BC and AB are the places to bring your business

[geoffrey]

Alberta clearly the place to invest, with BC not far behind. Ontario behind that slightly. Don't think about investing in Quebec or PEI though, according to the Fraser Institute report. It closely matches the Investment Managers Survey of 2004.

The Investment Climate Index is based upon:

1) Corporate Taxes (Best: Quebec - Worst: Newfoundland)

2) Fiscal Prudence (Best: Alberta - Worst: PEI)

3) Personal Income Tax (Best: Alberta - Worst: Newfoundland)

4) Infrastructure (Best: British Columbia - Worst: PEI)

5) Corporate Capital Tax (Best: Alberta - Worst: Saskatchewan)

6) Flexible Labour Markets (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)

7) Regulatory Burden (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)

Anyways, just thought I'd share this good news (for us Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarians anyways) for everyone. The publication, in PDF form, can be found [here].

Lets not get into the complaining about "GDP doesn't measure anything!" or "Alberta hates trees and animals, thats why they are rich." Lets have a discussion on the attractiveness of investing in various provinces, without debating the whole principles of economics as a whole.

[tml12]

"6) Flexible Labour Markets (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)

7) Regulatory Burden (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)"

See when unions run your province what happens???

[geoffrey]

"6) Flexible Labour Markets (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)

7) Regulatory Burden (Best: Alberta - Worst: Quebec)"

See when unions run your province what happens???

Exactly, otherwise Quebec seems like a pretty pro-business place other than the unions.

[gerryhatrick]

Why should we care what a rightwing think tank says?

It's not credible.

If they didn't have a political agenda then OK. Instead....... meh.

[geoffrey]

Why should we care what a rightwing think tank says?

It's not credible.

If they didn't have a political agenda then OK. Instead....... meh.

All think tanks have some kind of agenda. At least the Fraser Institute makes their bias clear. Doesn't change the results of a pretty straightfoward survey of investment people that said the same thing as their study.

[speaker]

so Geoffrey, you announce this as being good news for Albertans, British Columbians, and then suggest we not talk about the aspects of our pro business government decisions to give business the right to plunder, without appropriate environmental regulation, fair labour codes, equity in taxation structure, or policies regarding resource depletion, human welfare, etc.

OK by me.

[geoffrey]

so Geoffrey, you announce this as being good news for Albertans, British Columbians, and then suggest we not talk about the aspects of our pro business government decisions to give business the right to plunder, without appropriate environmental regulation, fair labour codes, equity in taxation structure, or policies regarding resource depletion, human welfare, etc.

OK by me.

The only concern in Alberta right now is environmental, which is reasonable, but still nothing compared to the pollution in Ontario.

Baisc wages are up over 6% in Alberta this year because of the economy. So apparently business will pass on profits to employees at a rate far higher than inflation...

Everyone is happy, join the happy train speaker.

[speaker]

Don't worry, be happy, lalalalala , I am more than content with my life on the fringes of the Alberta fossil fuel boom II. I am somewhat less happy with the possibilities of the future and largely because governments pay to much attention to groups like the unthinking think tanks. They persist in a naive belief that so long as we have enough money today tomorrow will take care of itself, or they don't have an understanding that if you use up the capital resources we have then they aren't available later.

Quite a few years ago it was pointed out that residents of Tokyo were signing multigenerational mortgages to buy a house. We're doing the same with our environment and resources in order to buy consumables. My grandkids are going to be pissed.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Don't worry, be happy, lalalalala , I am more than content with my life on the fringes of the Alberta fossil fuel boom II. I am somewhat less happy with the possibilities of the future and largely because governments pay to much attention to groups like the unthinking think tanks. They persist in a naive belief that so long as we have enough money today tomorrow will take care of itself, or they don't have an understanding that if you use up the capital resources we have then they aren't available later.

lol. u should direct that argument to medicare apologists.

