theloniusfleabag Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 It strikes me as odd that the federal, and also provincial (Alberta) governments are offering 'subsidies', rebates and 'prosperity cheques' to offset the high, and rising, costs of energy. Why not subsidize all of our consumption, and the industries that come with it? Is not the rising cost the only thing (apart from total depletion) that will 'fuel' the development of alternative energy sources? I should think that 'the left' should embrace soaring fossil fuel costs, as it means that dependence on fossil fuel is that much closer to extinction. For the 'collusion' part of it, why does the gov't choose to 'subsidize the consumer' rather than letting the comsumer's ill will fall upon the energy companies? Further, why not put those 'energy rebates and prosperity cheques' into alternative energy R&D? It seems that the biggest gains are being made by the energy companies themselves. Huge, record-breaking profits, and the gov't throws the consumer a bone with a few cheques here and there, so the consumer doesn't look elsewhere for energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 It strikes me as odd that the federal, and also provincial (Alberta) governments are offering 'subsidies', rebates and 'prosperity cheques' to offset the high, and rising, costs of energy. Why not subsidize all of our consumption, and the industries that come with it?The free market is a wonderful tool but it has a nasty habit of making life miserable for people as it adjusts to the new realities. Properly structured rebates should provide relief to people who are not able to react quickly enough to avoid being mauled by the marketplace. A good rebate would provide gasaline tax credits to truckers and other people who have no choice but to use a lot of gasoline. A bad rebate would lower the cost of gas for SUV owners in cities. A good rebate would give low income earner a break on heating bills. A bad 'rebate' would use regulation to keep the price of enegy artificially low for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 The free market is a wonderful tool but it has a nasty habit of making life miserable for people as it adjusts to the new realities.Blaming the market for making life miserable is like shooting the messenger for bearing bad news. Hurricanes cause destruction and force refineries and platforms to shut down. The market is reflecting this bad news.A good rebate would provide gasaline tax credits to truckers and other people who have no choice but to use a lot of gasoline. A bad rebate would lower the cost of gas for SUV owners in cities.The market is telling people to use gasoline carefully because there is less of it. Giving more money to truckers strikes me as an attempt to defeat that message. As to SUV owners, it is too easy to pick a minority and blame all the world's ills on them - surely the past century teaches that.A good rebate would give low income earner a break on heating bills. A bad 'rebate' would use regulation to keep the price of enegy artificially low for everyone.Here, I can agree, to a degree.I am heartened that the idea of price regulation has not ventured into the mainstream and seems to have stayed among the Left. Jean Charest rejected the idea prominently on a very popular Quebec TV talk show a week or so ago - evidence that people understand that governments cannot fix prices. Incidentally, it has been noted in the French media that federal MPs have increased their travel allowances to account for higher fuel costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 It strikes me as odd that the federal, and also provincial (Alberta) governments are offering 'subsidies', rebates and 'prosperity cheques' to offset the high, and rising, costs of energy. Why not subsidize all of our consumption, and the industries that come with it? You are misunderstanding the point of these cheques. They are not designed as subsidies. They are designed to buy votes. Why send us a rebate cheque instead of cutting taxes? Because the government can trumpet that cheque during election time. Every time someone opens their cheque the government(s) want people to think of how generous their party is. That goes double for the so-called home heating subsidy. As has been pointed out in the media, most of those who will get those cheques don't pay for their heating anyway. It will be sent to seniors who get the old age security cheque - most of whom are in seniors residences, or nursing homes, or are too poor to own their own home, and to poor families who get family assistance cheques, almost all of whom are either renters or in subsidised/social assistance housing. The people who will be hard-pressed by the rising costs of home heating will be homeowners, and very few of them will be on either list. No, the Liberals are simply trying to buy poor voters. Every Liberal, come election time, will be waving imitation cheques in the air and pointing out to the poor people that if they don't get re-elected those nasty conservatives will take away their cheques to fund tax cuts (most poor people don't pay taxes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 The free market is a wonderful tool but it has a nasty habit of making life miserable for people as it adjusts to the new realities.Blaming the market for making life miserable is like shooting the messenger for bearing bad news. Hurricanes cause destruction and force