified. You want to call that elitist, feel free.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Bleatmop
“Hate to break it to you, but the private sector IS the job creator.”
Hate to break it to you, but it our natural resources that is the job creator here in Alberta. Without those, we could have private sector up the ying yang and we still wouldn’t have any jobs. The private sector is just how we have decided to allow those publicly owned natural resources to be developed. If it was a nationalized industry, such as in Venezuela, there would still be tons of jobs. Why? Because the world needs oil and we got it.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Well since it’s not a nationalized industry, it’s really the private sector versus the public sector that’s meeting the demand then, isn’t it? I haven’t ever seen tar sand or a tree conduct an interview. :)
Besides, do you really want those resources nationalized? The NEP was as close to nationalization as Canada got and that didn’t fare well for the province.
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Alan Scott
Bleatmop ,
” If it was a nationalized industry, such as in Venezuela, there would still be tons of jobs. ”
So you use Venezuela as a model ?
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Bleatmop
Vern – Nationalized or not, it’s still the tar sand that creates the jobs and wealth, not how it’s exploited. That’s my only point.
As far as the NEP goes, that was hardly a nationalization, but more of Eastern Canadians imperialistic view on the west. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Though not all parts of the NEP were bad. PetroCanada did bring a lot of gas stations to areas that did not have them before. And, if you’re a conservative, it’s provided a stranglehold on the vast majority of Alberta’s MP’s ever since.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 8:50 am
The Arbourist
That would be far less exhausting, wouldn’t it?! haha
Indeed it would :> But I think the avenue have expounded with considerable breadth and attention to detail was not quite what I was referring to when I said “elite opinion”. I think that perhaps we are having definition confusion as from the contents of your post it would seem that we are defining elite opinion in two different ways. I was perhaps at fault when saying ‘elite opinion’ instead of elite business opinion or some other way of noting that the stratified notions of one class are subtly or not so subtly promulgated into the consciousness of other classes whether it benefits them or not.
Your concerns about being identified as ‘elite’ seem to make you squirm just a little as in conservative circles, “those do nothing Ivy tower eggheads” are the elite and thus the enemy of the “hard working, hands on conservative business capitalist/investor”. This notion exists, but only in a normative class-warish sort of way, or to distinguish between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Elite opinion, in the frame I was trying to establish, reflects the structure and will of the dominant class. It is the ‘common sense’ and accepted unspoken truths that are generally unquestioned in any particular society. It is the worldview that reinforces the predominant values of elite consensus and perpetuates them as the received wisdom of that day. Dissident opinion is viewed with derision, contempt and extreme scrutiny precisely because it challenges the tenets of perceived values. Consider Noam Chomsky and the amount of air time he receives world wide versus the air play he gets in the US. His scholarship is critical of elite opinion and values and thus is marginalized regardless of the veracity or importance of what he has to say.
So, rather than trying to elicit a defensive reaction, I was going after the idea of questioning the veracity ‘this is how the world works’ because elite opinion of any stripe often contains many self serving/propagating notions that are not necessarily beneficial for those outside of the particular class they were designed for.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 8:58 am
The Arbourist
Hate to break it to you, but the private sector IS the job creator. They are the risk takers, therefore they do deserve the rewards.
Society is responsible for and the State is the biggest creator of jobs. Without necessary preconditions any economic system simply does not happen. Society determines what is needed and how it should be created, not the private sector. Concomitantly the State and the politics that go along with it have much more importance and relevance than the the private sector as it is the state that mandates what can be actually sold as a commodity and what cannot. Furthermore the structure the state provides is a necessary backdrop for any sort of organized economic activity to happen. Therefore I disagree with your statement that it is the private sector that is the job creator in any given society.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 9:14 am
The Arbourist
but still – the whole CEO pay thing as far as the overall numbers are concerned are really just an emotional talking point.
Then why the steadfast refusal to do away with limited liability and corporate personhood? This is not just middle class apathy we are talking about, CEO salaries and other excesses are indicative of a managed propaganda system to maintain the status quo and the current system in general because it works very will for a small segment of society. The facts remain:
‘The top 1% now owns over 70% of all financial assets.