[gerryhatrick]

Lets not get into the complaining about "GDP doesn't measure anything!" or "Alberta hates trees and animals, thats why they are rich." Lets have a discussion on the attractiveness of investing in various provinces, without debating the whole principles of economics as a whole.

Or we could debate about the value of a farrightwing "think tank" masquarading as some kind of credible entity.

The Fraser "institute". What a joke.

[geoffrey]

Lets not get into the complaining about "GDP doesn't measure anything!" or "Alberta hates trees and animals, thats why they are rich." Lets have a discussion on the attractiveness of investing in various provinces, without debating the whole principles of economics as a whole.

Or we could debate about the value of a farrightwing "think tank" masquarading as some kind of credible entity.

The Fraser "institute". What a joke.

You obviously are uninformed about the Fraser Institute. They are all extremly bright people, with first rate education and industry leading experience.

Too bad that you think anyone that doesn't agree with you is a joke.

It's also too bad that you have some misconception that this information is false. Come on gerry, back up your statement, show me evidence that these findings are false. I want to see a real justified source... not a newspaper columnist, either an economist or a business expert.

Bet you wouldn't find ANYONE that disagrees with these findings, anyone that knows anything about business or economics.

So before you run your mouth about how the Fraser Institute is not crediable, you should actually try to discredit the information. It's ridiculous that you have any crediability when you just attack the source and have not touched the information provided.

It must be sad living in your sheltered world, where you only listen to those that agree with everyone you do.

[Riverwind]

Or we could debate about the value of a farrightwing "think tank" masquarading as some kind of credible entity.

Sounds like you are talking about the Center for Polciy Alternatives.

[speaker]

Pretty much anytime a group takes in the kind of money that the Fraser institute takes in from donations, you have to think that the money is coming from organizations that really want to hear more of what they are saying. Any time that much money is coming in to a Canadian Institute that is a registered non profit organization on the American tax system and the Canadian, I get suspicious that the institute will put out more of what it's donators want.

But beyond that the Fraser Institute does not take into account the real world in it's studies and bafflegab. Therefore it has no credibility.

[sharkman]

I live and work in B.C. and in the last 2 months I've had 3 companies contact me wondering if I'd like to work for them. The economy in B.C. is humming, I don't need the Fraser Institute to tell me that. Look up any stats from Stats Canada or elsewhere, western Canada is outpacing the east. I know it's good news, but you don't have to choke on it just because it's from the Fraser Institute.

[speaker]

There is a tendancy to shoot the messanger when it's bad news, or when news is warped to give everyone happy feelings. Or at least, if not shoot them, examine the motives.

Is it good news for just you? For residents of the western provinces, humanity in general? How about for the environment, or the next generation? When a "think tank" with the amount of money that the Fraser Institute has to invest in studies can't see it's way clear to examine the somewhat more complex issues facing Canadians, I start to wonder why.

[geoffrey]

There is a tendancy to shoot the messanger when it's bad news, or when news is warped to give everyone happy feelings. Or at least, if not shoot them, examine the motives.

Is it good news for just you? For residents of the western provinces, humanity in general? How about for the environment, or the next generation? When a "think tank" with the amount of money that the Fraser Institute has to invest in studies can't see it's way clear to examine the somewhat more complex issues facing Canadians, I start to wonder why.

Because their focus is on economic policy?

Look up other think tanks if you want something else.

My life is great in the west right now, and it's only going to improve over the long-term. It sounds like alot of people are jealous of Alberta and its riches. They might not last forever, but with one of the largest sources of oil for the next 100 years, we'll be doing ok right up until the oil crash. And then our world leading investment into alternative energy will carry us through.

That's what you don't get. Alberta makes money off oil, but we are the number one environmental province too . We produce more wind power than anyone else, and our clean coal technology is first rate. We are already fixing our system and widening our energy supply, why the hell is the rest of Canada so behind?

Especially Ontario, where smog days and acid rain are serious problems. The oil squeeze right now is destroying Ontario, the manufacturers are dying off and cutting jobs with the major increased costs. Why? Because Ontario has not invested in alternative energy, besides an expensive failed nuclear program.