refineries and platforms to shut down. The market is reflecting this bad news. Blaming the weather only is rather naive..... did you hear that on Fox news ????The market is telling people to use gasoline carefully because there is less of it. Giving more money to truckers strikes me as an attempt to defeat that message. As to SUV owners, it is too easy to pick a minority and blame all the world's ills on them - surely the past century teaches that. The oil companies are saying... "If they get cold, the'll find a way to pay for it..." Come on August, the USA has just plundered more than 10% of the world's oil for Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron.... more than the 2 million barrels per day that Saddam used to sell them... So... there's going to be an oil shortage in the future, so we better put up the price of oil... Do you imagine for one moment that the oil companies care about conservation... even a little bit....I am heartened that the idea of price regulation has not ventured into the mainstream and seems to have stayed among the Left. Jean Charest rejected the idea prominently on a very popular Quebec TV talk show a week or so ago - evidence that people understand that governments cannot fix prices. But in Alberta, it still costs exactly the same as it did last year to pump oil out of the ground, but now they can charge an extra fortune for it... great if you've got lots of stocks in oil... rather the converse if not... Why doesn't the government implement a highly "progressive" tax on oil company profits for the "gouge factor" and use that to drop taxes for the average Canadian.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Dear Argus, They are not designed as subsidies. They are designed to buy votes.I have to agree, the last time 'energy rebate cheques' came out in Alberta, it was right before election time.almost all of whom are either renters Renters often pay heating bills, at least home and 'suite' renters do. (most poor people don't pay taxes).That depends on how you define 'poor'. In Calgary, some of what I consider 'poorer neighbourhoods' (and with the 'magically variable 'poverty line, they might be considered 'legally poor')actually have been shown to have the highest percentages of disposable income.August1991, Jean CharestToo bad he has such curly hair. He could make a great PM, if given the chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Gov't Energy rebates/subsidy Communism or collusion? The latest federl government scheme certainly borders on communisn, however it is another blatant sign that we are over taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 The free market is a wonderful tool but it has a nasty habit of making life miserable for people as it adjusts to the new realities.Blaming the market for making life miserable is like shooting the messenger for bearing bad news. Hurricanes cause destruction and force refineries and platforms to shut down. The market is reflecting this bad news. Blaming the weather only is rather naive..... did you hear that on Fox news ????<{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, err... weather isn't the cause of high gasoline prices.Err: The nasty, evil oil corporations can control the price and have chosen to drive the price up now to rip off the rest of us. Innocent Rightwinger: So, why didn't the evil corporations raise the price last spring? Err: The evil corporations needed an excuse! They can't manipulate the price any time they want. They have to wait for the right moment. Innocent Rightwinger: So, does this mean prices have come down now since there is there is no longer an excuse? Err: Yes, and this proves that the evil corporations are manipulating the price. Innocent Rightwinger: But if the evil corporations have to wait for excuses, then they are not manipulating the price. Err: No, you don't understand. You have to understand something else: Peak Oil... Innocent Rightwinger: Zzzzzz.... The market is telling people to use gasoline carefully because there is less of it. Giving more money to truckers strikes me as an attempt to defeat that message. As to SUV owners, it is too easy to pick a minority and blame all the world's ills on them - surely the past century teaches that. The oil companies are saying... "If they get cold, the'll find a way to pay for it..." Come on August, the USA has just plundered more than 10% of the world's oil for Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron.... more than the 2 million barrels per day that Saddam used to sell them... So... there's going to be an oil shortage in the future, so we better put up the price of oil... Do you imagine for one moment that the oil companies care about conservation... even a little bit....<{POST_SNAPBACK}> My understanding err is that Iraq is exporting virtually no oil and this explains in part why the world price of crude is stuck around $65 (the market had anticipated Iraqi crude on line by now). I note that the world crude price did not change much with the Gulf hurricanes. It was the prices of refined products that went up.I didn't know that Saddam sold oil to Exxon and Chevron, I thought he did deals with Total-Fina-Elf-Aquitaine, but I would assume whoever the purchaser, he sold the oil at the world price. Plundering was never an option. I am heartened that the idea of price regulation has not ventured into the mainstream and seems to have stayed among the Left. Jean Charest rejected the idea prominently on a very popular Quebec TV talk show a week or so ago - evidence that people understand that governments cannot fix prices. But in Alberta, it still costs exactly the same as it did last year to pump oil out of the ground, but now they can charge an extra fortune for it... great if you've got lots of stocks in oil... rather the converse if not... Why doesn't the government implement a highly "progressive" tax on oil company profits for the "gouge factor" and use that to drop taxes for the average Canadian....