The fragile power of Alberta's golden goose economy

"The environmental debate would be easier if the national economy wasn't so lopsided."

I think what the CBC means when they say "National Economy" is centered in Ontario.

I doubt that. It used to be so but those days are long gone and aren't likely to return any time soon. Even the CBC isn't that dumb.

Try this one then...



Emissions have actually gone down over the past 6 years. So what's her problem?

She also went to say immediately after
Not really seeing her problem.
She's right too. The debate would be a little easier if the country's economy wasn't being driven by oil.

In a way, it kind of makes sense, given that 1 in 3 Canadians live in Ontario. When a province 1/3 its size is creating 90% of the new jobs in Canada, I think it shows that the rest of the country is broken.

If Canadians want central Canada to resume its central role in the national economy, we need to find new ways to do that. Obviously the days of making things there are gone, as people aren't willing to pay enough to make it worthwhile (both for companies and unions).

Ideally, it would be something high tech - like supporting Blackberry and all those other tech companies in Waterloo or trying to revive the tech sector in Ottawa (used to be called Silicon Valley North IIRC). Heck, maybe even reversing some of the pipelines and refining stuff down there might help.

Hey, Ontario wanted socialism. They got their socialism. What? They want a thriving economy too. If they can't figure out the real world doesn't work like that they can stop blaming Harper and start asking themselves why they just voted in the wind turbine queen of subsidies. BTW how's that working out for ya Ontario?

Ontario debt rating outlook cut to negative by Moody�s

Socialism?

Man, everybody in the world is a socialist, even our friends south of the border!



As Bill Maher said it, the only difference between American socialism and European socialism is that the European version actually works!

Nice change up. Not sure how it's relevant to your problem with the CBC and the article.

Nice change up. Not sure how it's relevant to your problem with the CBC and the article.

You mean like how are they connected? Well with Ontario and the CBC other than the fact the socialists of one run the other, they both make me smile, because I don't live in Ontario, and I don't watch the CBC, but then I stop smiling when I realize I'm paying for both.

How's that connected to the article? Well other than the fact the author is from the CBC and reeks of Ontario socialist, I have a problem taking any of the four things - the author, Socialism, the CBC, or Ontario - seriously.

Basically it goes like the this. The Ontario Wynne-er from the CBC has a problem with her stagnant economy, and is upset that Alberta doesn't have one. is all I really have to say.

What they mean to say it'd be easier to take the oil sands, and the Albertan economy, out at the knees if they weren't such over performers relative to the rest of the country.

That's not surprising. Programs serving a few dozen million are easier to run than programs serving a few hundred million. Though the USA can't even competently operate the Veterans Affairs Administration, which serves ~20 million.

Socialism is a spectrum. It's what you decide that government should do and what you decide private sector can do. The bottom line for the decision shouldn't be based on ideology (capitalism bad/socialism bad) but on which sector has the best outcomes.

Roads are a public good, except for toll roads adn roads on private property. Education is a public good in just about every country I can think of. Defence is a public good.

Energy is one that lies in the netherland. Many countries have privatized energy production, many others nationalize it. Energy remains a public good in most countries. Where energy production is private--as in Canada--you tend to end up with an oligopoly (a few big players that dominate the market). Oligopolies are typically tightly regulated by governments to prevent collusion and encourage competition. On the other hand, you can consider tight regulation a form of socialism too. I think that privatization of energy production has had better outcomes myself.

As for Alberta, my general impression is that Alberta has not done a bad job of regulating the oil sands from an environmental perspective. Not perfect, maybe not even great, but not the "cowboy mentality" that people often associate with it.

Although clearly a visual blight, researchers have been very hard-pressed to find environmetnal or health effects from the oil sands outside the immediate area. Some studies are now indicating contaminiation due to deposition of toxics from oil sands operations (as opposed to the naturally high background levels of hydrocrabons) around in the area (dust/snow etc). I imagine at some point they will be able to trace contaminiation to the groundwater.

That's not surprising. Programs serving a few dozen million are easier to run than programs serving a few hundred million. Though the USA can't even competently operate the Veterans Affairs Administration, which serves ~20 million.

That shouldn't make a difference really. While European countries have fewer people to cover, they also have fewer people to pay for those services.

I would argue that as Bill Maher notes, the 'problem' lies more with the resistance to dreaded socialism - even though most Americans use/rely on one or more public services almost every day.

Even if Europe didn't have Germany to pay for everything, there's no reason to the think the expense rises linearly with population.