• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
A very interesting idea: what we consider "First World problems" (i.e. not getting your Christmas present shipped by Amazon right away) is an indicator of what it really means to be living in a First World society. This has some implications besides the obvious ones of the shift to new models of "utilities".

We take this sort of reliable service for granted, but since our political and bureaucratic class isn't at all invested in the idea that they are responsible to maintain the national, regional and local infrastructure (the City Engineer of London, ON was quoted a few years back complaining that he estimated it would take $30 million/year to keep London's infrastructure maintained, Council voted $8 million. You can probably find similar examples where you live), then many of the basics like clean water, sewage, electrical energy and surface transportation could become degraded to the point that we are living in a Second World society at least. Points to ponder:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-02/two-cheers-for-first-world-problems-.html

Two Cheers for 'First World Problems'
By Virginia Postrel  Jan 2, 2014 3:37 PM ET  - Comments  Email  Print

Is this the symbol of a rich and whiny society?
When United Parcel Service and FedEx missed last-minute Christmas deliveries, gift givers who’d relied on rush service were upset. But instead of public sympathy, their outrage and disappointment elicited ridicule and lectures.

Commenters called the procrastinating shoppers “spoiled and entitled.” Waiting so long, they suggested, was foolish and self-indulgent. The incident, many declared, was a “first world problem.”

The phrase is more telling than the critics realize.

As an Internet meme, “first world problem” ridicules a trivial or esoteric gripe: that the drive-through line at Starbucks is taking way too long, for example, or that the pumpkin spice lattes don’t come with a vegan option. The phrase is often self-deprecating, but sometimes, as with the vegan lattes or the late Christmas presents, it’s used to mock other people’s priorities and expectations.

As illustrated in a famous diagram, “first world problems” are complaints such as “had to park far from the door,” “your show isn’t in HD” and “too much goat cheese in the salad.” By contrast, “real problems” include hunger, cholera and rape. If you’re safe, well and well-fed, in other words, you shouldn’t bellyache.

Counting your blessings is always a good idea, but calling the Christmas delivery breakdown a “first world problem” points to what’s wrong with that criticism. We want first world reliability, and if the public just shrugged when things went wrong we wouldn’t get it.

Third world conditions are defined not merely by economic misery but by unreliable services. “At the age of fourteen I had experienced a miracle,” writes Suketu Mehta in “Maximum City,” his critically acclaimed 2009 book on Mumbai. “I turned on a tap, and clean water came gushing out. This was in the kitchen of my father’s studio apartment in Jackson Heights [New York]. It had never happened to me before. In Bombay, the tap, when it worked, was always the first step of a process” taking at least 24 hours to produce drinkable water. Mehta’s family lived an affluent life but with third world problems.

By contrast, in a developed country, barring a major natural disaster, you can count on uninterrupted electricity, hot and cold running water, sewage disposal, garbage pickup, heat (and in hot climates, air conditioning), telephone service, Internet access and television. The roads and bridges will be in decent repair; the elevators will work; the ATMs will have cash; and you’ll be able to find a decent public toilet when you need one.

These things aren’t necessarily free, but they’re cheap enough for pretty much everyone to enjoy them. Most significantly, they’re ubiquitous and reliable. Even when natural disasters strike, we can expect heroic efforts to get things back to normal. Under normal circumstances, we can depend on these services to be there consistently and to work as promised. We can make plans accordingly. That’s a first world privilege.

Now think about the Christmas deliveries. Is it reasonable to expect gifts ordered from Amazon.com on Dec. 23 to arrive at your grandkids’ house across the country on Dec. 24? A generation ago no one would have thought so. No one would have expected a mail order to be delivered overnight, especially during the Christmas rush. Just getting it out of the warehouse would have taken a few days. But that has changed.

Online shopping and overnight shipping have become like Google or IMDB. They constitute what what my strategy-professor husband Steven Postrel calls “new-wave utilities,” a category that also includes ubiquitous retailers such as 7-Eleven and Starbucks. These businesses have taught us to count on them -- and take them for granted -- the way we assume the tap water will be clean and the lights will turn on. Unless something goes wrong, we don’t think about how amazing they are or how we got them in the first place.

It took years of sustained efforts by online retailers and delivery services to make overnight orders realistic. It also took dissatisfaction: insanely demanding companies working to please insanely demanding customers -- or, in some cases, to offer customers services they hadn’t even thought to ask for -- as each improvement revealed new sources of discontent.

“Form follows failure,” is what Henry Petroski, the civil engineering professor and prolific popular writer, calls the process. Every step forward begins with a complaint about what already exists. “This principle governs all invention, innovation, and ingenuity; it is what drives all inventors, innovators, and engineers,” he writes. “And there follows a corollary: Since nothing is perfect, and, indeed, since even our ideas of perfection are not static, everything is subject to change over time.”

Rising expectations aren’t a sign of immature “entitlement.” They’re a sign of progress -- and the wellspring of future advances. The same ridiculous discontent that says Starbucks ought to offer vegan pumpkin lattes created Starbucks in the first place. Two centuries of refusing to be satisfied produced the long series of innovations that turned hunger from a near-universal human condition into a “third world problem.”