<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Americans discover the wit and wisdom of Err. New Yorkers are clamouring to hear Err live, LA wants Err in the movies, both send him 7 digit contract offers for mere appearances.Instead, Err stays in Canada and posts to Internet forums because it is better to sell oneself cheap rather than go for the bucks. Now, we are not even talking about human services - we are talking about mere oil. Every barrel sold internally at a low price is a barrel we could have sold abroad at a high price. Countries, like people, don't get rich by underpricing what they have of value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 The market is telling people to use gasoline carefully because there is less of it. Giving more money to truckers strikes me as an attempt to defeat that message. As to SUV owners, it is too easy to pick a minority and blame all the world's ills on them - surely the past century teaches that. The oil companies are saying... "If they get cold, the'll find a way to pay for it..." Come on August, the USA has just plundered more than 10% of the world's oil for Haliburton, Exxon, and Chevron.... more than the 2 million barrels per day that Saddam used to sell them... So... there's going to be an oil shortage in the future, so we better put up the price of oil... Do you imagine for one moment that the oil companies care about conservation... even a little bit....<{POST_SNAPBACK}> My understanding err is that Iraq is exporting virtually no oil and this explains in part why the world price of crude is stuck around $65 (the market had anticipated Iraqi crude on line by now). I note that the world crude price did not change much with the Gulf hurricanes. It was the prices of refined products that went up.I didn't know that Saddam sold oil to Exxon and Chevron, I thought he did deals with Total-Fina-Elf-Aquitaine, but I would assume whoever the purchaser, he sold the oil at the world price. Plundering was never an option. Saddam "sold" 2 million barrels of oil per day to US oil companies as part of the "oil for food" program.Americans discover the wit and wisdom of Err. New Yorkers are clamouring to hear Err live, LA wants Err in the movies, both send him 7 digit contract offers for mere appearances.Instead, Err stays in Canada and posts to Internet forums because it is better to sell oneself cheap rather than go for the bucks. Wow, August, that's great news... where do I go to sign up......On a more serious note, supposing that in the New York film, I had to have graphic sex with Angelina Jolie... over and over for weeks on end... This might seem like a win-win situation to some. However, I have to consider my responsibilities. I would suspect that my wife wouldn't be too crazy about the venture, and that it could end up tearing the family apart.... hurting my wife and children. If my wife were to say "Go for it, I want the cash..." she would be doing similarly to what Ralph Klein is doing... not caring what it does to the rest of the family.... If I were to take what's best for my whole family into consideration, maybe I'd be better off in the long run back at my computer.... rather than being totally selfish... Now, we are not even talking about human services - we are talking about mere oil. That heats houses so the people in them don't freeze...Every barrel sold internally at a low price is a barrel we could have sold abroad at a high price. Countries, like people, don't get rich by underpricing what they have of value. Like Saudi Arabia... where the country is rich, but most of the people are extremely poor..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 It's bad enough their buddies and everyone are getting paid off, now they're trying to pay off the voters.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 If I were to take what's best for my whole family into consideration, maybe I'd be better off in the long run back at my computer.... rather than being totally selfish...<{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you want to draw the family analogy let's look at it this way. Poor little brother Alberta (circa 1920-1930) "Rich, kind friendly big brother Central Canada can you help me out. I have no money and my family is starving." Rich, mean big brother central Canada "Stand on your own two feet. If you can't support yourself you will starve." Alberta gets no help from big brother and declares bankruptcy. Giving rise to independent Alberta spirit and deep seated resentment to mean Central Canada. Fast-forward to the early 80s. Alberta now has money. Still rich, but not as rich, central Canada "Alberta-think of the greater good and help us out, we are a family..." Newly rich and still bitter Alberta "Hmmm, you did tell us to go away when we needed money. But we aren't bitter. Just don't kill our oil industry when we help you." Central Canada "We will do what is best for the family, damn you and your best interests." Six months later. Indignant Alberta "You have ruined our oil industry for at least 20 years and didn't really help anybody very much." Central Canada "Oops. But if any of your citizens dare protest a train with the Prime Minister on it he will let you know what he thinks of all Albertans." Fast forward to 2005. Central Canada "Uhhh Alberta whassup?