[Thanos]

Norway's nationalization was visualized to benefit the entire country. Trudeau's nationalization was visualized to specifically damage one region of the country for the benefit of another, with no greater motivation than increased political advantage in Central Canada (from looting another part of the country) as the goal. The hagiographers can pretend otherwise but Pierre Trudeau, as opposed to the authors of the Norwegian policies, never had a single altruistic bone in his body.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Subsidizing green energy = socialist tampering with the market. Subsidizing fossil fuels = wise investment.

Never mind climate change, why subsidize an industry that makes billions every year in profit. Anybody from Alberta want to answer that one?

The subsidy claims are questionable and mostly fall into the range of accommodations for a capital intensive operation that take a long time to return the investment.

Most of the tax breaks or subsidies are accounting practices that let a company move up it's deductions in line with operations. Not actually letting them keep any more money.

The actual nature of each subsidy need to be looked at closely to see if it is what the anti energy people think it is. A offering people in the North East a subsidy for heating oil in the winter is viewed as a subsidy to the oil industry.

As for green energy, it's fucking expensive useless trash that is direct subsidies to counter productive industry. Also you can not run a car on wind power or solar. Solid fuels make sense.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

I still haven't heard a good reason why Norway can get so much revenue out of their oil, with the oil companies happy to play along, while Alberta sets such a low royalty rate and the Feds (Alberta too?) subsidize the industry to boot, all in fear the job givers will just walk away from the oilsands.

Norway's oil industry is pretty much nationalized with Statoil operating in some 55 oil fields and satellite sites.
I mean c'mon andy, do you really want a Conservative govt having 50% or more of the controlling interest in Canadian oil production?

The Norvegians have an oil fund approaching 1 trillion dollars, and the highest standard of living. They have the discipline to not spend all their oil earnings, have retained high taxes, yet have a very good quality of life.

Doubtless the Reformacons would copy Alberta and run a deficit even with all that oil wealth flowing in, but still, if they were pulling in the returns on oil that Norway is vs Alberta, seems like a good thing.

[Freakinoldguy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Never mind climate change, why subsidize an industry that makes billions every year in profit. Anybody from Alberta want to answer that one?

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

Must be payback to big oil for Trudeau's NEP.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

I still haven't heard a good reason why Norway can get so much revenue out of their oil, with the oil companies happy to play along, while Alberta sets such a low royalty rate and the Feds (Alberta too?) subsidize the industry to boot, all in fear the job givers will just walk away from the oilsands.

Norway's oil industry is pretty much nationalized with Statoil operating in some 55 oil fields and satellite sites.
I mean c'mon andy, do you really want a Conservative govt having 50% or more of the controlling interest in Canadian oil production?

The Norvegians have an oil fund approaching 1 trillion dollars, and the highest standard of living. They have the discipline to not spend all their oil earnings, have retained high taxes, yet have a very good quality of life.

Doubtless the Reformacons would copy Alberta and run a deficit even with all that oil wealth flowing in, but still, if they were pulling in the returns on oil that Norway is vs Alberta, seems like a good thing.

First off, don't oversell it. The fund just crested $600B, still impressive though. Canada also gets less for its oil because of the cost to refine it enough to make it transportable. Then you have a tiny country (Norway) with very limited interests with a population of 4.4 million. The oil fund works in part because they don't have to dip in to it because the tax rates on personal income plus the VAT are friggin' insane.

But the size difference makes a big difference too. We have far more infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Not to mention all the new infrastructure that has to constantly be built(and maintained) because of ridiculously high immigration rates. We're also not a homogenous people like Norway, with similar interests, ideals and goals. We are still fractured as a country based on our desire to put ourselves in a half-nelson with our own idiotic regionalism.
That is also why I don't think countries the size of Canada and the US can stand the test of time as single, democratic entities, but I digress as that's another topic entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see us do something similar to Norway, as many other countries are looking at as an example and moving to nationalize their oil production, with some looking to nationalize all of their natural resource production.
I just wonder if "we the people" can ever get over our regionalistic tendencies before it completely screws us.

[DrCaleb]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

Never mind climate change, why subsidize an industry that makes billions every year in profit. Anybody from Alberta want to answer that one?

We've been asking that for decades. We still don't get an answer.

Must be payback to big oil for Trudeau's NEP.

That's one reason we sent the Reform Party to Ottawa. Look what it got us.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

The Norvegians have an oil fund approaching 1 trillion dollars, and the highest standard of living. They have the discipline to not spend all their oil earnings, have retained high taxes, yet have a very good quality of life.

