Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship - Page 4

Tingkai · June 3, 2002, 00:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I think the NDP are being incredibly stupid because all they ever do is b*tch and moan about how stupid everyone else is.

Harper was the one complaining about how Maritimers have a culture of defeatism, not the NDP. I can't recall the last time the NDP ever said that everyone is stupid.

And of course, the CAs never ***** and moan. We never hear the Albertan CAs whining on about how everyone ignores them and how the rest of the country is trying to screw them.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

Harper was the one complaining about how Maritimers have a culture of defeatism, not the NDP. I can't recall the last time the NDP ever said that everyone is stupid.

He went further on to describe his plans for how to revitalize the culture and economy of the region...

is that part of the quotes not important? I guess they aren't. All that matters is he identified a problem (which is blatantly obvious to ANYONE with eyes, albeit not totally politically correct and probably a slip of the tongue) and put forth a solution.

The NDPs just whine, and whine, and whine, and set up strawmen arguments. It was quite funny watching the debates where the NDP leader goes off on a tangent that nobody else is talking about...

Quote:

And of course, the CAs never ***** and moan. We never hear the Albertan CAs whining on about how everyone ignores them and how the rest of the country is trying to screw them.

You still don't understand.
I'm not talking about that, but rather how the NDP never puts forth any SOLUTIONS. Just COMPLAINTS. ALWAYS.

And with attitudes like yours, KrazyHorses, Chretien, and most liberals/NDPers in general, is it any surprise that Alberta complains?

It's like we're surrounded by morons who keep electing a government that ****s up worse EVERY YEAR.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:07

Quote:

It's like we're surrounded by morons who keep electing a government that ****s up worse EVERY YEAR

Cry me a river.

Do you even remember what took place under Mulroney? Canada knows what happens whenever they let the rightists run the show, and we're not eager to let it happen again.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:08

Oh please, Mulroney was not a rightist. That's like saying Paul Martin is left wing.

Mulroney was a liberal running under the conservative banner. Anyone looking at his policies can figure that one out...

On the other hand, a true right wing party has been in power in Alberta for over 30 years straight. Look how horribly it worked out for us.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:09

He's as far right as we'll ever elect.

If Stephen Harper ever becomes PM I will quite literally eat my hat. To get into power the CA's going to have to swing a hell of a lot further left than it is right now.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:15

Quote:

On the other hand, a true right wing party has been in power in Alberta for over 30 years straight. Look how horribly it worked out for us

I'm reminded of a conversation between a Social Credit supporter and Bud Olson.

Voter: Why should we vote for the Liberals? Social Credit's made us prosperous

Olson: Don't you think that that might have something to do with the oil on our land?

Voter: Yes, but Mr. Manning (sr.) prayed for the good Lord to put that oil there...

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:16

Having ample resources are absolutely useless if your government mismanages them.

Look at British Columbia...

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:17

Which ample resources? The ones that are being ****ed with by the Americans?

Urban Ranger · June 3, 2002, 00:18

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If Stephen Harper ever becomes PM I will quite literally eat my hat. To get into power the CA's going to have to swing a hell of a lot further left than it is right now.

Amusing pun

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:20

BC didn't have that problem in the 90s, when the NDPs were in tact.

And you know damn well all of the resources BC has.

The problem was the NDP discouraged businesses from operating there. There was no real point with the tax system they set up. On the other hand, right next door to BC was the place with the lowest taxes in the nation...

You do know that only 25% of Alberta's revenue comes from energy, right?

And you're blind enough to paint BC's total failure in the 90s on the US, rather than the NDP, and Alberta's complete success in the 90s up through today on oil (which has declined every year in terms of percentage of our GDP and revenues), rather than on government leadership?

To the casual observer it'd appear that you're blinding yourself so you don't see the shortcomings of the government you support.

notyoueither · June 3, 2002, 00:22

I think realism indicates that the real hope for the right in Canada is the Tories with CA support in the West.

As for the right prefering to fight among themselves, it seems it's the Liberals and the left who prefer the current situation.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:24

Quote:

government you support

Not in this lifetime. I'd be on the barricades even if the NDP was our government.

Quote:

You do know that only 25% of Alberta's revenue comes from energy, right?

Jesus. Only 25%? Frigging unbelievable. So what you're saying is that you only have a 25% advantage over everybody else? We all know that places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are rich because of the good governance they have...

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
BC didn't have that problem in the 90s, when the NDPs were in tact

The BC NDPers had a lot of assets, but tact wasn't one of them...

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Jesus. Only 25%? Frigging unbelievable. So what you're saying is that you only have a 25% advantage over everybody else? We all know that places like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are rich because of the good governance they have...

And here I was thinking that Canada was full of resources all over the nation.

I guess I was wrong, seeing that Alberta is the only province with resource revenue.

And yeah, Saudi actually does have a decent government economically.

They could use a bit in terms of human rights though.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:30

Please, compare with the revenue brought in from primary industries in other provinces and you'll see a difference. I'd be surprised if Quebec got more than 5% of its revenue from such sources as hydro power and timber.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:31

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Budget...hart_sum_5.htm

14% of BC's revenue comes from resource revenue in 2001/2002.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:33

And what's the difference in GDP per capita between Alta. and BC?

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:34

No idea, but Alberta surpassed BC's GDP in 2001, with about 3/4 of the population.

Ours is growing at a far, far higher rate thanks to a government which encourages it.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 00:52

Here we go. Year 2000.

