• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
30
Points
560
The State of Texas has an economy virtually the same size as that of Canada, with only a fraction of the workers. This is the sort of economic efficiency that Edward has been advocating for a long time, and which *we* as a people need to emulate if we are to dig ourselves out of the Liberal debt trap. The ratio of workers between New York and the Republic of Korea is even more astonishing:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/california-economy-larger-than-world.html

California economy larger than World Number 6 France and Texas is ahead of tenth place Canada

America’s largest state economy is California, which produced $2.46 trillion of economic output in 2015, just slightly above the GDP of France during the same period of $2.42 trillion. California's has a workforce of about 19 million compared to an employment level in France of slightly more than 25 million workers. It takes 32% (and 6 million) more workers in France to produce the same economic output last year as California.

California as a separate country would have been the 6th largest economy in the world last year, ahead of France ($2.42 trillion) and India ($2.09 trillion) and not too far behind No. 5 UK at $2.85 trillion.

America’s second largest state economy – Texas – produced $1.59 trillion of economic output in 2015, which would have ranked the Lone Star State as the world’s 10th largest economy last year. GDP in Texas was also slightly higher than Canada’s GDP last year of $1.55 trillion. However, to produce about the same amount of economic output as Texas required a workforce in Canada (18 million) that was 50% larger than employment in the state of Texas (12 million)

America’s third largest state economy – New York with a GDP in 2015 of $1.44 trillion – produced slightly more economic output last year than South Korea ($1.38 trillion). As a separate country, New York would have ranked as the world’s 11th largest economy last year, ahead of both No. 12 South Korea and No. 13 Russia ($1.32 trillion). Amazingly, it took almost three times as many workers in South Korea (26 million) to produce roughly the same amount of economic output that required only 9.2 million New York workers
 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The latest stumbling block in the Northern Gateway saga in BC:

CBC

Northern Gateway pipeline approval overturned
Federal Court of Appeal finds Canada failed to consult with First Nations on pipeline project


By Jason Proctor, CBC News Posted: Jun 30, 2016 9:44 AM PT Last Updated: Jun 30, 2016 2:07 PM PT

The Federal Court of Appeal has overturned approval of Enbridge's controversial Northern Gateway project after finding Ottawa failed to properly consult the First Nations affected by the pipeline.

"We find that Canada offered only a brief, hurried and inadequate opportunity … to exchange and discuss information and to dialogue," the ruling says.

"It would have taken Canada little time and little organizational effort to engage in meaningful dialogue on these and other subjects of prime importance to Aboriginal Peoples. But this did not happen."
Constitutional requirement to consult

The majority ruling was signed by two of the three judges on the Appeal Court panel. Judge Michael Ryer wrote a dissenting opinion.

(...SNIPPED)
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,766
Points
940
S.M.A. said:
Please note the highlighted portion about Chevron seeking to sell off its facilities in Burnaby, BC:

Reuters

Yes my sister is involved, they are looking at selling all assets and then leasing them back. The problem will be is it would be a very small diversion in another company, but Canadian consumers and laws are very different than the US, which already leads to issues with the parent company.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
277
Points
910
S.M.A. said:
The latest stumbling block in the Northern Gateway saga in BC:

CBC

It wouldn't matter if they gave 10 years to consult aboriginals. The answer would be the same. Money talks, bullshit walks.

We aren't in the 1700s anymore. National security and commerce should not be held up by First Nations. They can get onside or be dealt out of the deal altogether. I'm tired of FN holding our economy hostage.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
713
Points
1,060
One of the irrational things about the business of politics is that the federal government gets blamed or praised for the state of the economy when in fact, as economists will readily testify, Ottawa is only a marginal player in the grander scheme of things. It’s the global currents that count.

A curious comment from Lawrence Martin: one with which I am in total agreement.

However, I am not one of those regularly baying for government intervention.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/dark-clouds-of-stagnation-threaten-sunny-ways/article31316098/

 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
I wonder if there is any way for the liberals to steal this idea for pipelines.

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-theresa-may-may-become-one-of-the-most-radical-western-leaders-of-the-century

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was one of the most radical Western leaders of the 20th century. Today’s prime minister, Theresa May, seems set to be one of the most radical of the 21st.

