Which perfectly demonstrates that Alberta (and Saskatchewan) doesn’t need Canada. Quite the reverse, in fact. The question to be posed in the other thread is: What will Canada do when it doesn’t have Alberta to pay the bills?
Am I seeing SDS as high as TDS, in this thread? Why you seem to hate Smith as much as Trump? Alberta has some of the highest social spending in Canada, which I thought you folks loved. Truly baffling.
Adding to the above.
I wonder why Ford hasn’t shutdown the auto industry to ‘destroy’ the Americans? Seems free to offer up the Albertan and Saskatchewan economy to do so, but won’t make the sacrifice himself.
Let’s be honest. You have been told repeatedly why Smith and the UCP is hated, same with Trump. You just ignore all of the points raised, and then request people to repeat themselves (not to mention the back tracking to Trudeau).
Ford doesn’t shut down the auto industry because the Americans are intentionally doing it. The entire premise of the the steel/aluminum/auto tariffs are to effectively deindustrialize Canada and push those manufacturing jobs across the border.
While Project 2025 talks about reshoring in a North American context by no stretch of the imagination should we suppose that means a North American manufacturing economy - it means an American one.
By incentivizing resource extractions by not applying tariffs on oil, potash, and critical minerals and taxing finished good the American effectively kills the added value industry. Which mean higher value goods and intellectual property cease to exist here. We become a resource focused boom bust economy. Or even more of one than we are now.
Which raises the question “if you knew you were being played in this manner what would you do?”
I mean we maybe we could apply a 5% export tax on oil and potash and deliver those funds directly back to the provincial governments - Which would be roughly $5B for Alberta and $150M for Saskatchewan.
And fast track Venezuelan oil industry rebuild. We retain our position because we are a consistent and reliable partner. So, how does this benefit us to jeopardizing our industries to bail out the failed policies and bad political choices?
Carney is the net zero nut. It is far more likely that he is not managing the crisis effectively to “deindustrialize Canada” as this furthers his climate goals, and at the same time, helps him financially as the majority of his investments are in the US.
This is just comical. Carney has completely abandoned Canada’s climate targets. His environment minister resigned over the embrace of more pipelines. Just a couple weeks ago he was parroting conservative talking points about climate plans being too expensive, and how we have to boost energy exports. Which, in fact, you were crowing about in this very thread.
But sure, he’s trying to deindustrialize Canada. 
Carney has no intention of letting a pipeline be built. And even if it happens there is no economic benefit for producers to fill it given the carbon BS. He hasn’t changed at all, just masking his intentions. So your argument falls flat. He still has your support, though, because of the tds. His mask is just temporary.
You’re verging into conspiracy theory level paranoia here, my friend.
The investment banker who’s been moving his government further and further to the right on economic issues is secretly a communist and is just masking his intentions isn’t a very compelling point of view.
Also, because I’m just so fucking tired of right wing failure to understand basic economics:
“Carbon BS” is pricing negative externalities, which is the textbook conservative economic remedy for negative externalities. Failure to price negative externalities is equivalent to forced public subsidies. If your precious oil and gas industry can’t survive without massive public subsidies, then clearly it’s just not good business and deserves to die. That’s the conservative economic point of view.
Edited to add: “He still has your support.” I’ve told you before, I have never once voted for the Liberal Party of Canada while either Carney or Trudeau have been leader.
I’m guilty for voting, quite consistently, Liberal in previous federal elections, but its only because my MP was PP and I NEVER IN MY LIFE would ever vote for his name.
Now I no longer need to vote strategically (hoping PP doesn’t return to Carleton riding).
It’s always very funny to me when people try to describe Mark Carney, Goldman Sachs employee, lifelong down-the-line centrist banker, head of Bloomberg, as any kind of radical or leftist. It gives a pretty immediate gauge on how seriously to take their political opinions. Ten years ago the man would have been a Conservative. Hell, 15 years ago they asked him to join the party.
How about this economic principle: A cost borne by one competitor and not another is a competitive disadvantage by definition. The supply curve is shifted along with competitive advantage.
Or did they fail to cover basic things like that in your economics course at the Marx school of business?
So we must subsidize any sector that receives subsidies in other nations? Is this some sort of moral imperative?
How about all the oil you produce in your province you can tax at any rate you want? BTW, subsidize dairy much? How about ev plants? Oh wait, no one wants to build those in Canada anymore, along with much of anything else. Probably because those making the regulations use the same economics you do to justify their implementation.
