• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our future wealth is dwindling – one barrel at a time

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Our future wealth is dwindling – one barrel at a time

    Gary Mason
    Our future wealth is dwindling – one barrel at a time

    Gary Mason

    The Globe and Mail

    Published Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017 5:00AM EST

    Last updated Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017 11:41AM EST

    Donald Trump has half the world laughing and the other half curled up in the fetal position. Never has so much uncertainty been incited by a new U.S. President. Most nations are bracing for the worst – including this one.

    One of our biggest concerns is what Mr. Trump will mean for the economy. While there have been diplomatic assurances that Canada will survive the President’s protectionist impulses, no one knows for sure precisely what will happen.

    There is a lot at stake. The economy here is on shaky ground, and the future doesn’t exactly look bright either. At least, that is the view expressed in a recent report that looks at our fiscal prospects in a somewhat different light.

    While our political and business leaders have for years used Gross Domestic Product (national income) as the definitive measure of a country’s financial health, many are coming to believe it is too narrow a gauge. The world is a far more complicated place than it was when the definition of GDP was developed in the 1930s.

    Today, prominent organizations, including the United Nations and the World Bank, have started estimating a nation’s “comprehensive wealth,” which takes a longer-term and more well-rounded view of the economy and its outlook. How are a country’s assets faring over time?

    Among other indicators, it evaluates the state of a country’s built assets (factories, roads, houses); natural resources (land, water, forests, minerals, fossil fuels); work force (skills and capabilities) and social relations (trust and co-operation among people). These are all essential to a country’s capacity to produce goods and services.

    On the surface, recent evaluations of this nature have been kind to Canada.

    In 2014, the UN, looking at a broad range of economic markers, ranked us No. 1 among G7 nations for wealth per capita. Unfortunately, that is where much of the good news ends. Over that same period of time, the annual growth rate of our wealth was dead last among the same group of G7 partners. So how did we end up No. 1?

    “It was our natural capital that drove us into first place,” says Robert Smith, lead author of a study done in conjunction with the International Institute for Sustainable Development that looks at Canada in terms of its comprehensive wealth.

    In other words, it was done almost singularly on the back of our natural resources. (Canada: hewers of wood, drawers of oil.) But, beyond that piece of positive data, the numbers aren’t as flattering.

    Consider the following:

    Over a 33-year period from 1980 to 2013, fully 70 per cent of our infrastructure investment was in just two areas – housing and oil and gas
    Canada has seen a 25 per cent decline in the per person value of our natural resource assets since 1980 due to physical depletion of stock and price declines
    Finally, despite more people graduating with post-secondary degrees, an average worker’s lifetime earnings have been essentially stagnant in this country for three-plus decades.

    What it says is this: our “wealth,” to some extent, is an illusion. We’re spending more money every year on goods and services but not growing wealth – the basis for that spending – nearly as fast. Other nations that aren’t as reliant on such a narrow range of sources (see natural assets) for economic prosperity are doing better. If nothing else, the downturn in the price of oil should have driven that point home.

    Yes, Mr. Trump may approve another pipeline that Alberta can send its oil sands crude through. But that will not change the long-term economic potential for this country, a dilemma we have blatantly ignored while we exploited and enjoyed the fruits of our natural resource bounty.

    The fact is our wealth is being depleted in Canada before our eyes. We have for too long put all our eggs in the oil and gas basket, and it is now self-evident how precarious a strategy that is.

    We are living today at the cost of tomorrow in this country. We are building up debt while not leaving future generations with a healthy, diversified economy, to help pay for it.

    It’s not good enough to say: That’s someone else’s problem. It should be all of ours.

    #2
    The article pretty much sums up the problem and most of what it says is true: Canuckistan has an emperor with no clothes type of economy where debt is used to maintain lifestyle. Unfortunately no solutions are offered. Here are some of mine: eliminate the Bank of Canada and allow market forces to set interest rates. This would eliminate asset speculation and drive real innovation. One could work hard and save towards a financial goal once again. Next eliminate job killing regulations such as trade barriers between provinces. Could eliminate the western Canada only tariff on drywall as another example as well. A policy direction of this nature is what is required to maintain standards of living in this country.

    Comment


      #3
      this will be coming from the same experts that said the stock market would crash the night he got elected . instead the Dow set a new record yesterday , but they're not talking about that now . he's in for four years , let's see what he can do . I'm sick of talking about him . fwiw I think he will be good for Canada . oh and it's just terrible that a president would try and better his country . he's sure got our little guy in a tailspin here . he will be one of the ones in a fetal position
      Last edited by Guest; Jan 25, 2017, 15:34.

