The DumbBrexit / #Wexit thread

[thedestroyerofworlds]

I thought Strome didn't post opinion pieces as a source.   Guess that isn't the case.

[Toews]

If Wexit happens, does it mean that the pipelines are taken apart? Sounds like a scenario that will make both the NIMBYs and the whiny Wexiters happy.

[Ryan Strome]

33 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

 

 

Says the guy who has no clue on what he is attempting to debate.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Curmudgeon said:

Says the guy who still writes “I seen” instead of “I saw”.

Oh burn.

Do you understand your dependency yet?

[Warhippy]

It appears as though things will get even worse for Alberta as the OPEC meeting produced literally nothing but a failed deal to reduce production by 1.5% globally.  Corona virus has killed travels and manufacturing and as such has killed demand for oil, supplies are currently as high as they've ever been but without any curtailment of production that glut will only serve to keep prices low.  This is somehow Trudeau's fault.  or Notley's.  or the entire nation of Canada conspiring to keep Alberta weak no doubt.

 

Canada's oilpatch is bracing for the impact of plunging crude prices after OPEC and its allies failed to reach a deal aimed at cutting production as economies slow because of the novel coronavirus.

Prices began sliding after Russia refused to support deeper oil cuts to cope with the outbreak of coronavirus and OPEC responded by removing all limits on its own production.

 

Global oil prices fell more than eight per cent Friday as the development revived fears of a price crash similar to 2014, when Saudi Arabia and Russia fought for market share with U.S. shale oil producers.

The benchmark crude contract in North America, West Texas Intermediate, was also down more than eight per cent on Friday morning, dropping below $42 US per barrel.

Since the start of the year, global oil prices have dropped more than 20 per cent.

'Not good for governments reliant on oil revenues'

COVID-19 concerns and the impact on oil demand — plus the prospect of OPEC abandoning its role in trying to limit supplies — have the makings of a "toxic recipe" for oil prices, said Judith Dwarkin, chief economist at RS Energy Group.

"That's not good for oil producers; it's not good for governments reliant on oil revenues," Dwarkin said.

"It's generally not good for the Canadian economy, for which oil production and all the taxes and royalties and other revenue collected from that [are] an important part of the economy."

OPEC sources told Reuters that Russia, one of the world's biggest oil producers but not a member of OPEC, and Saudi Arabia, the biggest crude producer in OPEC, had failed to find a compromise despite several rounds of bilateral talks this week in Vienna.

As a result, the existing deal for output cuts will expire in March, so OPEC members and non-OPEC producers can in theory pump at will in an already oversupplied market, sources told Reuters.

OPEC members are responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's oil production.

Coronavirus is cutting world crude demand

Oil prices have dropped in recent weeks over concerns about the spread of the coronavirus. It's estimated the impact of the disease in China sliced about 900,000 barrels of daily oil demand from that country alone.

The impact has rippled out across global energy markets, including Canada.

On Friday, Calgary-based Vermilion Energy cut its dividend in half to deal with weakness in commodity prices and global economic fallout from the novel coronavirus.

Dwarkin said today's news might add to the incentive for oil companies to cut capital spending, if they were already moving in that direction and should the price spiral continue.

"We've seen the punch and the counter-punch today, the Russians and the Saudis," Dwarkin said.

"Let's see what emerges in the next few days on that front before you know it to declare this bout over."

Martin Pelletier, a portfolio manager with Trivest Wealth Council in Calgary, said he expects Canada's oilpatch to "batten down the hatches" with oil prices falling.

"You've got to manage your balance sheet," Pelletier said.

"Those who don't manage their balance sheet — if this sell-off continues — are not going to make it.

"This [situation] could be over in a week or two weeks, but it may not be over for a couple months."

[Warhippy]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Oh burn.

Do you understand your dependency yet?

Did you answer their question about why you think flights will be an issue?

[Warhippy]

41 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Says the guy who has no clue on what he is attempting to debate.

Says the guy who keeps changing the numbers to suit his argument depending on how badly he is getting kicked around at the time 

 

Edited March 6, 2020 by Warhippy

[ForsbergTheGreat]

19 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Incorrect.  I hate how they're talking out of both sides of their mouths, while offloading their ridiculous tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations.  You cannot argue that while spending should be decreased, they are doing it on the backs of the population via increased fees, taxes and lower service as well as the slashing of social programs.  This also in the face of nifty spending such as the war room, Flames games and of course private trips on the tax payers dollar.

I really don't by this argument.  Just because some areas are being cut doesn't mean life doesn't move forwards.  It's the same with people that got mad at JT for buying donuts or going on vacation. I honestly don't care what he does, the guy still is a person and wants to live.   You can't expect people of that status to live like peasants..  Just don't get caught spending tax dollars on hookers and blow and i'm ok with it.  