Complaining about small annoyances can be demoralizing and obnoxious, but demanding complacency is worse. The trick is to simultaneously remember how much life has improved while acknowledging how it could be better. In the new year, then, may all your worries be first world problems.

(Virginia Postrel is a Bloomberg View columnist. Her book, “The Power of Glamour,” was recently published by Simon & Schuster. Her website is at vpostrel.com. Follow her on Twitter at @vpostrel.)

To contact the writer of this article: Virginia Postrel at vp@vpostrel.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net.
 
It is well know, I suppose, by those who follow my posts, that I put a great deal of stock in the so-called transparency indices. I believe that official "honesty," and lack of same, has a real, measurable effect on economic growth, productivity and so on.

The latest results are clearly visible in this graphic (yellow - countries like Canada - are open and "honest," transparent; dark red - countries like Afghanistan and North Korea - have "closed" and corrupt government, and economies that match):


BdLV0rNCQAAvEBD.jpg:large


It is somewhat distressing to note that the USA is "darker" (less open and honest) than Canada; that's not where we want our most important trading partner to be. It is encouraging to see that China is less "dark' than in past years ~ not good, not by any stretch of the imagination, but not as bad as many (even most).
 
Unless my eyes deceive me, the US of A is on par with the majority of the solvent members of the G8 in Europe.  Only the Scandinavian countries seem to be lighter along with Denmark and the Netherlands.
 
George Wallace said:
Unless my eyes deceive me, the US of A is on par with the majority of the solvent members of the G8 in Europe.  Only the Scandinavian countries seem to be lighter along with Denmark and the Netherlands.


And Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong, too.
 
>It is somewhat distressing to note that the USA is "darker"...

Aha!  These accusations of corruption are just window dressing for RACISM!
 
Brad Sallows said:
>It is somewhat distressing to note that the USA is "darker"...

Aha!  These accusations of corruption are just window dressing for RACISM!


:rofl:  Got me, Brad!  :salute:
 
While the specific examples are far more horrifying than London, ON's quest to shut down the local Food Truck industry by demanding all menus be sent to committee for review (to see if they were "diverse enough"), overall this is a variation of the Local Knowledge Problem, with some crony capitalism thrown in for good measure. Dealing with this micro scale harassment of small business will boost economic output in the small business sector, and create jobs and wealth for all Canadians:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-08/for-small-businesses-small-matters.html

For Small Businesses, Small Matters
By Megan McArdle Jan 9, 2014 9:00 AM ET
 
Health insurance just isn't high on the list of small-business owners' worries.

Warren Meyer, whose company operates campgrounds, is getting the hell out of Dodge, by which I mean Ventura County, California:

Never have I operated in a more difficult environment. Ventura County combines a difficult government environment with a difficult employee base with a difficult customer base.

It took years in Ventura County to make even the simplest modifications to the campground we ran. For example, it took 7 separate permits from the County (each requiring a substantial payment) just to remove a wooden deck that the County inspector had condemned. In order to allow us to temporarily park a small concession trailer in the parking lot, we had to (among other steps) take a soil sample of the dirt under the asphalt of the parking lot. It took 3 years to permit a simply 500 gallon fuel tank with CARB and the County equivilent. The entire campground desperately needed a major renovation but the smallest change would have triggered millions of dollars of new facility requirements from the County that we simply could not afford.

In most states we pay a percent or two of wages for unemployment insurance. In California we pay almost 7%. Our summer seasonal employees often take the winter off, working only in the summer, but claim unemployment insurance anyway. They are supposed to be looking for work, but they seldom are and California refuses to police the matter. Several couples spend the whole winter in Mexico, collecting unemployment all the while. So I have to pay a fortune to support these folks' winter vacations.

California is raising minimum wages over the next 2 years by $2. Many of our prices are frozen by our landlord based on past agreements they have entered into, so we had no way to offset these extra costs. At some point, Obamacare will stop waiving its employer mandate and we will owe $2000-$3000 extra additional for each employee. There was simply no way to support these costs without expanding to increase our size, which is impossible (see above) due to County regulations.

A local attorney held regular evening meetings with my employees to brainstorm new ways the could sue our company under arcane California law. For example, we went through three iterations of rules and procedures trying to comply with California break law and changing "safe" harbors supposedly provided by California court decisions. We only successfully stopped the suits by implementing a fingerprint timekeeping system and making it an automatic termination offense to work through lunch. This operation has about 25 employees vs. 400 for the rest of the company. 100% of our lawsuits from employees over our entire 10-year history came from this one site. At first we thought it was a manager issue, so we kept sending in our best managers from around the country to run the place, but the suits just continued.

Ask anyone in the recreation business where their most difficult customers are, and they likely will name the Los Angeles area. It is impossible to generalize of course, because there are great customers from any location, but LA seems to have more than its fair share of difficult, unruly, entitled customers. LA residents are, for example, by far the worst litterers in the country, at least from our experience. Draw a map of California with concentric circles around LA and the further out one gets, the lower the litter clean-up costs we have. But what really killed it for me in Ventura County was the crazy irresponsible drinking and behavior. Ventura County is the only location out of nearly 200 in the country where we had to hire full-time law enforcement help to provide security. At most locations, we would get 1 arrest every month or two (at most). In Ventura we could get 5-10 arrests a day. In the end, I found myself running a location where I would never take my own family.