The revolutionary May approach can be seen in her plan this week to develop Britain’s shale gas, which for a decade has been stymied both by opposition from local residents, who have been fearful that their environment would be contaminated, and from environmental groups who have stoked those fears. May is breaking this impasse by giving the residents a startling upside to shale gas development.

Under May’s approach, shale gas royalties that would ordinarily go to governments and quasi-governmental agencies will instead be directed to the residents in the communities hosting the developments. The BBC estimates individual households will be receiving as much as £10,000 ($16,800) under May’s plan; other estimates arrive at higher sums – as much as £65,000 per household lucky enough to be near large shale gas deposits. May’s plan is now expected to wash away local opposition to fracking and unleash the development of Britain’s massive shale gas resources, estimated by the British Geological Survey at 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas, equivalent to a 500-year supply at current gas consumption levels.

This torrent of energy will benefit more than the local residents who until now saw only drawbacks to shale gas development in their community. The abundant supply of gas will lower energy costs throughout the country, relieving residential and business consumers alike and convincing British industries – which have been leaving Britain due to its high energy costs – to not only stay but also to expand their operations in the U.K.

The May approach isn’t limited to shale –  it will apply to developments of all kinds, whether other resource developments, industrial complexes or airport expansions. Through what she calls her blueprint for development projects, May will be converting the development delayer known worldwide as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) into PIMBY (Please In My Back Yard), a development accelerator. Residents will effectively become pro-development lobbyists whenever they determine a development personally benefits more than discomforts them.

Fundamentally, May’s PIMBY initiative is ideological – it is a method of curbing local governments and quasi-government organizations called community trusts by putting power in the hands of the people. In the case of shale deposits, the royalties that the shale gas companies will be sending to households, to do with as they wish, won’t be going to governmental bodies that will do for the residents what the governmental bodies wish.

To see how this can play out in practice, consider the Hillingdon Community Trust, which receives £1 million each year for 15 years from Heathrow Airport Limited – part of the price that the airport needed to pay for permission to build a new terminal. Hillingdon’s mandate is to benefit residents of six wards located near Heathrow, as compensation for inconveniences they suffer. The benefits dispensed by Hillingdon Community Trust – in effect, another layer of government, complete with its own patronage-selected trustees and staff – go to favoured NGOs tasked with purposes such as the “improvement of the environment,” the “advancement of education, training or retraining” and the “promotion of wellbeing through the provision of assistance in the provision of recreational facilities.”

Some residents of those wards have doubtless benefited from Hillingdon’s largesse but all would have benefitted if, instead of setting up this trust, cheques went directly into the bank accounts of residents.

The May Revolution also promises to roll back the ability of local governments to grow willy-nilly through the Community Infrastructure Levy, a 2008 law –  similar in function to development charges common in Canada and the U.S. – that allows local government shake-downs of just about any kind of development. In future, a share of the revenues raised through these levies will also go straight into residents’ pocket books, tempering the growth of governments, giving the public an incentive to fast-track developments and giving the developers more leverage in countering municipal planners. Planners often try to limit the height of buildings, for example, on the claim they are surrogates for the local community. Once the local community stands to benefit directly from taller buildings, it won’t need these planners as surrogates – the community will judge for itself when it fancies taller buildings, and the fatter payments that would accompany them.

In presenting her radical departure of making direct payments to households, and empowering ordinary people rather than elites, May stated: “This announcement is an example of putting those principles into action. It’s about making sure people personally benefit from economic decisions that are taken – not just councils – and putting them back in control over their lives.”

When Thatcher introduced her reforms during her 11 years in power a generation ago, she not only changed the face of the U.K., her privatizations and free market innovations were emulated around the world. May has signaled that she has more innovations of her own to introduce. At this point, she has been prime minister for just under one month.
Brilliant. This in and of itself makes brexit worth it by making her prime minister.

Back to canada, I imagine giving local residents along the pipeline route the government's share of royalties(taxable) should kill most opposition to it.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
702
Points
940
Very radical and different approach, and I very much hope it works out for britain, the amount of money the tax payers of these towns would then have would be spent back into the british economy, driving up consumer spending, and directly, the demand by consumers for goods and services.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,658
Points
1,160
MilEME09 said:
Very radical and different approach, and I very much hope it works out for britain, the amount of money the tax payers of these towns would then have would be spent back into the british economy, driving up consumer spending, and directly, the demand by consumers for goods and services.

