Hockleyd

I still like to remind people that it was Stephen Harper who they live to lionize that brought in the current smoothed equalization formula they now love to hate.

We are the highest biweekly median wage in Canada. We did not use to whine about things when we made less money.

I don’t know enough about refined product shipment as to why we don’t expand the Hardisty refinery in Edmonton to supply more final product in Canada. I was in O&G service technology when I was I. O&G few times. Not on the E&P or midstream areas.

The refinery owners didn’t want their costs to go up by removing the glut nor have competition.

It would require retooling of some significance I believe as Irving is configured for light, sweet, Saudi crude not the heavy sour crude. The gulf refineries process from Alberta and Venezuela.

I agree taxation is not punishment. The risk is a different class here. Personal vs capital.

Personal risk is more reflected as a factor in progressive taxation (partial, doesn’t address your core point).

IMO removing basic subsistence from the need to work would go a long way for balance.

C-2 is still a mess even after they have split it and reduced it. That is the sort of bill that should die in a minority government IMO. I don’t know if it’s fully leftover trash from Trudeau or pure appeasement attempt of the insanity of the south or what. The minister is out to lunch.

But I also don’t deny the balance is horribly out of whack. Sine the 80s at least. When the shareholders became the primary concern the corporations became husks that no longer served people nor customers in far too many cases. It was an excuse for excess.

I’ve been reading Carney’s book. Which I bought while he was nowhere near getting involved with the Liberal party.

I’m only a small ways in so I can’t comment properly but it has a feel that I would not expect from a pure neoliberal nor a corporatist.

I’m looking forward to reading more.

Alberta premier ‘cannot double-talk’ about Ottawa depending on her interests: Chrétien | CBC News Former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien is taking a swing at Alberta’s simmering separatist movement, and says Premier Danielle Smith “cannot double-talk all the time” about Ottawa depending on he...

Former PM Chrétien telling it like it is.
Clear insights into Smith and Alberta as well as some truth about our "free trade" agreements with the USA.
"Chrétien also noted “we never had a real free trade agreement” since the Americans signed NAFTA but were “not
1/2
www.cbc.ca/news/politic...

? It shows blocked at the top. Huh. Whatever. I’m enjoying our discussion personally.

True. It is still a risk of the capital, and regardless of where that comes from, there is a value to that risk and that investment.

Punishing someone for success or having the means seems arbitrary. I would love a way to “bonus points” a grass roots bootstrap but it’s just arbitrary then.

I am indeed. I am NOT a fan of the largest incumbents taking over the upstarts but that is one of the exits for an entrepreneur to get that ideal situation. I feel a need to preserve that. It’s hard to get a good balance that preserves the competition levels without blocking legit consolidation.

And energy east was said No to by Quebec primarily, not sure about Ontario.

It was one of the arguments used as at the time there was a lot of objection to the actions of the Saudi monarchy/government and a “moral angle” of that authoritarian source I mentioned originally was definitely highlighted so yes, instead of using Saudi oil or piping it through the USA first.

Well, saying Ontario contributed 40% of the federal money is actually a really interesting counterpoint to equalization arguments. Back when Ontario was THE “have” province, their tax dollars made up a lot of the Canadian economic power.

I think the Bloc will entirely depends on what is in it for Quebec. That’s their literal mandate.

Conservatives if they vote no and have zero real substance to present are just going to lose even more credibility with the independent voters. I mean. That’s a choice they have made often recently.

And I’m not surprised. A lot of the big ticket money has to have federal participation. Especially back then.

I did know the government of Lougheed stepped in to backstop it but I was unaware of the additional federal backing. Back when provincial and federal governments could work together between Alberta and Ottawa. Even though they did not agree on everything.

I mean, you’re helping me learn more as an Albertan. I don’t want to add salt, but I was barely in school at that point. 😳😁

Thank you! The Wikipedia article should have that information added and the source added, IMO.

I never ever stated it was an act. I had no knowledge of how he came to that role. I expect he relishes it based on his behaviour. And I also believe that taking that role for so many years has reinforced many of those behaviours you point out. But it was all HIS choice.

So we agree and we are talking about the risk/reward and fair taxation for contribution. That’s a sound basis for a debate.

And the risks are deferred longer in the business example vs the art but that’s an interesting case. The issue is that it’s the single piece. It’s not a sustainable revenue stream which is what that value is.

As you said. It’s income. If they could build up their name, and sell that “art business” (e.g. Farley Mowat art) and it have retained earnings beyond their individual skill, that is extra value they created. Unfortunately it is very hard to do for creatives. Royalties and residuals usually.

The original oil sand development I think was backed by Alberta, Sun Oil, and government of Ontario. I’m having difficulty finding a federal investment. Can you toss me a source please? For federal R&D money, if we are going to extract royalties resulting from research grants, don’t single out O&G.

I’m talking about what I stated. Brand recognition, customer loyalty, competitive advantage. That’s not stored “tax free”. They can’t just withdraw it and pay taxes. The value of the business if someone else takes it over. Value built over time by investing time, effort, and money into it.

The salaried workers do not risk their money or time for an uncertain payback in the way the founder does. This is a separate thing from fair share in the proceeds of a business for work contributed. Storing money “tax free” in a business? If it’s actual money it’s taxed as retained earnings.

Well nationalizing didn’t actually get those things when it was in place for five years. The east still imported oil as it does today from authoritarian regimes.

I don’t think Alberta is asking for Canada to use Canadian O&G. They want access to world markets instead of just the USA. TMX helped.

So calling fighting that nationalization “stupid” I don’t understand. Are you not a supporter of free market foundations and provincial jurisdictions and authority?

There’s a LOT more complexity to all the layers of the NEP. It’s a covered to some extent at a higher level on Wikipedia and in a reasonably balanced way IMO. Nationalizing O&G is essentially targeted (especially at the time) at Alberta and taking more of the revenue for federal coffers.

You’re ignoring people building and then selling a business when they want to profit from the equity they have built up. Loyal customers, brand recognition, ongoing revenue. That has value and the capital gains is the “retirement” bonus the owner and founder can sometimes benefit from.