This is what I meant when I wrote:

We tend to think of the policy issue of the day as being the key issue for everyone. But entrepreneurs think about a lot of things when they’re deciding to start a business, or grow it; health insurance is only one of many. Things such as market conditions, access to capital and overall labor costs loom much larger. Even for someone with a family or an expensive chronic condition, issues such as “How will I pay for food and shelter?” and “Can I really put in the 16- to 18-hour days that are needed to get a new business off the ground?” will often be more important than “How will I afford health insurance?”

On that list, the health-care overhaul is only one item -- and it’s a negative for a business, not a positive.

We tend to talk of entrepreneurship and business growth as if it were a matter of tweaking a few simple policy buttons: lowering taxes, making health insurance cheaper, hamstringing the EPA. Unsurprisingly, these issues map well onto big national policy battles. And yet, when I talk to small-business owners, I’m more likely to get an earful about their state’s workers' compensation scheme or the local utility’s pricing schedule than I am about the federal tax rate. Yet almost none of the policy journalists I know could even describe in detail how workers' compensation insurance works, much less articulate a coherent policy agenda for it.

Then there are the sort of soft institutional issues that Meyer highlights, such as whether the local legal system encourages frivolous lawsuits, or some arcane regulatory issue that’s specific to businesses. These things matter a lot, but they’re hard to measure and even harder to fix.

There are a few lessons in this: If you want to encourage entrepreneurship, talk to business owners, not policy wonks. And you often need to think local, not global.
 
I am posting the link to this (rather long) article here, since the experience in Appalachia is very similar to various regions and pockets of poverty here in Canada, and for many of the same reasons. Sadly, the issue of low quality workers and lack of education/skillsets to draw quality jobs is something that is not quickly repairable, that may be the work of a generation.

Of course, one of the perverse incentives is the bureaucrats who administer the plethora of programs in the region are paid because people are poor and don't have the tools and skillsets to succeed. Eliminate poverty and you eliminate the cushy government jobs as well....

http://nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson
 
Every so often the government gets it right, as illustrated by this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/Feds+double+number+international+students/9388016/story.html
ottawa-citizen-logo-200.gif

Feds to double number of international students

BY PETER O'NEIL, POSTMEDIA NEWS

JANUARY 15, 2014

OTTAWA — The federal government will outline plans Wednesday to double the number of international students in Canada by targeting China and other fast-growing countries, Postmedia News has learned.

It is the latest step in the government’s strategy to inject economic development into the heart of Canada’s foreign policy.

More diplomatic, visa-processing and marketing resources will be shifted to China, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Mexico, and the Middle East-North Africa region, including Turkey, in order to help recruit the world’s best and brightest, Trade Minister Ed Fast is to announce in Toronto.

The goal is to boost the number of international students and academic researchers to more than 450,000 by 2022, which translates into a huge cash injection for universities due in part to the lofty tuitions paid by non-Canadians.

And that will be done “without displacing Canadian students,” Fast is to assure an audience at Ryerson University.

Canadian full-time undergraduates paid on average $5,772 this year, or 3.3 per cent higher than 2012-13, according to Statistics Canada.

International students paid more than triple that amount, and the average $19,514 tuition fee they paid was 6.8 per cent higher than the previous year.

The federal strategy is to boost the number of Canadian jobs “sustained” by international students by 86,500, or double the current number, according to Ottawa’s calculations.

“International education is a key driver of jobs and prosperity in every region of Canada,” Fast is to say Wednesday.

Canada, according to a partial transcript of his prepared statement, is in a “fiercely competitive” battle with other countries, especially the U.S., Britain and Australia for international students.

The strategy will “help us advance Canada’s commercial interests in priority markets around the world and ensure that we maximize the people-to-people ties that help Canadian workers, businesses and world-class educational institutions achieve real success in the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing economies in the world.”

The strategy includes an investment of $13 million over two years in Mitacs, a Vancouver-based national not-for-profit company that helps Canadian university students obtain placements in academic institutions in China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Turkey and Vietnam.

Another $5 million a year, committed in the 2013 federal budget, will fund a “branding and marketing” campaign that will promote Canada as a destination for students seeking a high-quality education at a relatively low cost.

A branding effort is necessary, according to research, because foreigners typically first choose a country they want to study and potentially live in before they select a particular institution.

A 2012 study estimated that international students spent $8 billion a year on tuition, accommodation and discretionary spending — an amount greater than the total annual overseas sales of Canadian helicopters, airplanes and spacecraft.

Ontario and B.C. currently host two-thirds of all international students in Canada.

The report follows the recommendation of a separate 2012 report submitted by a panel headed by University of Western Ontario President Amit Chakma, a native of Bangladesh who obtained two graduate degrees in chemical engineering at the University of B.C. before obtaining positions at the University of Calgary, the University of Regina, and the University of Waterloo.

The panel also included Don Wright, then-president of the B.C. Institute of Technology, and Lorna Smith, director of international education at Calgary’s Mount Royal University.

