Fakeconomics . . . .

[bucket]

Here is a real life example of fakeconomics....


Spending 4 billion of taxpayer money for 300 farmers thinking you can create an industry while the first investment of 100000 acres hasn't done jack shit for a ROI to the taxpayers...

I was at meeting in Tugaske a few years back and a now agricultural Hall of Famer said ..." Riverhurst wasn't a big enough project to make a difference"""

Irrigation funded by the province is an excellent example of fakeconomics......

[tweety]

Here is a real life example of fakeconomics....


Spending 4 billion of taxpayer money for 300 farmers thinking you can create an industry while the first investment of 100000 acres hasn't done jack shit for a ROI to the taxpayers...

I was at meeting in Tugaske a few years back and a now agricultural Hall of Fame said ..." Riverhurst was a big enough project to make a difference"""

Irrigation funded by the province is an excellent example of fakeconomics......

Economics is more then just profit. The difference it made is ensuring grain supply exceeds demand. For some, that translates into good economics.

Cheap food is good economics, the US figured out long ago to support primary production for value added businesses to use cheap food raw inputs rather then supporting all the value added industries.

[bucket]

if irrigation had any economic sense the investor groups would have been in here long ago...Matter of fact they have had 50 years to spend their money....they phucking well know its a bad investment...

If the province had any sense they would use the 4 billion to build the dam at Leader.

[Austrian Economics]

The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions.

[Misterjade9]

Here is a question, how many miles of highway 16 could have been twinned and how many modern rest stops could have been built with that 4B? It probably would have put more people in the heavy construction business back to work than an irrigation project. Would have made our province look a bit better.

[bucket]

The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions.

Better question is ...how much are the users of the irrigation project willing to pay?

I ask because the government is still funding the 3 major irrigation projects and they were gifted the taxpayer funded infrastructure ....

In the riverhurst area that's a 75 million capital asset according to the asset evaluation. ....for maybe 20 farmers....

So capital assets gifted and funding for a few years. ..plus funding throughout the last 30 years...

A dam would have far more economic benefit for the general population in the form of tourism and recreation ....

Wakeboard and fishing boats are not funded for by taxpayers...

[farming101]

Wakeboard and fishing boats are not funded for by taxpayers...

Since CERB I think some are...

[bucket]

Since CERB I think some are...

Maybe but cerb is a taxable benefit.


The 40 dollars an acre currently provided to the irrigation districts is not....nor is the capital infrastructure gifted to them....

The least they could do with irrigation is make the funding to those that benefit from it....is make some of it a taxable benefit...

[the big wheel]

The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions.

The world is going electric whether some want to admit it or not, you are right it has to be feasible but with the demand for power increasing greatly you would think that it would certainly be a prudent investment for the future. But not If the petrol industry owns you I would suppose.

[errolanderson]

David Rosenberg


We've reached a sorry state where a $1T fiscal stimulus bill is viewed as austerity. Obama's 2009 stimulus was $831B, by comparison. Bush's tax cuts of 2001/2003 were $150B annually. It's not really a sorry state as much as a welfare state. Not a judgment here, just a reality.