Why do you want to punish Canadians economically?
You are approximately a million times too optimistic abut how quickly or cheaply that can be done.
You also need to pay more attention to current events.
Very clever of you to ascribe various beliefs to me and conclude that I’m being hypocritical. As I’ve posted in the past, I’m also opposed to dairy supply management (which isn’t technically a subsidy, it’s command economy socialism, but whatever).
And in the previous post, did you actually call me Marxist for daring to suggest that an industry that cannot survive without subsidies deserves to die? Because that’s not quite what Marx was all about.
Honestly, if you’re just going to ignore the substance of my posts and instead engage in name-calling and slander I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish. Scoring ‘pwnd!’ internet points? If you want to convince me that your viewpoint is worthy of consideration you’re doing a pretty shitty job.
Anyways, this is getting rather far afield from the point that Carney is not remotely small-l liberal on economic policies, and pretending otherwise is just delusional.
If you are using Canada as a model for building things, then you are 100% correct. Venezuela would remain a basket case for decades.
What I hear are words, like almost all things Carney. All words, no action.
An MOU that requires producers to develop oil that is uncompetitive for an imaginary pipeline that will likely never get built because those producers are unlikely to expand production to fill it due to it being uneconomical. All because the now pro-energy Carney has somehow changed his spots. No, he is doing exactly what he has said he will do. Keep the oil in the ground.
Facts then:
Name the subsidy that the oil industry gets?
Explain how requirement for carbon capture and carbon pricing for our Canadian industry is of benefit when other producing nations such as Norway, have 1/3 the cost of production. And while they do price for carbon, that still makes their product far more affordable than ours. They also have neighbors who will pay standard rates for their product, not the discount we have to apply because we can’t get access to tidewater?
Moderating:
This is an official warning for yet again engaging in personal attacks. You’re getting to the end of our patience with this. If you can’t refrain from getting personal, then stay out of the thread.
But if this is the case, the problem isn’t the government, it’s the industry. If the companies are too greedy to spend money so they can make money, that’s their decision. What else is the government supposed to do? Pay for the pipeline themselves? Your previous posts have indicated you’re not a fan of that one.
So then take away all the regulations so we can make money? If you do that, you will find that no one wants to invest because investors have standards and one of those standards is doing as little harm to the environment as possible. According to this source, “Divestment from fossil fuels has met the test of fiduciary responsibility with almost 1,600 institutional investors that manage more than $40 trillion having implemented an exclusion strategy.” Forty trillion. Would you like some of that forty trillion? Well, you only get it by playing nice and in this case, that means capturing/taxing carbon. But if you want, you can say screw those ESG investors, there’s got to be some rapacious capitalists out there who will pay us for this black gold! And yes, sovereign wealth funds (like the ones found in Saudi Arabia or China) or private equity “shadow capital” can step in but they charge higher interest rates. So it costs three times as much to borrow money from these folks and the risk goes up by an order of magnitude. You know these companies are risk averse. They’re not going to throw away the ability to borrow from Canadian banks so they can try their luck with shady capital from Saudi Arabia or China. So even if you took all those pesky ESG requirements away, there’s no incentive for Canadian oil companies to just disregard the environment. One way or another they’d have to pay for it anyway. In true capitalist fashion, they’ve found the cheapest way to comply is to play along with the rules. They still bitch about it but that doesn’t mean they’d embrace the alternative.
I have never ever said take away all regulations. You take away the ones that prevent companies from wanting to invest in your industry. The US buys our oil. They don’t care about how much we capture carbon. The east buys our oil. They don’t care about the things you have listed. Investors primarily don’t care about the things you’ve listed. People will invest where it is profitable to do so. When we can’t get investments because of carbon, then we will have to adapt. And if we want to take advantage of that $40T, then we create projects that meet their criteria. You can do more than one thing at a time.
The RBC said Canada lost $1T over the last decade. None of what the current government is doing has done anything to reverse that trend. Alberta is bucking that trend, but you only saw it when a current regulation was shot down through the MOU. So, it isn’t carbon that are preventing people from investing, it is the approval process risk of spending billions and having the courts overturn the result, the cost of operating in that environment not making it profitable for the company to increase production, the endless consultation, and the veto’s given to parties that shouldn’t have them. The regulations and policies of the government. That is investment risk.