The 2012 advisory report said the expansion of international students will boost innovation in Canada, make Canadian students “citizens of the world,” create international alumni networks that will facilitate trade and investment, and help ease Canadian skilled labour shortages.

The Harper government has drawn both praise and criticism for realigning Canada’s foreign policy to put a far greater emphasis on trade, investment and the recruitment of skilled workers who can add to Canadian productivity.

One of the more controversial moves was to make the old Canadian International Development Agency a part of the expanded Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. Aid officials have been directed to put more emphasis on aid projects that support Canadian investments abroad, especially in the huge mining industry.

Critics have argued that the moves have de-emphasized matters like human rights and poverty alleviation.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


I think the Canadian North American higher education system is broken. It does not produce the educated people we need, so we have to import them. Too many young Canadians go to universities wherein they take programmes that, properly, even at the graduate school level, belong in colleges ~ journalism and education come to mind. Equally there are too many "studies" programmes that provide what amounts to a post adolescent baby-sitting service, not an education. Meanwhile departments of mathematics, physics, chemistry and applied sciences depend on foreign students and on the Canadian children of recent immigrants.

We need to strengthen the whole system, in my (less than professionally informed) opinion by:

    1. Streaming youngsters into Academic (university bound), Vocational (community college bound) and General (apprenticeship or semi-skilled trades bound) programmes at about Grade 9 level;

    2. Making university entrance even harder, thus encouraging some (many) of the youngsters to pass through the Academic programme in high school to look to the community colleges for their future; and

    3. Importing foreign students to fill the gaps in our own children's levels of academic achievement ~ especially in our graduate school programmes.


 
Former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page gets the symptoms right in an opinion piece in the Toronto Star. He lists our economic woes as follows:

[o]The Canadian economy is in trouble. GDP growth has been declining since the highs of 2010 (4 per cent) and now stands at 1.8 per cent. This is weak given the economy is operating well below its capacity. Weak growth makes it difficult to raise our labour market participation and employment rates.

[o]Our productivity growth, too, is weak. Since 2000, Canada’s business sector labour productivity averaged a meagre 0.8 per cent growth per year, about half the pace we saw over the 1981-2000 period. That’s particularly worrying when you consider that productivity is a key determinate of living standards.

[o]Monetary policy appears to have strengthened asset prices more than it has strengthened economic growth. Our bank rate has been stuck at 1.25 per cent since 2010. Ottawa has gone into austerity mode in an attempt to reduce a small structural deficit it created with large cuts to the GST and corporate income taxes. This has only added fiscal drag to an economy that is already limping.

[o]Income inequality is increasing in Canada and international comparisons put us well behind many European countries. The richest 1 per cent in Canada earns about 10.5 per cent of income, up from about 7 per cent some 30 years ago. About 9 per cent of our population lives in poverty, including some 570,000 of our children. Without aggressive action, these numbers are bound to get worse, not better.

[o]Canadians have also added a lot of debt to our balance sheets. The ratio of household financial liabilities to household disposable income now sits at a record high 166 per cent, compared to 110 per cent in 2000. And as Canadians try to pay off this increased debt, inevitably consumption will further decrease, adding to more economic drift or stagnation.


Now, one can quibble with bits of his list, but, broadly and generally, it is fair and accurate.

Then he goes completely off course with his cure. He doesn't propose any ways to fix anything about the economy, he say: "we cannot overcome the pressing economic challenges before us without the concerted effort of our government institutions." In other words, in his own words: "The time has come to launch a royal commission on the state of our institutions."

No! The last thing Canada needs is the distraction of another slow, plodding, expensive Royal Commission. Ministers, federal and provincial, and business leaders and informed citizens need to propose ways to improve our national productivity ~ interprovincial free trade would be a good start; to boost our exports ~ hello, "Northern Gateway" and "West > East" pipelines; to improve the quality of our secondary and post secondary education ~ even at the expense of quantity; and to continue to contain inflation and government, in general.

The problems Mr Page lists are amenable to solutions; a Royal Commission isn't one of them.
 
>Feds to double number of international students

Short-sighted policy.  In the long term, sucking the best and brightest away from countries that desperately need them is not going to create a more secure community of nations.
 
>The problems Mr Page lists are amenable to solutions

I would start with getting the federal net balance into surplus and letting the cost of borrowing (interest rates) rise.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Feds to double number of international students

Short-sighted policy.  In the long term, sucking the best and brightest away from countries that desperately need them is not going to create a more secure community of nations.


Fair point, and very applicable to some of the countries listed: "China, Vietnam, India, Brazil, Mexico, and the Middle East-North Africa region, including Turkey." But, a handful of those "targeted, fast growing" countries, specifically China, India and, maybe, Vietnam, however, have surpluses of well educated people, too many for their economies to absorb in productive capacities.

In so far as Brazil, Mexico and the Middle East-North Africa region is concerned, however, I agree with you and I oppose taking students from there with the intent that they, eventually, immigrate to Canada to enrich us at the expense of their homelands.