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted October 6, 2005 Report Share Posted October 6, 2005 Communism or collusion-that's all part of Liberalism, is it not? I think the real reason is if Alberta can offer rebates so can the federal government. BTW-There is no shortage of oil just a shortage of REFINERIES and it seems oil companies are in no rush (big profits) to build more. Something for certain appears to be amis though and requires some sort of intervention by government-but don't hold your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 Let's talk about Angelina Jolie having lots of sex some more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted October 7, 2005 Report Share Posted October 7, 2005 I think the real reason is if Alberta can offer rebates so can the federal government. Slight difference though,Alberta has no debt,the Feds only pretend they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Dear Canuck E Stan, Slight difference though,Alberta has no debt,This is a fallacy. The debt still exists, but the gov't claims to have the money in the bank to pay for it. The AB gov't didn't want to pay off the debt early so they wouldn't suffer penalties. Payments are still being made on the debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 This is a fallacy. The debt still exists, but the gov't claims to have the money in the bank to pay for it. The AB gov't didn't want to pay off the debt early so they wouldn't suffer penalties. Payments are still being made on the debt. theloniusfleabag Like Chretien would have said, show me the proof in the proof. I haven't read anything in regards to AB still being in debt, can you link me to some info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Dear Canuck E Stan, The $3 billion will be set aside in the Debt Retirement Account by March 31, 2005 to make all remaining debt payments as they become due. Legislation to be introduced in the next session will ensure the account can only be used to pay off the debt.source... http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=852The papers were full of Fat Ralphie with signs of 'Debt Free!", but most opinions were that it was PR. True, the money is in the bank to pay the debt, but you can't really have a 'mortgage burning party' when you actually haven't paid it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 The papers were full of Fat Ralphie with signs of 'Debt Free!", but most opinions were that it was PR. True, the money is in the bank to pay the debt, but you can't really have a 'mortgage burning party' when you actually haven't paid it off. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That ain't much in the way of proof. There are penalties to paying off debt early. As ridiculous as it seems you can be better off financially by just putting the money aside at paying off the debt as it matures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 theloniusfleabag, Thanks for the link,but I don't think there is a debt any longer. This statement on the link was made in July of 2004. July 15, 2004Albertans and the government have erased a debt of almost $23 billion, as an additional $3 billion has been set aside to pay off the remainder of the province's accumulated debt. The $3 billion will be set aside in the Debt Retirement Account by March 31, 2005 to make all remaining debt payments as they become due. Legislation to be introduced in the next session will ensure the account can only be used to pay off the debt. A decade ago, the province's $22.7 billion debt worked out to $8,400 for every man, woman and child in Alberta. Based on strong revenue forecasts for 2004-05, that amount will now be zero. Based on strong revenue forecasts for 2004-05, that amount will now be zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted October 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 Dear shoop, That ain't much in the way of proofIt's semantics. If I owe you $50, and I have $50 in my pocket, does that mean I am not in debt anymore?I suspect Canuck E Stan may be right, that was indeed an old link, but the point was Ralphie was using semantics the other way for PR purposes. At the time, AB was still carrying a debt. You are right, There are penalties to paying off debt early. As ridiculous as it seems you can be better off financially by just putting the money aside at paying off the debt as it matures.and this was mentioned at the time. I am just saying that the term 'Debt free' was not officially correct at the time.This just in... http://www.finance.gov.ab.ca/business/budg...t_in_brief.html I did a search on 2005-06, and 'debt servicing costs are at 1.1%', which would imply that there still exists a debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck E Stan Posted October 8, 2005 Report Share Posted October 8, 2005 theloniusfleabag, I'm no accountant, but I think there will always be an on going debt,and that's why the government is putting $3 billion "in the bank" to cover the debt as it comes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.