Alberta GDP: $119B
Alberta Population: 3,088,706
Alberta GDP per capita: $38,527

British Columbia GDP: $124B
British Columbia Population: 4,058,000
British Columbia GDP per capita: $30,557

David James · June 3, 2002, 00:57

Well if we assume for a moment that BC and Alta have the same GPP and that Alta's population is 2/3 of BC's then GPP per capita in Alberta would have to be 3/2 of that of BC, or 50% higher. If Alberta's GPP is greater still, then GPP/capita in Alberta is likewise greater still. So there's your difference, KH

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 00:58

Now go back 30 years and add up how much revenue is derived from investments made due to oil industry since then. It's a silly comparison (we've got a right-wing government, they don't, we're richer than them, QED). Praytell, why did Alta only start getting richer than BC in 1970? (After a good 35 years of Social Credit government)

Wait...I smell another false analogy. We're farther left than the Brits, look how we've gotten richer in comparison to them in the last 50 years. QED.

Alberta's growth has been bought and paid for by the oil industry. Have fun when you start running dry, or when pop. influx drives that GDP per cap back down to national average...

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by David James
Well if we assume for a moment that BC and Alta have the same GPP and that Alta's population is 2/3 of BC's then GPP per capita in Alberta would have to be 3/2 of that of BC, or 50% higher. If Alberta's GPP is greater still, then GPP/capita in Alberta is likewise greater still. So there's your difference, KH

a) The pop. of Alta. is 3/4 of BC, not 2/3

b) The GDP of Alta appears to not quite have caught up with BC

c) How much of that money is simply flowing back down south to the American owners of the capital infrastructure requored to produce the oil?

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:03

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now go back 30 years and add up how much revenue is derived from investments made due to oil industry since then. It's a silly comparison (we've got a right-wing government, they don't, we're richer than them, QED). Praytell, why did Alta only start getting richer than BC in 1970? (After a good 35 years of Social Credit government)

Simple: Population influx. Nobody wanted to live here until they saw a point to it all.

Quote:

Wait...I smell another false analogy. We're farther left than the Brits, look how we've gotten richer in comparison to them in the last 50 years. QED.

Are we richer than them? That's news to me. How come we have to buy subs from them?

Quote:

Alberta's growth has been bought and paid for by the oil industry. Have fun when you start running dry, or when pop. influx drives that GDP per cap back down to national average...

Of course, oil has a big part of Alberta's revenue.

But again, I've said it before, if the NDP were in Power, Alberta would be in FAR worse shape.

Hell, look at the oil fields in North Eastern BC. During the NDP's reign development was halted on all of those fields, and now that a reasonably more sane government is in charge they're in negotiations again.

Meanwhile, Alberta's economy is diversifying at a rapid rate, to the point of theoretically being able to shrug off a $10/barrle price in oil without hurting us bad at all.

The NDP typically has NO clue how to use economics. For that reason they're NDP, I guess. I've never met one economist that was an NDPer. Suppose there's a reason for that?

David James · June 3, 2002, 01:03

I wrote that last post whilst Asher posted his new info. Let's correct myself. Again, assume a similar sized GPP but this time a pop ratio of 3/4... So Alberta's GPP/capita would have to be 4/3 that of BC. The actual numbers aren't far off, but Alberta's GPP/capita still isn't high enough for her total GPP to exceed BC's, which as we see is the case. So I blame Asher for posting incorrect population data

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:04

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
b) The GDP of Alta appears to not quite have caught up with BC

It did in 2001, not 2000. It was my bad.

Quote:

c) How much of that money is simply flowing back down south to the American owners of the capital infrastructure requored to produce the oil?

What does this have to do with anything?

Canada already gets to tax these companies (they tax ChevronTexaco Canada, etc) so why does it matter who gets the money after that, as long as they keep investing in the region where it's coming from?

You sound like some kind of rabid protectionist without a clue.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

Are we richer than them? That's news to me. How come we have to buy subs from them?

Our GDP per cap is ~20% higher than theirs, IIRC.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:08

KH, check out this article which discusses some of the government policies that stagnated BC's growth in the 90s: http://www.ica.bc.ca/kb.php3?catid=333&artid=515

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:09

Quote:

What does this have to do with anything?

Canada already gets to tax these companies (they tax ChevronTexaco Canada, etc) so why does it matter who gets the money after that, as long as they keep investing in the region where it's coming from?

You sound like some kind of rabid protectionist without a clue

Simple. That portion of the money is shouldn't be counted as part of your GDP, if we're doing this as a study in comparative economics. The labour and natural resource comes from Alta, but the capital investment (and thus profits) should be accounted to the US, since nobody in Canada sees hide nor hair of it.

Asher · June 3, 2002, 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Simple. That portion of the money is shouldn't be counted as part of your GDP, if we're doing this as a study in comparative economics. The labour and natural resource comes from Alta, but the capital investment (and thus profits) should be accounted to the US, since nobody in Canada sees hide nor hair of it.

That's completely untrue.

Canada sees the taxes from it (you make it sound like ChevronTexaco benefits from all the work in Canada, when ChevronTexaco Canada, a Canadian company, actually does).
Canada sees employment from it.
Canada sees investment from it.

The Canadian company, ChevronTexaco Canada, actually sees the profits and uses money for capital investment also.

By your logic, GDP should actually be GDP - Net Exports.

KrazyHorse · June 3, 2002, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
KH, check out this article which discusses some of the government policies that stagnated BC's growth in the 90s: http://www.ica.bc.ca/kb.php3?catid=333&artid=515

That article demonstrates everything that's wrongheaded about tax-cutting as a means to draw business in. It's a zero-sum game, since if everybody engaged in it all we'd see is businesses remaining where they were in the first place with less and less responsibility to the communities where they operate. Wait; that's what has happened in the last 30 years! Maybe that's why median incomes have stagnated across the First World?