 
One of the factors that hampers Canada's struggle for economic "relevance" is the economic "blindness"of our leaders. That's probably a bit unfair; it isn't that they are blind to what needs to be done, their strategic vision is just obscured by the compelling need to get reelected which means pandering to every special interest group that comes down the pike. BC's Christie Clark is a good example as this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and mail points out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/in-japan-an-lng-revolution-looks-to-canada/article16420312/#dashboard/follows/
My emphasis added.
gam-masthead.png

In Japan, an LNG revolution looks to Canada

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
TOKYO — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 21 2014

It’s winter, and the grass is struggling to take root on the roof of a cavernous new underground tank on the shores of Tokyo Bay. Workers completed the tank, with its thick insulating concrete walls and brilliant stainless steel inner liner, in October. Soon after, it accepted its first load of liquefied natural gas (LNG), chilled to -162 C.

From the ground, it’s all largely invisible: only a slight mound struggling to turn green hints at the enormous energy stored below. “Nobody finds it interesting because you can’t see the tank. It’s hidden,” says Kunijiro Taguchi, a lifetime employee of Tokyo Gas Co Ltd. who now serves as an energetic corporate tour guide.

But in world energy markets, this addition to the Tokyo Gas Ohgishima LNG Terminal – the largest tank of its kind – is an unambiguous signpost of the broad energy transformation under way in Japan. Nearly three years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Japan is only part-way through the work of preparing for a rush of new overseas energy imports, one that stands to see tankers filled with Canadian LNG among the 69 ships each year that pour out their cargoes at Ohgishima.

In fact, for the Japanese government and one of the country’s biggest gas buyers, Canada is emerging as an increasingly favoured source for future energy.

“We are quite looking forward to having long-term relations with Canadian people and Canadian LNG,” said Toshiaki Koizumi, general manager for the fuel department at Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), Japan’s largest utility, whose disaster-stricken Fukushima power plant has left it scrambling for alternatives.

For Canada and in particular British Columbia, much rides on persuading global powers to sign contracts big enough to underpin building an industry that stands to become, in many ways, the West Coast’s own oil sands.

The waters between Japanese power plants and British Columbia gas fields are by no means completely clear: Japan’s buyers are nervous Canada won’t find enough workers to construct the giant citadels of steel required to export Pacific energy. They worry, too, about the looming new B.C. LNG tax – and they warn that LNG may not be the jackpot politicians have promised. In a world where Australia, Russia, Mozambique and the U.S. are all vying to sell ships stuffed with gas, a supply glut is a distinct possibility. If nothing else, bonanza pricing isn’t likely to materialize.

Yet from the Ohgishima LNG Terminal, one of several that keep Tokyo lights on, the need for imported energy seems obvious: last week, amid a chilly cold snap, Tokyo set a record for natural gas consumption. The previous record was set a year earlier. At Ohgishima, it was a high-stakes day: “Everything was at maximum levels. We had to be very careful in our operations,” said Hirota Tomomi, a general manager of safety at the terminal. “We had extra staff on standby, just in case.”

In 2010, nearly 32 per cent of Japan’s electricity came from nuclear. Today, it’s zero. Natural gas, in response, has swollen from 32 to 49 per cent of power generation. Japan is the world’s largest LNG importer.

From Japan, Canada looks like a place with stable governance and advantages of proximity and cold weather, which makes it easier – and cheaper – to chill natural gas into a liquid. Japanese companies already have a commercial interest in four U.S. LNG export projects. Government officials say Canada is likely next. After the U.S., “we used to line it up, say, Russia, Mozambique, Canada. Currently, it’s Canada, Russia Mozambique,” said Tatsu Nishimura, deputy director of the oil and gas division at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

In part, that’s thanks to a concerted effort by politicians who have raised Canada’s profile through Asian travel itineraries heavy on Tokyo stops, Mr. Nishimura said. The Japanese government has recently discussed with officials from Ottawa and Victoria “how we’re going to accelerate these projects in Canada,” he said.

Japan has expressed an interest, too, in finding ways to solve what it sees as one of the highest obstacles to LNG leaving Canada: finding enough people to transform billions of dollars into functioning export plants. “We’re also talking with the government of B.C. how we’re going to produce these labourers or train these people. Japan companies have a lot of experience in LNG projects abroad,” Mr. Nishimura said. While domestic labour would be preferable, Japan has already called on Canada to consider importing people: “Our minister has been saying that we want the government of Canada to maybe expedite visas if they need to,” Mr. Nishimura said.

B.C., however, doesn’t yet have a single LNG project under construction, in part because of long standing problems in finding buyers willing to sign contracts. Japan, for all its energy hunger, is sick of the prices it’s paying. Post-Fukushima, Japan’s LNG imports have soared by 30 per cent. It’s been financially painful. Natural gas is much more expensive than nuclear energy, which helped push the country’s trade deficit to $72-billion in 2012.

“So economic thinking tells us that we have to use our nuclear reactors when the independent regulatory authority verifies their safety,” said Masakazu Toyoda, who heads the Tokyo-based Institute of Energy Economics. Companies have applied to restart 16 reactors; the first could be back up and running this year.

