Canadian dollar likely to trump US greenback

[blueblood]

Yeah, those damn urban people exercising their democratic rights.

They're allowed to, but in the grand scheme of things over in Alberta, they just don't matter. The royalty slash proved that.

[Smallc]

They're allowed to, but in the grand scheme of things over in Alberta, they just don't matter. The royalty slash proved that.

Democratic rights don't matter in Alberta? Urban people, who make up the majority of Alberta's population don't matter? And what does a federal NDP riding have to do with the provincial government? I think that Alberta and Quebec together are probably the most compelling arguments for some type of proportional representation in Canada. So many people don't get much of a voice in those two provinces because one party dominates each of their political landscapes.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Democratic rights don't matter in Alberta? Urban people, who make up the majority of Alberta's population don't matter?

When it came to deciding to grow the economy or gouge the oil companies and provide services to the urbanites, guess which side won? The provincial NDP in Alberta runs on a platform of gouging the oil companies, the people of Alberta exercised their democratic rights and the NDP never gained power there.

And what does a federal NDP riding have to do with the provincial government?

That would be provincial NDP in this case, they do have seats in the leg, and why I said MLA's instead of MPs

I think that Alberta and Quebec together are probably the most compelling arguments for some type of proportional representation in Canada. So many people don't get much of a voice in those two provinces because one party dominates each of their political landscapes.

Or that there are scores of voters who vote for the one party over the other ones.

Oh Joy, randomly placed MLA's that have no constituency to be accountable to.

[Smallc]

When it came to deciding to grow the economy or gouge the oil companies and provide services to the urbanites, guess which side won?

According to a recently released report, Calgary and Edmonton pay more in taxes to Alberta than they get back....hmmmm.

The provincial NDP in Alberta runs on a platform of gouging the oil companies, the people of Alberta exercised their democratic rights and the NDP never gained power there.

That's correct, but the people who vote NDP need to have their say as well.

That would be provincial NDP in this case, they do have seats in the leg, and why I said MLA's instead of MPs

I thought you were talking about the NDP MP in Edmonton. Sorry for the confusion.

Or that there are scores of voters who vote for the one party over the other ones.

Oh Joy, randomly placed MLA's that have no constituency to be accountable to.

I didn't say I wanted PR, I said those two provinces are probably the biggest reason that it should be looked at. Also, there are forms of PR with constituencies.

[Smallc]

I find this Globe and Mail article quite fitting. Small government in Alberta indeed:

Which of the four largest provinces spends the most per person on government programs? Alberta. (In fiscal 2009, it spent nearly $10,000 per head, about $3,100 more than Ontario. Only Newfoundland spent more.) Which large province allowed its spending to grow 8.3 per cent per year from 2005-2009? Alberta again. (That's spending per capita, by the way, so it takes into account population growth. Ontario and British Columbia each managed to contain their spending growth to less than 5 per cent.) Alberta's transportation department has a budget of about $2-billion for a province of 3.7 million people. Ontario's transportation department has a budget of about $2-billion for a population of 13 million.

“We've been living in kind of a fool's paradise,” says Roger Gibbins, president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation in Calgary. “The rhetoric of the government is all about small government and low taxes. The reality is all about big spending.”

--------------------------

Since those are unpalatable options, expect Alberta to keep spending. Mr. Stelmach may well get lucky; high oil prices may indeed mean he doesn't have to make the tough choices that other provinces face. Good for him. But luck shouldn't be mistaken for fiscal responsibility or lean government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/the-alberta-royalty-backtrack/article1499381/

I encourage that the whole article be read. Like I've said before, it's all talk, and no walk.

I hope to never be lectured about how Albertan's are so great again. I mean, it is a great place, but they haven't figured anything out that the rest of us don't get...they simply have $7B in provincial revenue alone that the rest of the provinces can't even dream about.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

I find this Globe and Mail article quite fitting. Small government in Alberta indeed:

I encourage that the whole article be read. Like I've said before, it's all talk, and no walk.