From 1980 to 2006 the richest 1% of Americans tripled their
after-tax income while the bottom 90% lost 20%.
CEOs in 1970 earned $25 to 1 for the average worker. Today it is
$500 to 1.
While the average person lost 25% of their 401k during the 2008
financial crisis, the richest 400 gained $30 billion.
If our income had kept pace with compensation distribution rates
established in the early 1970s, we would all be making at least
three times as much as we are currently making. How different
would your life be if you were making $120,000 a year, instead of
$40,000? -David DeGraw”
The business climate he describes re: boardrooms is reserved for the very top, not the bulk of businesses. Even still, CEO is miniscule compared to overall company performance and does little to impact its overall returns. Regardless, board positions fall under securities and corporate legislation which falls upon the government to oversee, which falls upon the voters (and shareholders) to uphold.
Well it would seem that society is being structured and run in accordance for those at “the very top” and it would seem that unless you’re part of that 1%, whether you are a small business owner, or not, are going to be marginalized in short order because the priorities being put in place for all of society are not being installed for your benefit.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 10:16 am
The Arbourist
This is false. For one, average annual household incomes in Alberta have gone up consistently.
Agreed. However, the cost of living has also increased significantly. We make more but everything costs more, consider the affordability of housing in Alberta with the Bungalow option reaching nearly 50% of total income during the boom time. Higher income may not necessary be as strong an influence with regard to prosperity of the majority of Albertans.
If it can be done while still keeping Alberta competitive and attractive to business, I really don’t see a problem with it – assuming government has a specific plan for the increased revenue supported by voters, and is held accountable to it by both voters and the media.
A very good point, and business climate is important, but it cannot be the only factor when determining the direction of society and important decisions such as the use of natural resources and levels of taxation. The last 30 years(ish) have been an experiment in moving toward free market state capitalism. The wage stagnation for the middle class and growing inequality suggest that a different model of economic enterprise be explored. The reverence and primacy of the market needs to be balanced with the needs of the people and a managed sustainable economic plan. The fact that we do live in a world with limited resources requires a rethinking of the model that we have been told is ‘right’ and should not be questioned.
Arb-“your pro business screeds reek of the usual corporate pro-business propaganda that is slowly destroying the US and is becoming more popular here.”
They’ll only “reek” if you hold deadfast to a dogmatic belief and fail to step inside one single Alberta business to expand your viewpoint to define what business actually is, who the rich actually are, and how both actually think. ”
It could be a definition problem, as it was with the “elite” discussion. It has to do with tendencies though, no matter which class you belong to you will tend to pull for political reform and favourable policies for that class. This I think, is the the normal state of affairs. Where we run into problems is that the message of one class, which happens to be the business class, has had its message amplified over others for a very long time (owning the means of amplification helps as well) and the needs of business have been prioritized, generally, over other aspects of society to an extent that I would say the situation is imbalanced. Now, I would venture, this is a systemic problem and needs to be addressed in a rational manner, however when many solutions present themselves they seem to go jarringly against the perceived wisdom of the time, and at this time the wisdom seems to have a very businessy-economic-y slant that does serious disservice to the rest of society.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen you say anything positive about a single business, ever, and your underlying belief seems to be that business in general has got off more/less scott-free and that they must pay retribution to the poor.
I’ll double check the archive, but I’m thinking your right. The pro-business articles are few and far between here. :)
Not liking parts of capitalism opens honest dialogue towards improving it that appreciates perspective from another side. I’m all for that – capitalism can always be improved as we try and seek a balance between individualism and socialism with capitalism as the vehicle.
You are going to have to stop being so reasonable Vern. I’m glad we can agree on certain aspects, like that quoted above. :)
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Elite opinion, in the frame I was trying to establish, reflects the structure and will of the dominant class. It is the ‘common sense’ and accepted unspoken truths that are generally unquestioned in any particular society.”