If that happens, Japanese LNG demand stands to decline, rather than rise, at a time of soaring supply. Mr. Toyoda’s institute produces a world LNG forecast. So many companies are looking to build new plants that if they are all built, by 2025 the world would face a roughly 50 per cent oversupply, even under a “high demand” scenario. The LNG ambitions of Canadian business and political leaders are founded, in part, on dreams of fat profits from selling cheap domestic gas at high international prices. Mr. Toyoda thinks that’s unlikely: “Except for transportation and liquefaction costs, the price is going to be identical for all regions,” he said.

At Tepco, meanwhile, Mr. Koizumi can’t quite suppress a grin over something he already sees developing: a buyer’s market.

“To be honest,” he says, “there are many candidates for us to contract with.”


We, Canada, may already have missed the boat.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
One of the factors that hampers Canada's struggle for economic "relevance" is the economic "blindness"of our leaders. That's probably a bit unfair; it isn't that they are blind to what needs to be done, their strategic vision is just obscured by the compelling need to get reelected which means pandering to every special interest group that comes down the pike. BC's Christie Clark is a good example as this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and mail points out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/in-japan-an-lng-revolution-looks-to-canada/article16420312/#dashboard/follows/
My emphasis added.

We, Canada, may already have missed the boat.

Entirely possible.  I sometimes get the feeling that some Canadians, and their politicians, would rather have no jobs, if the option was to have energy industry, or industry spin off, jobs. 

Too busy dithering and pandering to special interest groups as you have stated. 

We may become increasingly stuck with trying to market our energy to the US, at a time where they appear to be becoming less dependent on foreign energy given their increasing success with unconventional natural gas development. 
 
devil39 said:
Entirely possible.  I sometimes get the feeling that some Canadians, and their politicians, would rather have no jobs, if the option was to have energy industry, or industry spin off, jobs. 

Too busy dithering and pandering to special interest groups as you have stated. 

We may become increasingly stuck with trying to market our energy to the US, at a time where they appear to be becoming less dependent on foreign energy given their increasing success with unconventional natural gas development.


It is very possible, even likely, that I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the data I have seen, but my understand ing is that US energy surpluses will be temporary things and it will, most likely, fall back into being net importer of energy in the 2030s.

If that's the case then Canada needs to pursue a long term strategy that remain anchored in meeting US demand, because it is close, easy, familiar, friendly, (mostly) law abiding, and, and, and ... That doesn't mean we don't want to export to Asia; we do, for a whole host of good reasons, but the American market is as as close as damn is to swearing to being guaranteed in the long term.
 
Canada needs to pursue a long term strategy that remain anchored in meeting US demand, because it is close, easy, familiar, friendly, (mostly) law abiding, and, and, and ... That doesn't mean we don't want to export to Asia; we do, for a whole host of good reasons, but the American market is as as close as damn is to swearing to being guaranteed in the long term.

We desperately need that Asian market. It is the only counter to being sucked dry by huge discounts we are giving just to get the oil to US market.

Then, once they (the US), realize they are not the only buyer will we get a fairer price.
 
Speaking of energy, Ontario is learing the same, very painful lesson that Germany and the EU is learning about "Green" energy. By pandering to a particular special interest group (and playing crony capitalism footsie with the "Green" energy providers), Ontario has driven away hundreds fo thousands of manufacturing jobs, stuck Ontarians with some of the highest electricity prices in North America and inflicted massive damage to the economic balance sheet (paying $.135 kW/hr for wind energy, but having to dump it at $.04 kW/hr when the wind is blowing at off peak times, for example. During peak hours, if the wind is blowing, nuclear and thermal power plants have to vent steam, and hydro plants have to spill water to keep the Grid from crashing, and of course, very expensive natural gas "shoulder" plants have to be built and run on "hot idle" 24/7 to pick up the slack if the wind suddenly shifts or varies. Why the cost of two plants cancelled by the McGuinty government cost the Ontario taxpayer @ $500 million, although many documants are missing that could have given a clearer picture).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html#spRedirectedFrom=www&referrrer=https://m.facebook.com

Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals

By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels

Europe may be backing away from its ambitious climate protection goals.
The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking -- jeopardizing Germany's touted energy revolution in the process.

The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development ofrenewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires -- climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions; raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent; and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.

All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

Germany's Energy Goals at Risk

The Commission's move further isolates Germany. Merkel's government, a "grand coalition" of her conservatives and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), seeks to increase the share of renewables in the country's energy mix to 60 percent by 2036. As reported in the latest issue of SPIEGEL, Sigmar Gabriel, SPD chair and minister of energy and economics, recently urged Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger to put forth mandatory expansion targets for renewable energy in the EU by 2030. Europe "can't afford to pass up this opportunity," Gabriel wrote.

But within the Commission, the ambitious project has long been controversial. The same goes for EU member states, as Gabriel recently discovered. Prior to Christmas the minister, together with eight colleagues from throughout the EU, called for a "renewables target" in a letter to the Commission. But some countries, such as France, joined the appeal only hesitantly at the time. Paris might prefer instead to rely more heavily on nuclear power in order to meet stringent carbon emission requirements.

Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, a German from Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, has also shown reluctance. Rather than setting clear goals for the share of renewables, he wants fixed targets only for the reduction of carbon emissions -- and he is skeptical even of the 40 percent target proposed by Climate Commissioner Hedegaard.

The Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) writes in a recent study that more moderate EU climate goals and less support for renewable energies could have a real impact on Germany's so-called Energiewende, or energy revolution. "In such a context," writes the nonpartisan think tank, "it will be increasingly difficult for Germany to successfully carry out pioneering policies."

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/01/20/an-economist-post-mortem-on-germanys-late-great-green-plan/

An Economist Post Mortem on Germany’s Late, Great Green Plan

Germany’s turn towards green energy—its energiewende—cost consumers nearly $30 billion last year without actually making the country any greener. What exactly is this polysyllabic mess of an energy policy? The Economist explains:

More a marketing slogan than a coherent policy, the Energiewende is mainly a set of timetables for different goals. Germany’s last nuclear plant is to be switched off in 2022. The share of renewable energy from sun, wind and biomass is meant to rise to 80% of electricity production, and 60% of overall energy use, by 2050. And emissions of greenhouse gases are supposed to fall, relative to those in 1990, by 70% in 2040 and 80-95% by 2050.

This all sounds very nice, but in practice it’s been disastrous for Germany. At the heart of the matter is the simple fact that renewable energy comes at a premium, and the costs for propping it up have been passed along to consumers, both industrial and residential, in the form of higher electricity costs.

Yet this turn towards green energy has produced a browner energy landscape. Germany produced more energy from coal in 2013 than it had in nearly a quarter century, and its emissions actually rose. The Economist describes the effect at play:

The Energiewende has, in effect, upset the economics of building new conventional power plants, especially those fired by gas, which is cleaner but more expensive than coal. So existing coal plants are doing more duty. Last year electricity production from brown coal (lignite), the least efficient and dirtiest sort, reached its highest level since 1990. Gas-fired power production, by contrast, has been declining (see chart). In effect, the Energiewende has so far increased, not decreased, emissions of greenhouse gases.

German businesses are considering jumping ship for cheaper energy prices in the developing world or (gasp!) the United States. For households, these subsidies have acted like a particularly regressive tax. The poor feel the bite of higher electricity bills than do the rich. Germany’s new energy and economy minister Sigmar Gabriel is expected to announce a plan to cut renewable energy subsidies later this week in an effort to keep electricity prices down. That will be a step in the right direction, but significant damage has already been done.

Published on January 20, 2014 2:06 pm

"ut significant damage has already been done." Indeed.
 
Thucydides said:
Before anyone throws a fit of snark and says this article is about the United States (it is), I want everyone to sit down and think about the corresponding situation(s) here. Canada has over $500 billion in federal public debt. Ontario alone has $200 billion in Provincial public debt (and rising rapidly), Quebec and virtually all the other provinces are in the same boat. Unfunded Federal liabilities are estimated to be another $500 billion (mostly pensions and benefits to federal workers), and while I have not been able to find collated figures for the provinces, there is little reason to think the situation is different. Municipalities add yet another toxic layer to this cake of indebtedness and unfunded liabilities.

So yes, if you are doing "the right things" to protect youself and families, the political class sees you as a target, and there is little doubt in my mind Canadian politicians are coming for your wealth too.

How to protect yourself will be interesting and difficult; you will have to adopt a lifestyle that minimises your exposure and dependence on the "grid", become self sufficient in many regards and perhaps change your lifestyle towards the "extreme retirement" movement, where you control and minimise every possible expense. Urban "victory gardens" in the back yard might be the sign of the times in the near to mid future.

Or, we could work to displace the current political class and remove the tax, regulatory and institutional barriers to economic growth, while cutting spending and focusing on the true responsibilities of government.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/mass-affluent-are-political-and.html


More on this, but it is also related to this (Public Service Compensation and Benefits), and this (Canadian Federal Budget 2014) and even this (Politics in 2014), in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rob-insight/ottawas-math-leaves-taxpayers-on-hook-for-pensions/article16556948/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Ottawa’s budget balancing may come with big pension asterisk

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

David Parkinson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jan. 29 2014

For the C.D. Howe Institute, the problem with Ottawa’s quest for a balanced budget in 2015 isn’t (as most critics charge) the economic damage from pursuing austerity at a time when the economy is struggling. Rather, it’s that the budget might be balanced in name only – propped up by unrealistic pension accounting that, sooner or later, taxpayers will have to pay for.

In a meeting with The Globe and Mail’s Editorial Board in advance of the release Wednesday of the think tank’s annual Shadow Budget report, C.D. Howe president William Robson and associate research director Alexandre Laurin argued in support of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s balanced-budget goal. But they were highly critical of Ottawa’s accounting methods surrounding government-employee pensions and retirement benefits – which, they say, are masking the full costs.

Mr. Robson argued that while Ottawa has gotten better at recognizing and addressing its massive pension and benefits burden, those costs remain “badly understated” in its budgets. A key issue for C.D. Howe is the assumptions the government makes on the returns it can generate from investments used to fund these benefits, which it believes are too aggressive in the extended low-interest-rate environment.