Let alone, build together with the US to kick Vlad and the Saudis in the teeth with potentially further reduced global oil prices...double win!  :nod:
 

Lightguns

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MilEME09 said:
Very radical and different approach, and I very much hope it works out for britain, the amount of money the tax payers of these towns would then have would be spent back into the british economy, driving up consumer spending, and directly, the demand by consumers for goods and services.

Works in Pennsylvania, where fracking has allowed hundreds of farmers to remain on their land in the farming business with modernized equipment.  Imagine....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
713
Points
1,060
Slightly different approach to Alaska - where everyone in the State gets a dividend check.  Same principle but a tighter focus in the case of the Brits and Pennsylvania.

And is it really different to what the First Nations and BC are requesting in any event?  The issue is to whom does the check get made out:  The Chiefs and the Government or the "indians".
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
Slightly different approach to Alaska - where everyone in the State gets a dividend check.  Same principle but a tighter focus in the case of the Brits and Pennsylvania.

And is it really different to what the First Nations and BC are requesting in any event?  The issue is to whom does the check get made out:  The Chiefs and the Government or the "indians".
Well,  the British approach cuts out the middle man. In this case the province and the Chiefs.  Cut a check to local residents only, not some middle man who walks off with half of it or more while the citizens see hardly any of it.

I also believe equalization payments should be handed out this way. Cut a check to every citizen of the province instead of the province itself. Watch them be forced to either try to collect that money from their own citizens or clean up their financial act.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Can you imagine what that will do to the value of real estate?  Instead of going down or being depressed, industrial area houses will only be available at a premium.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
713
Points
1,060
Altair said:
Well,  the British approach cuts out the middle man. In this case the province and the Chiefs.  Cut a check to local residents only, not some middle man who walks off with half of it or more while the citizens see hardly any of it.

I also believe equalization payments should be handed out this way. Cut a check to every citizen of the province instead of the province itself. Watch them be forced to either try to collect that money from their own citizens or clean up their financial act.

It was also the rationale for both the Canada Pension Plan and the Baby Bonus - Ottawa became relevant to every individual Canadian, leap-frogging the Provincial Governments.

And I appreciate  YZT's point.  If you are going to muck up my scenery with noisy and inefficient wind turbines, as well as the power lines and substations, the least you can do is pay me for the inconvenience.  Or if you are going to subject me to the smell of fries being cooked or bread being made..... (I kid you not.  Those complaints have been made).
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
I had to laugh when they were putting up a turbine back home.  Some of the locals were claiming they were feeling funny just driving by the half erected tower.  The turbine and blades were still weeks away from appearing at that stage.  I believe the squawks diminished when the tower was finally up and running and folks found their noses didn't actually bleed if you were within 10 miles of the site...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
713
Points
1,060
A Brit arguing that a lack of government is good for business - Is that even debatable?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/15/no-government-no-worries-the-economy-will-be-just-fine/
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,766
Points
940
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/abondoned-churchill/

snip-

The massive superstructure of the port is visible from everywhere, and the main street ends right at its gates. When I pulled up in my rental pickup, these were open—the guard shack empty.

Other than the concrete elevators and the loading gantries there was not much to see. A rusting tugboat sits on blocks. There are no train cars waiting to be unloaded, and no ships to take on cargo. Other than seagulls and the wind, it was quiet.

At 4:30 p.m., though, a few people began to emerge and walk toward their cars. This was the last shift, leaving for the last time.

The idea of building a deep-water port on Hudson Bay began in the 19th century. It was conceived as a great nation-building enterprise, a more direct route to Europe, and a strategic gateway giving Canada an indisputable claim to the Arctic. The rail line from The Pas took six years to build, cutting through the forest and over the muskeg. The first grain shipment left in 1931.

In 1997, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien sold the railroad and port to Omnitrax, based out of Denver. The port soon saw record volumes of exports being shipped to Europe, the Middle East, and even Africa.

