Billions in subsidies to big business

[chuckChuck]

No it doesn't. It results in a country where the free market forces are allowed to work. The mobile workforce moves to where the jobs are at. This lowers the cost of labor in the productive markets due to increased supply, and likewise, by lowering supply in the depressed areas, will increase wages, equalizing the markets in real time, and in response to market forces. This artificial equalization just creates false incentives which only require further equalization to keep the ball rolling.

There may be some truth to what you say but it would be interesesting to see what a range of economists say about the impact. But I doubt Alberta and Saskatchewan could have absorbed all the displaced workers who would have moved. Alberta struggles to provide services.

It would also be interesting to see what the impact of the resource sector has on western canada. Does the oil indsutry and easy money that is subject to boom and busts stifle diversification? It certainly creates workers who are unhappy to take lower paying jobs. They often live off EI and savings waiting for a return to work that sometimes comes too late.

I still think equalization is a good long term policy because it does not favour one province over another but instead is focussed on fiscal capacity which can change over time. The majority of the benefits of a strong economy still stay in the province of origin.

[Bootances]

Canada's richest CEOs will make your entire annual salary before you have lunch today
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/world-economic-forum-global-risks-1.3930574

[Klause]

If you dont support subsidies to business why do you continue to vote for Conservative governments who support subsidies for business?

Good luck with you analysis on where subsidies do the most good. Neither you or I have the time or capacity for such analysis.

You can complain about paying a lot of taxes. Perhaps Germany is a lower income tax jurisdiction. They also have a small land base and a bigger population. They also were rebuilt after the second world war with a lot of help and subsidies from the Marshall plan. Oh maybe you forgot about that? They also have a VAT of around 19% on all goods and services compared to 5% GST in Canada. Is it really a lower tax Country?

I have this feeling that where ever you are, there is always going to be a lot to complain about. Some people are never happy. I don't feel sorry for guys like you who take home $5000 a month. If that is your biggest problem then you don't have much of a problem. There are a lot of Canadians who would like to have your "problem".

1. I've voted liberal, (Paul Martin), conservative (Harper), and the last time spoiled my ballot (wrote Libertarian on it).
Quite frankly governments keep interfering creating subsidies and conditions for mega corporations to survive... For instance CETA. If all government regulations were removed these super large very slow and very incapable to adapt corporations would fail. Unfortunately too many people think government is the answer to everything... It is true answer to theft from the citizenry of the country. I.e. 200,000 budget book covers.

Your second point on seeing where subsidies do the most good is a deflection... The more an economy or group is subsidized the lower their will to work to innovate and to survive.

2. In Sask our version of VAT is 11%. Ontario 13% Quebec 15%... Why do I bring up Germany? We could use norway as well.. as you seem to love bringing up the SWF of Norway...


3. That is the problem. Socialists are greedy. Instead of the guy who works 12 hrs a day in -40 800km from his family making $10,000 every two weeks he should make $2000 and support for other lazy people who don't want to work by giving them each $2000 too. Unfortunately that's why Canada doesn't have real industry and the USA does. Nobody wants to give away their hard earned money to government so it can be redistributed to those who "need it more"

Every penny I've earned has been invested in my farm... Made other small businesses money and this helped them to hire more and pay wages. That's how an economy works.

Greedy socialists will never get it until all people who work and have a drive to get somewhere leave... Then the country collapses in on top of it's socialist philosophy. It's happened many times just in the last century but y'all will never figure it out.

[bucket]

Can someone explain the difference.... ......


a socialist is someone who spends taxpayers dollars ....

....while a capitalist is someone who gets taxpayers dollars on a regular basis. ...

Same dollars and usually the capitalist takes more....Bombardier. ....etc...

[burnt]

Can someone explain the difference.... ......


a socialist is someone who spends taxpayers dollars ....

....while a capitalist is someone who gets taxpayers dollars on a regular basis. ...

Same dollars and usually the capitalist takes more....Bombardier. ....etc...