Indeed, C.D. Howe estimates that if Ottawa adopted a more realistic “fair value” accounting of its pension and benefit funding costs, its annual budget deficits over the past five fiscal years would have been, on average, $13.7-billion higher than what the government actually reported. As returns have improved, in the most recent fiscal year, ended March 31, 2013, the deficit would have been $21.5-billion under C.D. Howe’s recommended approach, rather than the $18.9-billion reported by Ottawa.

But the point is not really to argue that Ottawa is being dishonest as it closes in on a balanced budget. The C.D. Howe Institute has long questioned Ottawa’s pension accounting. Critics of C.D. Howe’s position (and there are plenty, particularly among Ottawa bureaucrats and public-sector unions) insist that the government is in line with typical pension-plan accounting practices, that its assumptions are not too aggressive, and that fair-value accounting is not a good fit for a government, which unlike a private company is in no danger of going out of business.

But Mr. Laurin and Mr. Robson’s point is that Ottawa is placing much of the risk for funding the federal government’s pension and retirement obligations at the doorstep of the taxpayers. If there’s a gap between the assumptions on which retirement benefits are based, and the actual investment returns generated to pay for those guaranteed benefits, it must be paid for – sooner or later – out of tax revenue. Obviously, that should be problematic for a government that wants to balance its budget in the name of protecting taxpayers.

If you buy that taxpayer-risk notion – and as a taxpayer, it’s compelling – that forms the basis for an argument that Ottawa should be more conservative in its pension accounting. It also makes a case – a key recommendation from C.D. Howe’s Shadow Budget – that the government needs to shift more of the risk to the beneficiaries of the pension and benefits plans, by increasing employees’ contributions.

This idea wouldn’t make the government particularly popular among members of the federal civil service, who have already been asked to increase their contributions. But with an election approaching in 2015, the broader voting public – the vast majority of whom don’t have pensions and retirement benefits nearly as sweet as those employed by Ottawa, and many of whom, to be frank, are resentful of that – might find the share-the-risk argument a compelling one. On the pension issue, good fiscal management might prove good politics, too. Maybe not as exciting as a balanced budget in an election year – but potentially more sustainable.


I know, I know ... this is about accounting, for gods' sake  ::)  and we want to read about military stuff!  :warstory:

Trust me, this matters to, eventually, the defence budget. There is an old ~ true ~ adage: "you can't manage what you can't measure." If we, the country, are not properly, accurately, measuring the costs of our pension obligations then how can we claim to have a good handle on our budgeting processes?

I'm not sure which side is more accurate but there might be somewhere between $4Billion and $14Billion "missing" from our national books ~ it's money you and I (and everyone else in Canada) owes but don't really know we owe. If we, the Canadian people, ever decide that the "taxpayer risk notion" is correct then we will want to, either:

    1. Increase taxes to bring the budget back into balance; or

    2. Cut spending ~ and we all know that the defence budget is always a prime target.

On a personal level, if you come down on the side of C.D. Howe president William Robson then you are, probably, saying, "I think the government needs to either a) pay me a slightly less generous pension when I retire, or b) deduct a bit more from my pay now."  :nod:
 
E.R. Campbell said:
To add a bit, I have attached a spreadsheet which is an index of indices. It shows the Top 10%/Top 20 in eight different categories: GDP (per capita), transparency (an expression of least corrupt governments), economic freedom (an expression of protection of property right at law), democracy (an expression of liberal democracy, including e.g. rights to freedom of speech and assembly), quality of life, human development, life expectancy (an indicator of public health) and defence spending.

Now I can be ~ should be ~ accused of "cooking the books" just a wee bit, but, in truth, those are the sorts of indices I follow.

In my estimation if your country's name isn't in colour you are not very "advanced," you may be rich but your still quite underdeveloped in broad  terms. Equally, the higher up the colour scale you go (from red through blue, green and orange through to magenta) the more advanced you are.

It will not be surprising to see that the "top" countries (magenta, orange, green and blue) are all rich ... it is hard to make progress if you are poor.

Perhaps the top two will be a tiny bit surprising. But it is also, maybe, worthy of note, that the USA just sneaks into the top 20 in 3 of the 8 indices and that France, Spain and Italy, all G-8 members, don't, really, make the grade at all.

Is there a coalition of democracies that have the economic and social capacity to work, in all areas including militarily on a global basis? Yes: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. (Note that Singapore doesn't make the "top 20" in the democracy index because of its restrictions of freedom of association, assembly and, to a lesser degree, speech.)


And the conservative (as Americans use ~ misuse ~ that term) Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for 2014 is out. Canada is in a respectable 6th place, behind Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand and well ahead of 12th place USA and 14th place UK.

The Heritage Foundation says, "Over the 20-year history of the Index, Canada has advanced its economic freedom score by 10.7 points, the third biggest improvement among developed economies. Substantial score increases in seven of the 10 economic freedoms, including investment freedom, fiscal freedom, and the management of public spending, have enabled Canada to elevate its economic freedom status from “moderately free” 20 years ago to “free” today."

Now, many will argue that the Heritage Foundation's definition of "economic freedom" equates to the near slavery for the poor (uneducated) and repression of e.g. the trade union movement.

I have spent a good deal of time, over the years, in Singapore and Hong Kong and I can see that some of their 'economic freedom' is, indeed, paid for by those who benefit least from it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top