Doubtless the Reformacons would copy Alberta and run a deficit even with all that oil wealth flowing in, but still, if they were pulling in the returns on oil that Norway is vs Alberta, seems like a good thing.

First off, don't oversell it. The fund just crested $600B, still impressive though. Canada also gets less for its oil because of the cost to refine it enough to make it transportable. Then you have a tiny country (Norway) with very limited interests with a population of 4.4 million. The oil fund works in part because they don't have to dip in to it because the tax rates on personal income plus the VAT are friggin' insane.

But the size difference makes a big difference too. We have far more infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Not to mention all the new infrastructure that has to constantly be built(and maintained) because of ridiculously high immigration rates. We're also not a homogenous people like Norway, with similar interests, ideals and goals. We are still fractured as a country based on our desire to put ourselves in a half-nelson with our own idiotic regionalism.
That is also why I don't think countries the size of Canada and the US can stand the test of time as single, democratic entities, but I digress as that's another topic entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see us do something similar to Norway, as many other countries are looking at as an example and moving to nationalize their oil production, with some looking to nationalize all of their natural resource production.
I just wonder if "we the people" can ever get over our regionalistic tendencies before it completely screws us.

$1:

Every man, woman and child in oil-rich Norway became a theoretical millionaire this week.

The country’s oil fund — which collects taxes from oil profits and invests the money, mostly in stocks — exceeded 5.11 trillion crowns ($905 billion) in value this week, making it worth a million crowns per person, or about $177,000 per Norwegian.

About the same time this happened, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation released calculations showing that the taxpayers of Alberta are on the hook for $7.7 billion in debt, or about $1,925 per person. It expects the debt to spike to $17 billion by the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. The CTF is so alarmed by the province’s descent into deficits that it has launched a debt clock specifically for Alberta.

In socialist-leaning Norway, oil profits — including from state-run Statoil — are taxed up to a whopping 78 per cent, and that’s where the seed money for the fund comes from.

Alberta, meanwhile, never even had a provincial sales tax. Albertans pay far, far lower taxes than Norwegians, and if conventional economic theory is right, this should give Alberta the advantage.

But does it?

The average total income in Alberta is around $53,000, well below the province's (stunning) economic output of $80,000 per person. Norway's economic output is actually much lower than Alberta's, at $65,000 per person, but its average income is about the same, at $58,000. Norwegians take home a much larger chunk of the economy's wealth than Albertans do.

The Alberta government blames its deficit on the “bitumen bubble.” Oilsands product is selling for considerably less than conventional crude, mostly because of the boom in shale oil production in the U.S. It was selling for 22 per cent less than West Texas Intermediate oil as of this week, and this, apparently, is putting pressure on Alberta's finances.

But this is a sad excuse. Norway, too, has had to deal with low oil prices over the decades, but always found the political will to feed its rainy day fund.

Alberta “was just greedy and decided that a drunken, blow-out dance party today was better than a string of candle-lit dinner parties down the road,” writes noted economics reporter Eric Reguly in Corporate Knights.

Had Alberta set up a proper sovereign wealth fund decades ago as Norway had — or even if it were simply willing to draw higher royalties — it could use that money to stay out of deficits. It wouldn’t have to go begging to the federal government for aid when flooding hits.

This isn’t news to policymakers. The IMF, the Canadian International Council (CIC), and a recent University of Saskatchewan report are among those recommending Canadian governments set up sovereign wealth funds.

“The arguments in favour were just so logical,” said Melanie Drohan, co-author of a CIC report favouring oil funds, in an interview with iPolitics.

It would insulate the economy from commodity price busts, allow governments to save for future generations, and perhaps best of all, “it would keep government spending within their means,” she said. “We wouldn’t have these huge surpluses going into huge deficits.”

Some parts of the country are listening. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark last year announced the creation of a wealth fund that will collect profits from the proposed development of the liquified natural gas (LNG) industry on the west coast.

It won’t be anywhere near the size of Norway’s fund; the B.C. government projects it will collect $100 billion of a projected $1 trillion in LNG wealth generated over the next 30 years. Then again, the LNG business in B.C. isn’t expected to be as large as Norway’s oil business.

But aside from B.C., there is little interest among elected officials. The Harper government has roundly rejected the creation of a federal sovereign wealth fund.

And in Alberta, the idea of a sovereign wealth fund appears to have come and gone. The province came close when then-Premier Peter Lougheed set up the Heritage Savings Fund back in 1976. But the province didn't take it seriously at all. After a decade in operation, Alberta's government basically stopped paying into it, instead drawing on it as another source of revenue. It stands today at a measly $16.7 billion, a tiny fraction of what Norway has accumulated.