      Comment


        #4
        Case forget about the Donald and his impact on Canada as that is only 4-8 years at most.

        What did you make of the main point of the article that we are too dependent on resources and we are depleting our resource wealth without planning for a diversified economy into the future.

        Right or left this is a very good point in my opinion.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by chuckChuck View Post
          Case forget about the Donald and his impact on Canada as that is only 4-8 years at most.

          What did you make of the main point of the article that we are too dependent on resources and we are depleting our resource wealth without planning for a diversified economy into the future.

          Right or left this is a very good point in my opinion.
          Im not so sure we will run out of resources before we have something new and better.i dont think we will be dependant on oil and gas 50 years from now and if its still in the ground and we have missed the boat to gain from it , its to late. People say wall has done SFA with the resource money . I dont agree as i have saw lots of improvements around here that will last several generations .as far as trump give him a chance if hes nfg they will take him out may even take him out if he is very good . Luckily he wasnt our desicion to make and we have a leader that supports a communist leader . We need to worry about our own back yard imho

          Comment


            #6
            Lets just say for a moment chuck2 is partly right here. Glad he had his own words to add.
            The question would then become. Is choking the goose to feed the ultra green and the 'entitled' sustainable??
            Govt has a role in the steering and stability of an economy. But it must not drive the bus.
            A resource is only a resource if its used. Quoting somebody there.

            Comment


              #7
              Once a resource is deemed to be in demand the question becomes what value should be placed on the resource.
              Some resources it would seem were removed on the cheap.
              [URL="http://news.nationalpost.com/news/over-350-million-spent-to-clean-up-abandoned-mine-in-yukon-and-not-an-inch-has-been-remediated"]http://news.nationalpost.com/news/over-350-million-spent-to-clean-up-abandoned-mine-in-yukon-and-not-an-inch-has-been-remediated[/URL]

              Comment


                #8
                Has anyone calculated the value of Saskatchewan's oilsands that are not developed?

                What ...just leave it there unrefined? And environmentalists worry about pipeline leaks?


                Seems odd but out of sight out of mind must be their MO. Every pipeline put in is identifiable and can be accessed.....

                Comment


                  #9
                  The last premier to diversify the economy was Grant, but I doubt anyone remembers him for that.
                  His biggest legacy is still the upgraders.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Westernvicki

                    I am not sure there is another premier in this province that built for the future....had the power plants not been built....the fertilizer plant among others ....I think Saskatchewan would still be a pretty desolate place....

                    Did he make mistakes ...sure...but he looked further with some of the worst shit going on...

                    Also have to mention Douglas as well ....he and diefenbaker got along well enough to start the whole process where 75 percent of the province gets good water and helped create the potash industry that pulls 80 percent of its water from.....

                    I don't think current governments have that vision.


                    Contrary to many here....Wall certainly doesn't. .....

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by westernvicki View Post
                      The last premier to diversify the economy was Grant, but I doubt anyone remembers him for that.
                      His biggest legacy is still the upgraders.
                      I remember Grant well and still think he was one of the best to run the province! All the left will want to jump on me for that statement but I stand behind it. Just think of how many lives were saved when he got all the power lines underground and no trees or ice or snow knocking out the power and farming around power poles. I hear left wingers around here talk about all the debt from Grant yet they brag about how cheap it was to heat their houses with natural gas and never make a connection about the money he spent was to plow in the gas line. Grant ran the province through the highest interest rates we have ever seen and the drought and low grain prices of the 80's
                      Last edited by seldomseen; Jan 26, 2017, 22:13.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Had the money from selling some of the Devine investments been used properly to build more .....the province would still be moving forward instead of the nonsense going on now...

                        Devine's debt compared to building it now is peanuts. ...


                        And I don't think he walked out of here like Boyd or lingenfelter with bags of cash....

                        Comment


                          #13
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DrBA1p6s_M

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by bucket View Post
                            Had the money from selling some of the Devine investments been used properly to build more .....the province would still be moving forward instead of the nonsense going on now...

                            Devine's debt compared to building it now is peanuts. ...


                            And I don't think he walked out of here like Boyd or lingenfelter with bags of cash....
                            For all his hard work (may I add Rafferty, cow-calf program) lasting legacy. Despite droughts and 22% interest he never said woe in a shisehole and he almost got tarred and feathered by the leftites.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              That is quite a list... reminds me, it was Grant that put agriculture on the map as the "billion dollar industry" he professionalized agriculture, and invested in facilitating world class knowledge transfer!

                              Quite a legacy.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...