So complain all you want about Alberta and how we are all going to be poor. You couldn't be more wrong. While oil might be dying off, energy demand will grow forever, and Alberta is already the leader in producing these new energies (cleaner too!).

[speaker]

Geoffrey, you're the one that brought the Fraser Institute into this topic, I'm merely responding concerning their validity in terms of our overall happiness with the "economic" news. Perhaps it's just a difference in understanding of the word economic, I would say that the Fraser Institue is focused on Financial policy because economic policy implies that ecologics have been involved. For people who present themselves under a banner of intellectual authority they have a misguided lack of interest in the environment and sustainability.

I'm not an informed person with respect to the cleanliness of the new coal technology, I hope you can surprise me with some good news there, particularily about carbon emissions. As a wind energy advocate I am very happy that Alberta is taking steps towards using the force in the wind along the mountain passes.

What I have suggested in the past is that our governments should be taxing resource removal enough to compensate us with alternatives, in energy, with clean air and stable soils, in agriculture and forestry, with improved fish stocks along the coasts, and biological diversity everywhere we have had it.

If we have those things then we have a shot at sustainability. If we run out of them at the same time we run out of oil and gas we will be poor whether we have clean coal or not.

[sideshow]

The Alberta government has obviously done some things that are good for the citizens of that province. But there are other factors that make Alberta attractive and/or prosperous.

Alberta, compared to the other prairie provinces does not have quite so severe of winter weather.

Alberta has beautiful landscape and natural attractions. Skiing is fantastic. Parks are beautiful. And for a non environmental friendly province, it does have some beautiful wildlife and a very clean countryside.

Alberta does not have to contend (to as great a degree) with social issues such as the aboriginal problems of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, or the immigration problems that plague B.C. and Ontario.

I think that if Alberta used some of its wealth to be more socially responsible, even if it was just within its own borders, it could stand up and be counted as one of the best places to live in the world. But with the absence of a social conscience, unfortunately, he moral highground is lost..

[Nocrap]

The Alberta government has obviously done some things that are good for the citizens of that province. But there are other factors that make Alberta attractive and/or prosperous.

Alberta, compared to the other prairie provinces does not have quite so severe of winter weather.

Alberta has beautiful landscape and natural attractions. Skiing is fantastic. Parks are beautiful. And for a non environmental friendly province, it does have some beautiful wildlife and a very clean countryside.

Alberta does not have to contend (to as great a degree) with social issues such as the aboriginal problems of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, or the immigration problems that plague B.C. and Ontario.

I think that if Alberta used some of its wealth to be more socially responsible, even if it was just within its own borders, it could stand up and be counted as one of the best places to live in the world. But with the absence of a social conscience, unfortunately, he moral highground is lost..

I also take anything published by the Fraser Institute, to be biased toward the industries that are important to their funding. Mostly Oil and Private Healthcare.

I recognize that their writers "are all extremly bright people, with first rate education and industry leading experience", but they are paid for their services. Even if the pay is not abundant, they enjoy the validity that their words incur as part of a "think tank".

When researching the people behind Stephen Harper's rise to the top, many roads led to the Fraser Institute.

For this topic, though I haven't researched the figures, I've no doubt that the statistics are correct. Alberta is definitely enjoying a boom, and life is good. I didn't need those statistics to tell me that.

However, Geoffrey, can you direct me to a Fraser Institute offering that provided any negatives toward the oil industry or private healthcare? Since you brought the Fraser Institute into the discussion, we have to look at both sides.

[Montgomery Burns]

Lets not get into the complaining about "GDP doesn't measure anything!" or "Alberta hates trees and animals, thats why they are rich." Lets have a discussion on the attractiveness of investing in various provinces, without debating the whole principles of economics as a whole.

Or we could debate about the value of a farrightwing "think tank" masquarading as some kind of credible entity.

The Fraser "institute". What a joke.

It's difficult to take you seriously when you make such over-the-top claims.