 

In terms of the tax breaks, you have to understand the alternative, seriously whats better watching a company leave and collecting zero taxes or giving them a higher incentive to resume/increase business, yes means lowering the short term taxes collected. But again some taxes collected is better than none. People look at this so narrow sighted as if things will always remain status quo and there will always be husky tax revenue coming in, no companies are in the business to make a profit,  If another location will bring a higher ROI they have no issue packing up and moving out. 

 

 

19 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Devils advocate.  Ok I'll bite.  You're right.

 

You cannot dump taxpayers money in to losing ventures any more than you can demand the taxpayer shoulder the burden of failed fiscal policies.  But, you cannot suggest in any seriousness that private enterprise will willingly engage in money losing ventures anymore than one could suggest that oil companies would willingly dump money in to projects that cannot turn profits without a sustained $25 increase in prices.  A wiser move would have been to return said parks to crown land or shutter them indefinitely.

That's actually what's happening, the parks that are basically lost caused will be turned into crown land.  

 

19 hours ago, Warhippy said:

See above.  I do not think any money losing venture will go to private hands without some assurance of profit.  This could include events and activities in former park land that is otherwise prohibited.  There's always fine print and we both know this.

Many of these parks have potential in the long term.  Like i said I can see municipalities taking the lead on this as they have the most to gain.  Not just from profits of the park but driving traffic to their respected communities.  It's a two way street and 160 parks are up for a partnership, we will see how many people actually engage and put forth a business plan regarding any.  If no one wants to maintain them, again they will be turned into crown land, people will still be allowed stay there but they will not be maintained aka don't use the restroom and bring your own firewood.

 

19 hours ago, Warhippy said:

You're correct and that is my mistake.  The initial story I read had very strange wording that made it sound as though they wanted to increase the tourism budget.  I've since read in to this and numerous experts find it audacious in the extreme that a doubling is possible without completely overwhelming Bannf/Jasper and Waterton areas.  Or the most visited areas of the province.  This is apparently an announced plan that has occurred on the backs of cuts and pulled funding for programs and events such as the 3 year X games and the actual provincial tourism offices and budgets.

 

It's a tall task but that's why we give ourselves goals and build out strategic plans.  It's better to push and fail than to accept defeat without trying. While those places are nice, Alberta has a lot more to offer

 

 

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I really don't by this argument.  Just because some areas are being cut doesn't mean life doesn't move forwards.  It's the same with people that got mad at JT for buying donuts or going on vacation. I honestly don't care what he does, the guy still is a person and wants to live.   You can't expect people of that status to live like peasants..  Just don't get caught spending tax dollars on hookers and blow and i'm ok with it.  

 

In terms of the tax breaks, you have to understand the alternative, seriously whats better watching a company leave and collecting zero taxes or giving them a higher incentive to resume/increase business, yes means lowering the short term taxes collected. But again some taxes collected is better than none. People look at this so narrow sighted as if things will always remain status quo and there will always be husky tax revenue coming in, no companies are in the business to make a profit,  If another location will bring a higher ROI they have no issue packing up and moving out. 

 

 

That's actually what's happening, the parks that are basically lost caused will be turned into crown land.  

 

Many of these parks have potential in the long term.  Like i said I can see municipalities taking the lead on this as they have the most to gain.  Not just from profits of the park but driving traffic to their respected communities.  It's a two way street and 160 parks are up for a partnership, we will see how many people actually engage and put forth a business plan regarding any.  If no one wants to maintain them, again they will be turned into crown land, people will still be allowed stay there but they will not be maintained aka don't use the restroom and bring your own firewood.

 

 

It's a tall task but that's why we give ourselves goals and build out strategic plans.  It's better to push and fail than to accept defeat without trying. While those places are nice, Alberta has a lot more to offer

 

 

Step back a second.

 

Hot damn we're having a civil conversation!

 

MY main argument with the crazy expenses and public purchases of an affluent nature is that they are on the backs of or in the face of cuts to things people are deeming essential.  I don't agree with any public employee expensing crap like hockey games on the public dollar.  I sure as hell don't approve of JT flying to and from private islands on the public dollar even IF he pays for non travel expenses out of pocket.  