I hope to never be lectured about how Albertan's are so great again. I mean, it is a great place, but they haven't figured anything out that the rest of us don't get...they simply have $7B in provincial revenue alone that the rest of the provinces can't even dream about.

You know what that tells me.

1. The policy of low taxes and having low royalty rates has grown the economy and as a result grown the tax base. As a result, there is more money to spend (shudder)/cut taxes/services (yay!). Ireland has followed this policy and done very well and has done so without oil.

2. The rise of the wildrose alliance in recent years suggests there is backlash to the previous direction of the gov't to raise royalty rates and raise spending. According to Albertans on this forum, the PC's may very well take some losses because of this.

3. The fact that Eddie himself has had to backtrack and slash royalty rates because he needs to grow his economy to justify his spending. Remember the oil companies pretty much told Eddie to pound sand when he hiked the royalty rates.

[Smallc]

You can pin with the best of them, can't you? The reality is, the low taxes come because of the revenue, not the revenue because of the low taxes. If Manitoba had 1/2 the gas revenue of Alberta, or 1/5 the Oil revenue, we would be a have province between royalties and tax revenue....but I digress.

The Alberta government spends like it's run by drunken sailors, and that will continue no matter who is in power because that's what Albertans want. Albertans wanted the royalty increase, because Alberta, even with it, was still getting less than Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. Albertans are getting screwed by the oil companies, and that's going to continue it seems.

[blueblood]

You can pin with the best of them, can't you?

You should have been here when Geoffery used to post and when August1991 posted more

The reality is, the low taxes come because of the revenue, not the revenue because of the low taxes. If Manitoba had 1/2 the gas revenue of Alberta, or 1/5 the Oil revenue, we would be a have province between royalties and tax revenue....but I digress.

Sure it does, you keep telling yourself that . We already know what happens when Alberta tried to hike it's royalty rate. It's safe to say that the low taxes and low royalty rates are why there is more revenue than other places.

The Alberta government spends like it's run by drunken sailors, and that will continue no matter who is in power because that's what Albertans want. Albertans wanted the royalty increase, because Alberta, even with it, was still getting less than Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. Albertans are getting screwed by the oil companies, and that's going to continue it seems.

Yet we have a significant political movement with the creation of the WRA, and Ed Stelmach tripping over himself backpeddling with the royalty rate snaffoo. Looks to me like Low taxes and low royalty rates are the order of the day for Albertans.

Albertans are not getting screwed by the oil companies, without them that oil is worthless, and thankfully Albertan's realize that. If you think that's the case take a drive to Alberta. A great deal of those companies are publically traded companies and some are based right out of Alberta. Saying Albertan's are getting screwed by the oil companies is the most ridiculous thing you've said, come on your smarter than that. Your not seeing the forest through the trees.

[Smallc]

Alberta doesn't get the revenue of other places. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador will catch them in a few years in terms of per capita GDP....without lowering royalty revenues. Their citizens will benefit more than the citizens of Alberta will, because they'll have more money to work with. What the oil companies did when the revenues were raised wasn't fair to the people of Alberta. They should be getting more of what is their money, but they aren't, because the companies threatened to go elsewhere (where they were going to go is beyond me).

[blueblood]

Alberta doesn't get the revenue of other places. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador will catch them in a few years in terms of per capita GDP....without lowering royalty revenues. Their citizens will benefit more than the citizens of Alberta will, because they'll have more money to work with. What the oil companies did when the revenues were raised wasn't fair to the people of Alberta. They should be getting more of what is their money, but they aren't, because the companies threatened to go elsewhere (where they were going to go is beyond me).

My link

My link

Saskatchewan's oil royalty rates have been dropping for years. Hell Romanow and Calvert even knew they had to lower oil royalty rates. Brad Wall at the height of the boom said he wasn't going to raise them even though Alberta did. More got invested in SK because of it.

Newfoundland tried gouging the oil companies for years, and they are decades behind where Alberta and even SK are because of it.