Thanks for the clarification. “Elite” is never a word that has sat well with me from any perspective. What I was trying to convey was that my worldview is not based solely upon what one group says, or one person writes, even if the group or that person is someone I respect, admire, or usually agree with. A lot of poor people have never owned a business. A lot of rich people have never been poor (“broke”, maybe, but not poor.) I’ve found that my experiences make it so that I’ve never really “attached” to one group or particular way of thinking that would make me part of that group. For instance, I believe in the right to gun ownership although I could probably go my entire life never owning one. I believe in universal health care but I also believe that due to my financial means I should be paying for a private plan.
My problem with the “elite” is I think what you’re challenging, that they somehow get established as an authority on the “way the world works” and people no longer question it, no matter how inappropriate or absurd. I question these things not only from an intellectual standpoint, but a practical one as well. Whatever opinions or worldview I have, however bullheaded or seemingly harsh, only comes after I’ve actually tested them in my work and personal life. For instance, people in both Canada and the U.S. talk about reparations to minorities. My personal opinion is to limit/reduce the funding to many minority programs. That comes across as cold to some, even r*cist to others. Who do I hear that most from? People who haven’t spent one day in any of the programs, and have no close friends who are, for instance, Treaty Indians or African Americans, and yet in working with those communities with their leaders, we come to the same conclusions on the funding. Same with the poor.
You may notice that there’s some subjects I go full bore on, and others I stay largely away from. The reason is because I either have practical experience in the matter, or I don’t. Not sure if that answers your question. If not, I’ll try and clarify further! I appreciate the discussion either way.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Sean Patrick Hazlett
Bleatmop,
Are you seriously comparing Alberta to Venezuela?
Since Chavez took over, he packed the wonderfully nationalized oil firm, PDVSA with loyalists, cut investment, and used the money for social spending. As a consequence, Venezuela’s output was reduced from 3.3 million barrels per day to 2.25 million barrels per day in 2011. (See http://www.economist.com/node/18233412).
Since Chavez became president in 1999, almost 400 countries have been nationalized, the vast majority in 2010 and 2009. He confiscated much of the country’s food industry, which resulted in a sharp increase in 2010 food imports. In early 2010, more than 130,000 tons of decomposing food imported by a subsidiary of the state oil company were found languishing in ports and on wasteland.
Sidor, a Venezuelan steel firm, produced 4.3M metric tons of steel before nationalization and roughly 2M metric tons after Chavez nationalized it.
Venezuela’s nationalization of the utility industry contributed to increased power shortages and blackouts across the country.
Near the end of 2010, the country’s inflation was running at over 30% (See http://www.economist.com/node/17527250?story_id=17527250).
Why the left continues to call for a system of governance that killed over 30 million people in Stalinist Russia and tens of millions in Maoist China, that continues to reap misery over the populations of Venezuela and North Korea, is shocking to me. Even the Chinese are moving toward “capitalism with Chinese characteristics.”
People respond to incentives. If one provides them with free services, they become further dependent on a state that increasingly creates fewer jobs and opportunities for its citizens.
All you need do is look to your southern neightbor. To see the full flower of socialism in bloom, look to California.
Why people continue to support a massively discredited philosophy that has destroyed entire empires (USSR), is beyond me.
I am sure your motives are noble, but history and practice are simply not on your side.
Arbitrary redistribution of income does not work.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Sean Patrick Hazlett
BTW, that’s 400 companies, not “countries.” Sorry for the confusion.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Bleatmop
SPH – Way to miss the point, both of you. My post was about jobs, and how it is not the private sector that creates those jobs. I’m pretty sure there are jobs in Venezuela.
As far as output in billions of barrels, I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad idea to have slower production, especially if the slower production allows for a more ecological friendly development of Alberta’s resources. Perhaps then we wouldn’t have entire communities devastated by cancer downstream of Fort McMurry, wouldn’t have wildlife swimming in lakes of oil, and we would have more people employed in ecological protection and recovery.
Also, the free market hasn’t done much to do anything but create the bare minimum of jobs here in Alberta. Currently, we in Alberta do not ship any crude oil anywhere in the world. We ship raw bitumen. The lovely private sector has developed a system to take as much wealth out of Alberta with giving as little back as it can. Alberta only gets that bare minimum number of jobs needed to grab the bitumen and ship it to the US. So you’ll have to forgive me if I’m a little cool on the free market when it does everything it can to screw us over.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Sean Patrick Hazlett
“My post was about jobs, and how it is not the private sector that creates those jobs. I’m pretty sure there are jobs in Venezuela.”