Incidentally, the fund's size is about what Alberta’ debt is projected to be in a couple years. The province could just give up the ghost, raid the fund and pay off the debt.

It won’t help make Alberta a more fiscally responsible place in the future, but at least it will temporarily eliminate the unforgivable embarrassment of Canada’s wealthiest, most economically dynamic province showing the world how to waste its wealth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11 ... 76887.html

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

$1:

Every man, woman and child in oil-rich Norway became a theoretical millionaire this week.

The country’s oil fund — which collects taxes from oil profits and invests the money, mostly in stocks — exceeded 5.11 trillion crowns ($905 billion) in value this week, making it worth a million crowns per person, or about $177,000 per Norwegian.

About the same time this happened, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation released calculations showing that the taxpayers of Alberta are on the hook for $7.7 billion in debt, or about $1,925 per person. It expects the debt to spike to $17 billion by the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year. The CTF is so alarmed by the province’s descent into deficits that it has launched a debt clock specifically for Alberta.

In socialist-leaning Norway, oil profits — including from state-run Statoil — are taxed up to a whopping 78 per cent, and that’s where the seed money for the fund comes from.

Alberta, meanwhile, never even had a provincial sales tax. Albertans pay far, far lower taxes than Norwegians, and if conventional economic theory is right, this should give Alberta the advantage.

But does it?

The average total income in Alberta is around $53,000, well below the province's (stunning) economic output of $80,000 per person. Norway's economic output is actually much lower than Alberta's, at $65,000 per person, but its average income is about the same, at $58,000. Norwegians take home a much larger chunk of the economy's wealth than Albertans do.

The Alberta government blames its deficit on the “bitumen bubble.” Oilsands product is selling for considerably less than conventional crude, mostly because of the boom in shale oil production in the U.S. It was selling for 22 per cent less than West Texas Intermediate oil as of this week, and this, apparently, is putting pressure on Alberta's finances.

But this is a sad excuse. Norway, too, has had to deal with low oil prices over the decades, but always found the political will to feed its rainy day fund.

Alberta “was just greedy and decided that a drunken, blow-out dance party today was better than a string of candle-lit dinner parties down the road,” writes noted economics reporter Eric Reguly in Corporate Knights.

Had Alberta set up a proper sovereign wealth fund decades ago as Norway had — or even if it were simply willing to draw higher royalties — it could use that money to stay out of deficits. It wouldn’t have to go begging to the federal government for aid when flooding hits.

This isn’t news to policymakers. The IMF, the Canadian International Council (CIC), and a recent University of Saskatchewan report are among those recommending Canadian governments set up sovereign wealth funds.

“The arguments in favour were just so logical,” said Melanie Drohan, co-author of a CIC report favouring oil funds, in an interview with iPolitics.

It would insulate the economy from commodity price busts, allow governments to save for future generations, and perhaps best of all, “it would keep government spending within their means,” she said. “We wouldn’t have these huge surpluses going into huge deficits.”

Some parts of the country are listening. British Columbia Premier Christy Clark last year announced the creation of a wealth fund that will collect profits from the proposed development of the liquified natural gas (LNG) industry on the west coast.

It won’t be anywhere near the size of Norway’s fund; the B.C. government projects it will collect $100 billion of a projected $1 trillion in LNG wealth generated over the next 30 years. Then again, the LNG business in B.C. isn’t expected to be as large as Norway’s oil business.

But aside from B.C., there is little interest among elected officials. The Harper government has roundly rejected the creation of a federal sovereign wealth fund.

And in Alberta, the idea of a sovereign wealth fund appears to have come and gone. The province came close when then-Premier Peter Lougheed set up the Heritage Savings Fund back in 1976. But the province didn't take it seriously at all. After a decade in operation, Alberta's government basically stopped paying into it, instead drawing on it as another source of revenue. It stands today at a measly $16.7 billion, a tiny fraction of what Norway has accumulated.

Incidentally, the fund's size is about what Alberta’ debt is projected to be in a couple years. The province could just give up the ghost, raid the fund and pay off the debt.

It won’t help make Alberta a more fiscally responsible place in the future, but at least it will temporarily eliminate the unforgivable embarrassment of Canada’s wealthiest, most economically dynamic province showing the world how to waste its wealth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11 ... 76887.html

The CTF can shove their propaganda up their asses sideways for all I care.

Their insistence that the provincial government keep taxes low by raiding the Heritage Trust Fund is far worse than the paltry amount of debt we're taking on.