Judging by the royalty rates the citizens of Alberta made out better than the citizens of SK, so that little theory of yours is false.

The oil companies did what was fair. That oil is worthless if it is still in the ground, and if there is more profitable oil to be found elsewhere in the world they will go and get it while Alberta milks a dry cow. Stelmach learned this the hard way. I don't think you realize how incentives work. A company isn't going to drill for oil in Alberta when they can get it cheaper next door in SK.

[Smallc]

Newfoundland tried gouging the oil companies for years, and they are decades behind where Alberta and even SK are because of it.

Actually no. Per capita, Newfoundland is doing just as well as Saskatchewan. That's the statistic that matters in terms of people becoming wealthy. As for the royalties, the article I linked says that they are lowest in Alberta. Investment was recovering even at the higher rate, and it probably should have stayed there.

[blueblood]

Actually no. Per capita, Newfoundland is doing just as well as Saskatchewan. That's the statistic that matters in terms of people becoming wealthy. As for the royalties, the article I linked says that they are lowest in Alberta. Investment was recovering even at the higher rate, and it probably should have stayed there.

You are underestimating the potential financial prowess of our neighbours to the west. When the price of Potash takes off again, which it will because agronomic practices state that producers cannot cheap out on fertilizer for too long. Newfoundland will be left behind. That's just one commodity of their's. Here's the fact of the matter, we have Alberta which had the cheapest royalties, SK a slight more, and NFLD which is significantly higher. Which provinces are the best off because of their policies.

If investment was recovering at the higher rate, why would Stelmach cut royalty rates? If by your logic the investment was recovering, then it would be in Stelmach's interest to leave the rates high or hike them some more in order to get more money for the coffers. This is where you are wrong. Investment was going next door to Saskatchwan and BC which had more favorable rates during the time of the hike, and Alberta was getting itself into hot water. Stelmach had to cut the rates to get investment back into Alberta so it could keep the economy going again, otherwise SK would get all the investment money and Alberta would be in a heap of trouble.

If you think companies are going to invest in places that have high taxes/royalties, you need to take an online economics class.

[Smallc]

What Alberta had was not a high royalty rate. That's the point. They now have a very low royalty rate, which may not serve them well if they continue to spend as they now do. Also, I see no evidence besides one opinion piece that you cited showing Newfoundland and Labrador will be left in the dust. The have just signed contracts that will ensure that isn't the case.

[blueblood]

What Alberta had was not a high royalty rate. That's the point. They now have a very low royalty rate, which may not serve them well if they continue to spend as they now do. Also, I see no evidence besides one opinion piece that you cited showing Newfoundland and Labrador will be left in the dust. The have just signed contracts that will ensure that isn't the case.

A low royalty rate served Alberta well before the hike, and will serve them better after the hike was slashed. The hike did nothing except drive away investors and their money. You can't argue with success. The low royalty was successful, the high one was not good enough.

If you think that NFLD can compete with SK with just their oil platforms and their pittance they get from Hydro, you are mistaken. SK has far too many cards in their deck. NFLD will be alright, but SK will be much better.

[Smallc]

Per capita GDP doesn't show that. Newfoundland is even with Saskatchewan. Newfoundland will be just fine between their traditional economy and their increasing hydro electric and oil power.

Alberta's rollback may be good for the times, we'll have to see. Down the road though, they're going to face the same problem as the rest of Canada, and there are going to be some hard choices in terms of spending, especially or the most spend happy among the provinces.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Smallc

[Alta4ever]

What Alberta had was not a high royalty rate. That's the point. They now have a very low royalty rate, which may not serve them well if they continue to spend as they now do. Also, I see no evidence besides one opinion piece that you cited showing Newfoundland and Labrador will be left in the dust. The have just signed contracts that will ensure that isn't the case.

After the hike(good old ed is ever so smart) it was one of the highest in the country it drove exploration dollars east west and north. Companies were looking to reduce production on existing wells, yep it was so good for alberta... :angry:

[blueblood]

Per capita GDP doesn't show that. Newfoundland is even with Saskatchewan. Newfoundland will be just fine between their traditional economy and their increasing hydro electric and oil power.