Again, according to The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18561085?story_id=18561085), the U.S. federal government accounts for 2.2% of America’s jobs. Aside from state and local government employment, who creates the other 97.8%?
The tooth fairy?
“Hate to break it to you, but it our natural resources that is the job creator here in Alberta.”
So, your natural resources will magically extract themselves? One of the reasons the U.S. Government could do nothing about the Deepwater Horizon Incident is because BP had all the expertise. The U.S. Government did not have a clue.
Does the Canadian government have the expertise to do all the seismic work, put drilling rigs into place, and process the tar sands? Do you think said government would be able to extract the resources nearly as efficiently and without relying on tax dollars?
Again, I refer you to the economic powerhouse of the USSR for the answer.
Sure much of Venezuela’s employment is now generated by the state, however states that have generated the majority of their jobs via government services have consistently failed to meet the basic requirements of their citizenry. Again I cite the USSR, Maoist China, and North Korea. Venezuela is no exception. The quality of life in that country has certainly declined as a result of Chavez’s wealth redistributive policies. Prices are 30% higher (as opposed to stable in the US absent energy and food prices). The country has frequent blackouts and has had to increase its dependency on actual private companies to ensure it has an adequate food supply.
“Alberta only gets that bare minimum number of jobs needed to grab the bitumen and ship it to the US.”
Perhaps you are not familiar with this term. Most on the left are not. It’s called economic efficiency. Companies in Alberta create only enough jobs to make the enterprise profitable. However, you are only focusing on the direct job creation. The economic activity that these corporations create in Alberta has a multiplier effect that I believe Vern alluded to earlier. These workers buy local products and use local services that both stimulate the economy and ultimately create jobs.
If you are arguing that the government should step in and create more jobs, what would these new jobs do? Who would pay for them? Other than providing income the job holder, how would they increase economic efficiency and productivity?
Perhaps I may seem harsh, but I’ve seen this movie before and its called California. California has implemented every conceiveable, harbrained, leftist scheme and it is driving the state into bankruptcy.
Canada has actually benefited greatly from California’s governance as the film-making industry is fleeing the state because of the ridiculous tax burden on corporations. In fact, 70 corporations have left the state YTD alone, taking their jobs with them. California has the second highest unemployment rate in the United States at 12% vs. free-market oriented states like Texas that has an unemployment rate of 8%.
The current U.S. government is trying to employ many of these policies enmasse and we still have a 1.5 percentage point higher unemployment rate after over two years of Democratic governance than it was when President George W. Bush left office despite record government spending and two consecutive years of over $1.5 trillion deficits.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Bleatmop
SPH – From reading the first couple paragraphs in your post, it has become clear that you have not read my posts on this matter. Until you can address my points instead of positions I do not hold, we are done here.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Sean Patrick Hazlett
Bleatmop,
I’ve read all your comments and your argument is that tar sands create jobs, it doesn’t matter whether government exploits it or private industry. I disagree and if you’d bothered to read my entire response I address that argument as well as many of your other arguments.
But if you want to ignore other views, that’s your prerogative.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Knowing what I know about Fort McMurray and the companies operating up there, pulling oil out of the ground is much more a priority than protecting the environment before, during, and after they do it. They seem to do “just enough”, and I do think more could be done. As mentioned earlier, we have property at Marie Lake which was about to be destroyed with seismic surveying.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=dd3351fb-b808-4c00-aee8-4191f8e2101b&k=70869
As quoted from the article, “Alberta has no procedure for seeking public acceptance of development locations before selling mineral leases that include drilling and production rights.” I believe this to be a serious problem that needs to be addressed, and part of what I mean when I say “more could be done”.
Problems like Marie Lake were a simple yes and no problem, however. Cancer from toxic dumping is a simple yes and no problem. Where I think things fall down is in the “grey area” – where we must balance revenue and balance growth with sustainability.
