Chretien begins forming his fascist dictatorship

[Asher]

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/BudgetAndFiscalPlan/bgt2002_chart_sum_5.htm

14% of BC's revenue comes from resource revenue in 2001/2002.

[KrazyHorse]

And what's the difference in GDP per capita between Alta. and BC?

[Asher]

No idea, but Alberta surpassed BC's GDP in 2001, with about 3/4 of the population.

Ours is growing at a far, far higher rate thanks to a government which encourages it.

[Asher]

Here we go. Year 2000.

Alberta GDP: $119B
Alberta Population: 3,088,706
Alberta GDP per capita: $38,527

British Columbia GDP: $124B
British Columbia Population: 4,058,000
British Columbia GDP per capita: $30,557

[David James]

Well if we assume for a moment that BC and Alta have the same GPP and that Alta's population is 2/3 of BC's then GPP per capita in Alberta would have to be 3/2 of that of BC, or 50% higher. If Alberta's GPP is greater still, then GPP/capita in Alberta is likewise greater still. So there's your difference, KH

[KrazyHorse]

Now go back 30 years and add up how much revenue is derived from investments made due to oil industry since then. It's a silly comparison (we've got a right-wing government, they don't, we're richer than them, QED). Praytell, why did Alta only start getting richer than BC in 1970? (After a good 35 years of Social Credit government)

Wait...I smell another false analogy. We're farther left than the Brits, look how we've gotten richer in comparison to them in the last 50 years. QED.

Alberta's growth has been bought and paid for by the oil industry. Have fun when you start running dry, or when pop. influx drives that GDP per cap back down to national average...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David James
Well if we assume for a moment that BC and Alta have the same GPP and that Alta's population is 2/3 of BC's then GPP per capita in Alberta would have to be 3/2 of that of BC, or 50% higher. If Alberta's GPP is greater still, then GPP/capita in Alberta is likewise greater still. So there's your difference, KH

a) The pop. of Alta. is 3/4 of BC, not 2/3

b) The GDP of Alta appears to not quite have caught up with BC

c) How much of that money is simply flowing back down south to the American owners of the capital infrastructure requored to produce the oil?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Now go back 30 years and add up how much revenue is derived from investments made due to oil industry since then. It's a silly comparison (we've got a right-wing government, they don't, we're richer than them, QED). Praytell, why did Alta only start getting richer than BC in 1970? (After a good 35 years of Social Credit government)

Simple: Population influx. Nobody wanted to live here until they saw a point to it all.

Wait...I smell another false analogy. We're farther left than the Brits, look how we've gotten richer in comparison to them in the last 50 years. QED.

Are we richer than them? That's news to me. How come we have to buy subs from them?

Alberta's growth has been bought and paid for by the oil industry. Have fun when you start running dry, or when pop. influx drives that GDP per cap back down to national average...

Of course, oil has a big part of Alberta's revenue.

But again, I've said it before, if the NDP were in Power, Alberta would be in FAR worse shape.

Hell, look at the oil fields in North Eastern BC. During the NDP's reign development was halted on all of those fields, and now that a reasonably more sane government is in charge they're in negotiations again.

Meanwhile, Alberta's economy is diversifying at a rapid rate, to the point of theoretically being able to shrug off a $10/barrle price in oil without hurting us bad at all.

The NDP typically has NO clue how to use economics. For that reason they're NDP, I guess. I've never met one economist that was an NDPer. Suppose there's a reason for that?

[David James]

I wrote that last post whilst Asher posted his new info. Let's correct myself. Again, assume a similar sized GPP but this time a pop ratio of 3/4... So Alberta's GPP/capita would have to be 4/3 that of BC. The actual numbers aren't far off, but Alberta's GPP/capita still isn't high enough for her total GPP to exceed BC's, which as we see is the case. So I blame Asher for posting incorrect population data

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
b) The GDP of Alta appears to not quite have caught up with BC

It did in 2001, not 2000. It was my bad.

c) How much of that money is simply flowing back down south to the American owners of the capital infrastructure requored to produce the oil?

What does this have to do with anything?

Canada already gets to tax these companies (they tax ChevronTexaco Canada, etc) so why does it matter who gets the money after that, as long as they keep investing in the region where it's coming from?

You sound like some kind of rabid protectionist without a clue.

[KrazyHorse]

Are we richer than them? That's news to me. How come we have to buy subs from them?

Our GDP per cap is ~20% higher than theirs, IIRC.

[Asher]

KH, check out this article which discusses some of the government policies that stagnated BC's growth in the 90s: http://www.ica.bc.ca/kb.php3?catid=333&artid=515

[KrazyHorse]

What does this have to do with anything?

Canada already gets to tax these companies (they tax ChevronTexaco Canada, etc) so why does it matter who gets the money after that, as long as they keep investing in the region where it's coming from?

You sound like some kind of rabid protectionist without a clue

Simple. That portion of the money is shouldn't be counted as part of your GDP, if we're doing this as a study in comparative economics. The labour and natural resource comes from Alta, but the capital investment (and thus profits) should be accounted to the US, since nobody in Canada sees hide nor hair of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Simple. That portion of the money is shouldn't be counted as part of your GDP, if we're doing this as a study in comparative economics. The labour and natural resource comes from Alta, but the capital investment (and thus profits) should be accounted to the US, since nobody in Canada sees hide nor hair of it.

That's completely untrue.

Canada sees the taxes from it (you make it sound like ChevronTexaco benefits from all the work in Canada, when ChevronTexaco Canada, a Canadian company, actually does).
Canada sees employment from it.
Canada sees investment from it.

The Canadian company, ChevronTexaco Canada, actually sees the profits and uses money for capital investment also.

By your logic, GDP should actually be GDP - Net Exports.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher
KH, check out this article which discusses some of the government policies that stagnated BC's growth in the 90s: http://www.ica.bc.ca/kb.php3?catid=333&artid=515

That article demonstrates everything that's wrongheaded about tax-cutting as a means to draw business in. It's a zero-sum game, since if everybody engaged in it all we'd see is businesses remaining where they were in the first place with less and less responsibility to the communities where they operate. Wait; that's what has happened in the last 30 years! Maybe that's why median incomes have stagnated across the First World?