Then Stephen Harper’s Conservatives ended the Wheat Board monopoly, and farmers were free to sell their grain to whomever they chose. They chose companies shipping out of Thunder Bay or Vancouver. So the ships stopped coming, and in July Omnitrax announced it was closing the port and ending its rail freight service, too


-snip-
 

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
4
Points
410
Surplus to Deficit.  REALLY!  Is this really the way to go?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Ottawa posts $1B deficit in Q1, down from $5B surplus last year
By Staff The Canadian Press
August 26, 2016 11:23 am

OTTAWA – The federal government ran a deficit of $1.0 billion for the first quarter of its fiscal year, down from a surplus of $5.0 billion in the same period last year.

The Finance Department released its fiscal monitor today showing the state of Ottawa’s finances.

For June, the federal government ran a deficit of $1.1 billion as revenue fell and spending increased.

The shortfall compared with a surplus of $1.1 billion in the same month last year.

Revenue fell $500 million or 2.2 per cent in June due to lower corporate income tax revenue, non-resident income tax and excise taxes and duties.

Program spending grew by $1.6 billion that month, an increase of 7.5 per cent, due to growth in major transfers to other levels of government and direct program expenses, though that was partially offset by a drop in major transfers to people.

Public debt charges increased by $100 million or 3.1 per cent, mainly due to higher consumer price index adjustments on real return bonds.

LINK
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Technically, one of the few things that can simultaneously lower corporate income tax revenues, non-resident income tax revenue and excise tax revenue simultaneously is a decrease in exports. That can't be a good thing.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
713
Points
1,060
OGBD - its all good

Our future is as wardens of the world's biggest park - and they will be so grateful to us that they will shower us with Ladas and priority tickets for the lineups at GUM's.
 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Those who voted for Trudeau since they thought he was more "environmentally conscious" might punish him in the next election for this. They might well be voting for Elizabeth May next election.  ::)

Let's see if this goes forward from here. As Rona Ambrose said, if I can recall correctly, this project won't produce jobs unless there are actual "shovels in the ground" already.

Daily Hive

Trudeau government approves Petronas' $36-billion LNG project in BC

Kenneth Chan Sep 27, 2016 6:12 pm

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government has provided the $36-billion Pacific Northwest liquid natural gas (LNG) production and export facility project in Prince Rupert, BC with the green light to proceed. The announcement was made by members of the federal cabinet at a press conference held in Richmond this evening.

“The Pacific NorthWest LNG Project will deliver thousands of good middle-class jobs and will help pay for schools and roads and social programs that enrich people’s lives,” said Jim Carr, federal Minister of Natural Resources.

“We are moving forward with natural resource development in a sustainable manner, because we have an obligation to leave the planet in better shape than we found it. This is an exciting day for British Columbia, for Canada and for the natural gas industry in this country.”

The controversial project is spearheaded by Petronas, a global oil and gas company owned by the Government of Malaysia, and will become the largest single foreign direct investment in Canadian history.

It entails constructing a facility on Lelu Island with two LNG liquefaction plants, two LNG storage tanks, a power plant, a two-lane access bridge linking the island with the mainland, marine berths for loading of the LNG onto special LNG carriers to overseas markets, and a suspension bridge connecting the island to the marine berths.

Natural gas will be transported to the facility for processing through a new 900-km-long pipeline to be built and operated by TransCanada from an area in northeastern BC to Prince Rupert.

However, the federal approval comes with 190 legally binding conditions designed to reduce the environmental impact of the project, specifically on fish, marine mammals, wetlands, migratory birds, and human health.

Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna said the approval was following an in-depth scientific review process that was extended by three months earlier this year. The decision was based on scientific findings and consultations with First Nations in the area of the project.

“The only way to get resources to market in the twenty-first century is if it can be done sustainably and responsibly,” said McKenna. “Indigenous communities near the project site will participate with Canada and the province in environmental monitoring, a new innovative approach consistent with the government’s reconciliation agenda and commitment to enhancing the capacity of indigenous groups and reviewing and monitoring major resource projects.”

In exchange for federal approval, the BC provincial government has reaffirmed its support for Trudeau’s carbon pricing plan, which was first announced at the First Minister’s Conference held at Vancouver in March.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top