Are your definitions accurate in both cases?

Do all socialists use other peoples money? Yes.

If one uses his own earned dollars to support outside causes, is he still a socialist, or has he demonstrated the characteristics of a philanthropist?

Do all capitalists get tax dollars on a regular basis? No.

In fact, the more tax dollars a capitalist receives, the further he moves from true capitalism.

Kinda tricky when we start mixing labels with accurate definitions.

It's just that simple.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

There may be some truth to what you say but it would be interesesting to see what a range of economists say about the impact. But I doubt Alberta and Saskatchewan could have absorbed all the displaced workers who would have moved. Alberta struggles to provide services.

It would also be interesting to see what the impact of the resource sector has on western canada. Does the oil indsutry and easy money that is subject to boom and busts stifle diversification? It certainly creates workers who are unhappy to take lower paying jobs. They often live off EI and savings waiting for a return to work that sometimes comes too late.

I still think equalization is a good long term policy because it does not favour one province over another but instead is focussed on fiscal capacity which can change over time. The majority of the benefits of a strong economy still stay in the province of origin.

Do you have livestock Chuck? This would be like having cattle, most of them are in one pasture(call it the east pasture for no reason at all), they have eaten every blade of grass on that one, meanwhile there is grass everywhere on the west pasture, but not enough cows to harvest it all, and the east cows won't go there because they have always been in the east pasture, it is right by the main highway, and the barn, whereas the west pasture is in the back 40, no civilization, no attention from the viewing public. The cows are quite vocal about their dislike of the working conditions where they are at, and your neighbors are threatening to call the SPCA, and when they lock you up for animal abuse, you will be effectively voted out as the cows supreme leader, even though the cows in the west are fat and happy, no one asked them, or even knows they exist.

So under your equalization scheme, you should harvest the grass in the west pasture, harness some cows/oxen to mow the hay, rake it, stack it haul it etc. Then haul all the fruits of their labors to feed the cows in the east pasture. Of course now, they eastern cows will have even less incentive to move pastures, but at least the neighbors won't report you to SPCA, so you get to keep your job at least for another season. Which is good because you now have cows dependant on your charity, so you will be busy, as will the western cows, harvesting and hauling feed. And since there are more cows in the eastern pasture, than in the west, the risk of a mutiny is much lower, and besides, no one ever drives by and looks into the west pasture to see how hard they are working, and where the fruits of their labors are going, so you won't get reported to the SPCA.

Under my scenario, I would offer an incentive to at least some of the cows in the eastern pasture to move west, I'd take a bale on the tractor and head west and whoever is hungry enough to follow me would move west, whoever stays back will find there is now enough grass to do very well on, now that it is not so overgrazed. I trust that once they are fat and happy in the west pasture, they will have little incentive to go back to starving in the eastern pasture. And will resent the idea of working to feed them the next time the distribution gets out of balance, knowing that there is an easier way.

[burnt]

Do you have livestock Chuck? ....

You're joking right?

How big do you think his mother's basement is?

[seabass]

Shit thats funny!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you have livestock Chuck? This would be like having cattle, most of them are in one pasture(call it the east pasture for no reason at all), they have eaten every blade of grass on that one, meanwhile there is grass everywhere on the west pasture, but not enough cows to harvest it all, and the east cows won't go there because they have always been in the east pasture, it is right by the main highway, and the barn, whereas the west pasture is in the back 40, no civilization, no attention from the viewing public. The cows are quite vocal about their dislike of the working conditions where they are at, and your neighbors are threatening to call the SPCA, and when they lock you up for animal abuse, you will be effectively voted out as the cows supreme leader, even though the cows in the west are fat and happy, no one asked them, or even knows they exist.