Sean, you bring up a great example with California. Their solution for sustainability for many years seems to have been “tax and grab”, but I ask what have they sustained?
Alberta’s favorable tax rates keep companies headquartered in Alberta, and they employ tens of thousands of people not just from Alberta, but from the rest of Canada as well in a number of areas, including conservation sciences. Perfect? Hardly, but it appears to me that corporations and a more free market-oriented system have done a much better job of sustaining a province and an industry over the last 30 years than a more social, government-heavy system has done for places like California.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Are we just 8,000 units of affordable housing away in Alberta from making it a reality that no person needs to die of exposure during the winter? Instead of squabbling over powerlines and utility deregulation(still a bad idea) why isn’t this at the top of the political agenda?”
My answer? Ultimately the middle class doesn’t want it to be. No politician likely wants to take on the project in their district because it’s just as likely that every middle-class neighborhood would protest a low-income housing or homeless shelter (or all that comes with it) on their street. It makes everyone feel great to hear that “they’re working on it” (I believe the City of Calgary launched an initiative like this in 2008?), but all the politics (i.e. how is it funded, where would it be built, who continues to pay for the utilities, who pays the residents’ living expenses, etc.)
Instead, I think much of the middle class simply prefers to throw in a dollar or two into a Salvation Army kettle and be on their way.
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 9:34 am
Vern R. Kaine
Example:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7466477.html
“There is fear among homeowners, builders, Realtors and politicians that this project will devalue area property values, increase crime, affect the school system and generally have a negative impact on the area,” Linda Houston, representative of the homeowners association, wrote in a letter to Pedcor.”
Others:
“Iowa City Homeowners Welcome Low-Income Housing, But Not Nearby”
I’m very familiar with the low-income housing project in St. Albert. It certainly doesn’t harm the neighborhood, but look at the protests that other low-income developments get. There seems to be a possible misconception of low-income housing’s impact, echoed here: http://www.infobarrel.com/The_Effects_of_Low-Income_Housing_on_Surrounding_Property_Values
Also, I haven’t seen anything negative about the “Habitat for Humanity” homes and the types of families they support. I believe H4H’s case is that it actually improves the “behavior” of the residents (better school performance, more stable family, etc.) Score one for charity vs. welfare! :)
I’m also reading that Edmonton is working with a model that meets both with social and business advocacy (successfully?). Even then, look at the comments below the article.
Article:
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/subsidized+housing+Edmonton+inner+city/4312855/story.html
Comment:
“I am happy to be the first to say NOT IN MY BACKYARD. The west end – Stony Plain Revitalization strategy has already taken a huge step backwards since Mandel decided to shove the LRT down the middle of our closely knit neighbourhoods.”
I don’t think there’s anybody who doesn’t want to see all homeless people sheltered, but it’s a big task, a big cost, and a long process. For the most part, the developments seem unwelcome anywhere near someone’s own home.
LikeLike
April 27, 2011 at 7:24 pm
The Arbourist
Why people continue to support a massively discredited philosophy that has destroyed entire empires (USSR), is beyond me.
I imagine it is the same reason we keep following the self-immolating scriptures of capitalism; or did the disaster capitalist meltdowns in Chile and Bolivia sorta fly under your radar?
Arbitrary redistribution of income does not work.
The more egalitarian a society is, the more healthy, productive and crime free said society is. Redistribution of income is a necessary feature of a healthy society and should not be dismissed so causally out of hand. Before you start with the individualistic, heroic capitalist boilerplate go here and see where the US falls in the majority of the data. If you want a society like that, be my guest, but pushing free market economics as some sort of “fix” or singular solution to other societies problems is factually erroneous and more than a little malicious.
LikeLike
April 27, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Sean Patrick Hazlett
Arbourist,
I don’t disagree with you that it is better for countries to have lower Gini coefficients. However, I still strongly disagree that redistributive policies are necessary to achieve this. They don’t work because they encourage dependency on the state and discourage hardwork and economic self-reliance.