That refusal to allow the government to raise taxes to provide a stable income flies in the face of their BS about growing the HST.

Like far too many Albertans, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

People here were outraged by Redford spending a million bucks or so on severance packages and plane flights, yet the PC government has raided the HST of more than $15 BILLION over the past 20 years to keep taxes low.

Had they kept it in the HST, it would be sitting at approximately $60 billion (instead of $16 billion) - more than enough to pay add a couple billion to provincial revenues each year and still grow by a few percent.

That is the outrage people should be upset about - but the right wing fear mongers here don't give a damn about the future and only want low taxes now.

[andyt]

Not sure how you relate the CTF with this article? Norway is an exemplar of keeping taxes high, very strong safety net, yet still having a very high GDP per person. Exactly the opposite of what the CTF would be in favor of.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

Not sure how you relate the CTF with this article? Norway is an exemplar of keeping taxes high, very strong safety net, yet still having a very high GDP per person. Exactly the opposite of what the CTF would be in favor of.

Probably because your article mentioned them in the third paragraph...did you even read it?

[andyt]

I re read it and still missed it - guess I was looking for info on Norway. But so what, the CTF isn't wrong, except that their pov contributed to the situation that Alberta is in and would have have allowed Norway to amass it's fund, had the CTF had any influence there. Basically they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here, except I suppose people will just fixate on the debt, not why it arose, and then vote Wildrose because they'll fix everything. At least y'all haven't gone for that so far. Any way you look at it, it just doesn't speak well of Albertans' willingness to have some fiscal discipline. Not that other Canadians in the same boat would likely do any better.

Albertans are by far the most conservative Canadians, small or large C. They are the main influence in the govt at the moment. Conservatives, small or large C, are supposed to be the paragons of fiscal probity, not like those wastrels in the Libs or Dips. I fail to see how the Libs or Dips could have done any worse in Alberta than the Cons. And at least you'd have more social spending and infrastructure to show for it, instead of more electronic pacifiers in everybody's pockets.

[N_Fiddledog]

Interesting article on how an Iraqi helped bring the Norse oil fund into being.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/iraqi-far ... -1.2604105

The Norwegians didn't know oil when they discovered they had it. This Iraqi oil guy wanted to move to Norway at the time to get specialist medical care, because his boy had some strange disease.

He moved the family to Norway and looked for work. The Norwegians were happy to find somebody who knew what oil was and hired him on the spot.

He was able to take advantage of other spectacular failures in the area like for instance that of the dutch. He basically said, "OK let's not do what they did", and Norway agreed. He created an outline of what not to do.

So Norway got into the oil racket, profits continued to rise and they did well. Apparently things have peaked for them though. Now the challenge begins. The fund has squirreled enough away that things look good, but we'll see. Apparently their investments flattened out to .01 percent on return.

Nevertheless the article says, "Al-Kasim said he would encourage all oil-producing countries, including Canada, to develop a mission statement in concise, plain language that outlines the principles behind its oil industry", because that's what they did in the beginning.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

I re read it and still missed it - guess I was looking for info on Norway. But so what, the CTF isn't wrong, except that their pov contributed to the situation that Alberta is in and would have have allowed Norway to amass it's fund, had the CTF had any influence there. Basically they seem to be shooting themselves in the foot here, except I suppose people will just fixate on the debt, not why it arose, and then vote Wildrose because they'll fix everything. At least y'all haven't gone for that so far. Any way you look at it, it just doesn't speak well of Albertans' willingness to have some fiscal discipline. Not that other Canadians in the same boat would likely do any better.

Albertans are by far the most conservative Canadians, small or large C. They are the main influence in the govt at the moment. Conservatives, small or large C, are supposed to be the paragons of fiscal probity, not like those wastrels in the Libs or Dips. I fail to see how the Libs or Dips could have done any worse in Alberta than the Cons. And at least you'd have more social spending and infrastructure to show for it, instead of more electronic pacifiers in everybody's pockets.

Actually, both the Liberals and NDP have stated for a long time that they would raise taxes (sales tax and/or increases to income taxes) to provide stable funding for government services, which would remove the need to raid hundreds of millions each year from the HST to avoid a deficit/debt. Compare that to Klein who raided it of close to $13 billion during his tenure - in regards to the HST, they almost certainly would have done better than the PCs.

[Xort]

If we let Alberta start a sales tax everything would just cost 10% more and the government would use the money to try and buy votes, rather than giving a deduction in other fees and taxes.

In the same way that gas taxes are used for general funds rather than roads, a sales tax will be used to raise funds which would then all be spent rather than equalized the volatility of Albert's tax situation.