 

The alternative for tax breaks is what?  more of the same?  the visible difference is nil.  Oil took an immediate 8% shot on the WTI after the OPEC meetings did nothing.  Will that result in yet another tax break?  The issue with those tax breaks is that it is effectively purchasing back lost jobs with tax payers money.  Those jobs invariably leave anyways.  We bailed out the auto sector to the tune of billions in 2008/2009 and what happened?  We still lost those jobs and money.  A truly conservative society or mindset would allow these companies to make or break themselves on their own merit.  This is effectively free market socialism, paying off billion dollar profiting companies with tax money yet forcing the tax payers to take hit after hit to pay for it.  It's throwing good money after bad

 

Losing empty or non effective parks to crown land is fine.  But at some point you know in a litigation happy society something bad will happen.  More essentially you know the costs of this will end up on the backs of taxpayers again at some point.  It's kind of what always happens.  Municipalities just took a major hit from the provincial government after being informed that leaseholders can effectively walk without paying municipal taxes.  They doubled down by pulling money from municipal funding as well.  Townships and cities cannot keep taking these hits.  Anything that goes wrong will be on the wallet of local taxpayers, not provincial.  At days end it's another potential cost or outright loss for the people

 

Alberta MAY have a lot to offer, but outside of the mountains it's almost minimal.  I know there's some beautiful places.  but how are they going to develop and build them up by continuing to cut the budgets to them?

 

I don't disagree with the overall premise of the UCP plan, but the implementation and almost outright arrogance towards increasing spending away from essential services for people but towards near open corporate welfare is not right.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

31 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Says the guy who keeps changing the numbers to suit his argument depending on how badly he is getting kicked around at the time 

 

Spoke on equalization initially and then I gave you the total amount. 

Educate yourself on this or please don't discuss it.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Question: if Alberta somehow manages to actually separate and become a sovereign nation, how many present Albertans would decide to leave Alberta in order to retain their rights and privileges (and obligations and responsibilities) that are theirs as Canadians? I only ask because I would assume there are a lot of Albertans who don’t support independence. I just wonder what happens to them if their Canadian citizenship is taken away. Even if only 10% decided to move away from Alberta, you’d be losing about 450,000 people, virtually all of whom would probably have the financial means and job portability needed to start somewhere else. Quite a hit to the fledgling nation’s economy, to say nothing of the talent drain. 

I'm going to be honest.  I'm Albertan but I also don't really agree with separation and in all honestly I don't think it will ever happen.   Although many people don't know, Alberta is more than oil and gas and many of these Albertan companies are integrated with Canada it would make it extremely difficult to have a clear divorce. But with that said, if it were to ever happen, i don't see many Albertan's leaving, When you consider the cost of moving, job search and cost of living in other places even if you were completely against separation i don't think packing up and leaving is a realistic option at least in the short term.  Just think of all the Americans going to move to canada if trump won, yeah that didn't happen. Moving is a lot of work.  The amount of people that do leave, you will also probably see the same influx of people moving into Alberta with the promise of better opportunity.

 

 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I'm going to be honest.  I'm Albertan but I also don't really agree with separation and in all honestly I don't think it will ever happen.   Although many people don't know, Alberta is more than oil and gas and many of these Albertan companies are integrated with Canada it would make it extremely difficult to have a clear divorce. But with that said, if it were to ever happen, i don't see many Albertan's leaving, When you consider the cost of moving, job search and cost of living in other places even if you were completely against separation i don't think packing up and leaving is a realistic option at least in the short term.  Just think of all the Americans going to move to canada if trump won, yeah that didn't happen. Moving is a lot of work.  The amount of people that do leave, you will also probably see the same influx of people moving into Alberta with the promise of better opportunity.

 

 

Alberta would have to close its borders to keep the flood of people moving there from the rest of Canada from overwhelming the Province.  I could 2 million or more wanting to get in.  

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

In just 11 years, Albertans have paid out almost $240 billion to the rest of Canada.

thats because their salaries were higher and they bought more stuff. I wouldn't be basing my #wexit economy on this number. 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's funny that so many disagree and how unfair things are to Alberta. But hey keep making the comparison to Norway..

 

wut? was I talking Norway? 

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Did you answer their question about why you think flights will be an issue?

I didn't need to he I right he will continue to be dependent on the US.

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

wut? was I talking Norway? 

That's the next move I gone around this track before. 

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

I didn't need to he I right he will continue to be dependent on the US.

That's the next move I gone around this track before. 

well, doesn't a modified Norway model make more sense in an independent AB? you'll need to adopt those higher taxes tho 

[RUPERTKBD]

26 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Alberta would have to close its borders to keep the flood of people moving there from the rest of Canada from overwhelming the Province.  I could 2 million or more wanting to get in.  

Better get some truck nuts for your scooter, Alf....

[Ryan Strome]

28 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Alberta would have to close its borders to keep the flood of people moving there from the rest of Canada from overwhelming the Province.  I could 2 million or more wanting to get in.  

No one from Quebec  or the lower mainland. Is allowed 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

No one from Quebec  or the lower mainland. Is allowed 

Even if they bring banjos and chewing tobacco?

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

Even if they bring banjos and chewing tobacco?

Hmmm chewing tobacco eh? Fine, they can come.