To save time, I will cut and paste from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18285808?story_id=18285808) on the far-ranging success of Bolivia under leftist president Evo Morales’ redristributive policies:
“Yet suddenly little is going right for Mr Morales. An abrupt decision to remove subsidies on fuels, raising their prices by over 70%, was greeted with mass protests of the kind Mr Morales himself once organised against previous governments. He quickly backed down, but that did not quash discontent. Last month Mr Morales pulled out of an event in Oruro, a highland city previously loyal to him, when he was greeted by dynamite-wielding protesters angry at rises in bus fares and food prices. After the government tried to block the fare rises, bus owners withdrew their vehicles from service on February 25th.
“Then came embarrassment when René Sanabria, a retired police general who is the government’s top drug adviser, was arrested in Panama on February 24th and extradited to the United States on charges of cocaine trafficking. Some officials said that the arrest was revenge by America’s Drug Enforcement Administration for its expulsion from Bolivia in 2008. However, the interior ministry had three other police officers arrested. Both coca and cocaine production have risen in Bolivia in recent years, according to the United Nations.
“But the main headache for Mr Morales is the economy. The government’s abortive attempt to remove the fuel subsidy (which cost $380m last year) was a sign of its more straitened finances. Its spending continues to grow, but the short-term boost to its coffers from the tax increase on oil and gas seems to have run out. The state oil company lacks the means, and multinationals the will, to invest much in expanding natural-gas output. Luis Arce, the finance minister, says that the government last year posted a fiscal surplus for the fifth year running, but others doubt that. According to Jaime Pérez of Fundación Jubileo, a think-tank, the government went into the red in 2009. The government itself forecasts a fiscal deficit of around $870m (4.2% of GDP) this year, high by regional standards.
“Another sign of trouble is inflation, which has surged to 8.4% over the 12 months to January. Food prices have shot up, and there is a shortage of sugar and other staples. Higher world prices are partly to blame. So are drought and wildfires last year which hurt crops. Flooding this year, which killed 39 people, has caused further disruption to food supplies.
“But government policies have made matters worse. As prices rose in 2008 the government intervened to curb farm exports and imposed price controls. The result was that farmers planted less. Huge queues have formed at state food-distribution centres. Some of those centres closed when they ran out of supplies or their staff feared violence. Journalists found food stockpiled at the homes of several government officials and leaders of Mr Morales’s Movement to Socialism (MAS) party.
“Although the fuel-price rise was withdrawn, it prompted other price rises across the economy, many of which have not been reversed. Bus owner-drivers in particular are feeling the pinch. Fares have been frozen for more than a decade even as the cost of maintaining vehicles and paying police bribes has spiralled. “When I started ten years ago lunch cost two bolivianos, now it costs me eight,” says a disgruntled driver.
“All this has taken a toll on Mr Morales’s popularity. A poll taken in Bolivia’s main cities in February by Ipsos-Apoyo showed his approval rating at just 32% (rural areas tend to be more loyal). The government faces little threat from the formal opposition, partly because some of its leaders have chosen exile in the face of legal harassment. Rather, the main source of the president’s new difficulties lies in his own movement. The MAS is a coalition of far-left parties, indigenous activists and NGOs. Social movements, such as unions and peasant groups, form its political base.
Until this year such groups believed Mr Morales was on their side, and forgave his verbal snafus and missteps. Now many of them will no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. The government’s new slogan is “Governing [is] obeying the people.” Having led the Bolivian street for the past decade, Mr Morales now finds himself ruling at its mercy.”
Bolivia is yet another historical example of how vast redistributive policies fail on a large scale.
I am not familiar with Chile’s historical experience with capitalism, and it may have, as you say, failed there. My point is that it is nations with more redistributive policies that are failing now and have failed in the past.
Zimbabwe, which used to be called the break basket of Africa, tried to redistribute land from one set of owners to another and the result has been hyperinflation and instability.
There are many historical examples of redistributive policy failures. I am at a loss in this day and age, to understand why people still support them when the empirical evidence shows distinctly otherwise.
LikeLike
June 1, 2012 at 5:42 am
Rahul Pandey
this is a community blog….
LikeLike
June 2, 2012 at 12:04 pm
The Arbourist
You are stating the obvious…
LikeLike