For now, SK will be better in the near future. The economic forecast of SK is just too good.

Alberta's rollback may be good for the times, we'll have to see. Down the road though, they're going to face the same problem as the rest of Canada, and there are going to be some hard choices in terms of spending, especially or the most spend happy among the provinces.

Alberta's rollback has a track record of being successful. The only problem Alberta will have down the road with its lower royalty rates will be what to do with all that money. Considering Alberta's "advantage" with oil, they have kept spending under control under their unique circumstances and the elimination of the debt is testament to that.

[Smallc]

Alberta has not controlled spending one bit. They have a lot of money, that's all.

Newfoundland will grow faster than Saskatchewan for the next year. Saskatchewan will then take the top spot for the next year. Projections beyond 2 years are just guesses.

There's no question that all 3 of the oil producing provinces will do well, as will BC and probably Ontario going forward. I can't say for Manitoba. We were expected to slow down for 2010 and that's what's going to happen. There will hopefully be a pickup once the new James Armstrong Richardson International Airport, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and Centreport Canada Way are finished. With the continued expansion of the population in southern Manitoba, especially in Winnipeg and the surrounding cities, there should be continued growth there..we should pick up quite substantially in 2011 - 2012 given all of that, as well as the ever expanding oil industry in southwestern Manitoba (though as of now, our royalty revenues are tiny at $29M). This, coupled with the expansion of mining in the north, the continued hydro electric expansion, and the opening up of more wind energy generation should propel us forward at a moderate rate. I don't know enough about the situation in the other 4 provinces, though I would expect Quebec to see continued growth given it's rapidly expanding population and hydro electric generation capacity.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Alberta has not controlled spending one bit. They have a lot of money, that's all.

Newfoundland will grow faster than Saskatchewan for the next year. Saskatchewan will then take the top spot for the next year. Projections beyond 2 years are just guesses.

To be cruel, Kleing blew up a hospital, fired nurses, and slashed arts funding to cut spending. Stelmach opened up the spigots again.

That depends on which economist you talk to. In 2010/2011 RBC says SK wins that little race.

My link

[Smallc]

Yes, I saw that too. They've advised their projections downward for Saskatchewan for 2010 and they've raised them for Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2011 though, Saskatchewan will grow at an astonishing rate.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/11/sk-royal-bank-1003.html

[Smallc]

Manitoba is also expected to do very well for growth again starting in 2011:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/RBC-forecasts-Manitoba-GDP-growth-at-25-per-cent--87346537.html

[Alta4ever]

To be cruel, Kleing blew up a hospital, fired nurses, and slashed arts funding to cut spending. Stelmach opened up the spigots again.

That depends on which economist you talk to. In 2010/2011 RBC says SK wins that little race.

My link

Ed and the PC's have 2, 2.5 years tops. They are scrambling and the people here know it.

[Smallc]

Ontario will grow above the national average for the next 2 years:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/03/11/rbc-ontario.html

[Smallc]

Quebec will also do relatively well:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/ry_ry_quebec-s-economy-on-the-mend-rbc-economics-838443.html

As will BC this year, but not as much next year:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/strong+growth+this+year+2011+report/2674688/story.html

The maritime economies will continue to trail the rest of the country:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/11/c8902.html

[Machjo]

Big news!

I know many people here will blame Harper. But it's not his fault. It's not anyone in Canada's fault. It's the fault of Barack Obama and his destructive economic policies, which are pushing the American dollar into the ground.

There isn't much we can do about it. Unless of course we want the federal government to mirror Obama's reckless record-setting deficit spending, as well as printing of money.

It's pretty hard to keep your home worth less than your neighbour's, when your neighbour is burning his down.

Personallhy, I don't consider the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to that of any other currency to be particularly important. What I do consider important is the stability of our currency at home. If we have our debt, inflation rate, deficits, and Bank rate under control, then it really doesn't matter what our currency does compared to that of another country.