So under your equalization scheme, you should harvest the grass in the west pasture, harness some cows/oxen to mow the hay, rake it, stack it haul it etc. Then haul all the fruits of their labors to feed the cows in the east pasture. Of course now, they eastern cows will have even less incentive to move pastures, but at least the neighbors won't report you to SPCA, so you get to keep your job at least for another season. Which is good because you now have cows dependant on your charity, so you will be busy, as will the western cows, harvesting and hauling feed. And since there are more cows in the eastern pasture, than in the west, the risk of a mutiny is much lower, and besides, no one ever drives by and looks into the west pasture to see how hard they are working, and where the fruits of their labors are going, so you won't get reported to the SPCA.

Under my scenario, I would offer an incentive to at least some of the cows in the eastern pasture to move west, I'd take a bale on the tractor and head west and whoever is hungry enough to follow me would move west, whoever stays back will find there is now enough grass to do very well on, now that it is not so overgrazed. I trust that once they are fat and happy in the west pasture, they will have little incentive to go back to starving in the eastern pasture. And will resent the idea of working to feed them the next time the distribution gets out of balance, knowing that there is an easier way.

Was really hoping for a response from ChuckChuck on this one, where is my analogy flawed?

[Hamloc]

Certainly enjoyed your post Alberta5. Only one complaint, in the real world the cows in the east pasture are creating new regulations to limit the amount of grass grown in the west so that the cows in the west will be just as hungry as those in the east but they still expect the same amount of hay sent to those in the eastern pasture :-)

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Certainly enjoyed your post Alberta5. Only one complaint, in the real world the cows in the east pasture are creating new regulations to limit the amount of grass grown in the west so that the cows in the west will be just as hungry as those in the east but they still expect the same amount of hay sent to those in the eastern pasture :-)

Yes, that sounds like communism at it's best, the equal distribution of poverty.

Or they will claim that transporting the hay from one end of the farm to the other is damaging the sensitive ecosystem in between, so the western cows should just pay for them to buy offshore hay from somewhere where the "environment" hasn't been invented yet.

[Les Magura]

The subsidies that oil and gas companies have received over the decades are mind boggling and when politicians from Alberta cry about transfer payments they always turn a blind eye to this because they know when this gets pointed out they don't have a leg to stand on.

[sofa.king]

Crawl back under your rock Les or back to the swamp.

[westernvicki]

I expect if you did an international survey you would find incentives to business to be employed by most developed nations during their history in an effort to attract business & support business. Money used to assist the building of a new venture comes in many forms and indeed it is always a subsidy. If we go to the root of subsidy few of us would come clean as individuals as well, as at the core of the meaning the net is very wide and deep. Indeed subsidy, or wealth redirection, is the nature of a complex civil society. The question is then of how a jurisdiction chooses to invest in their society: Alberta invested in business, I am not sure this should be a surprise as the root of Conservative thought is business drives a more prosperous society. The proof, is obvious in Alberta with the highest income per capita & years of low taxation levels may indeed have some evidence to the success of the vision: Alberta must have done something right. Indeed, opinions will vary. Quebec on the other hand with the highest incentives to business and the lowest per capita income can be noted for the best social network in Canada, these gains are not reflected in net income so this could equally disprove the theory! However one might ask if the real net income was ever calculated in Quebec (underground economy all tallied in) where would this actual per capita net income number be?

Right or wrong, left or right incentives to business is likely the oldest fiscal policy in the world.

[RWT101]

Interesting comments about equalization.

When you read about this rip off by big powerful Quebec on tiny Newfoundland, there is no justification for any equalization payments to Quebec. They never signed onto the Constitution either BTW.

They were paying Newfoundland the equivalent of about $1 or $2/bbl for electricity worth about $50/bbl or more.
And being the 'generous sweethearts' they are, Quebec also refused to renegotiate the deal when energy prices sky rocketed in the 1970s.

[URL="http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/churchill-falls.php"]http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/churchill-falls.php[/URL]

And to really rub salt in the wounds, the Quebec bully boys refused to allow Newfoundland to run any power lines across Quebec so that they sell their own power directly to the US.

Who was it that said, "That's not the Canadian way"?

Unless of course, it's Quebec.