What happens to land prices during western separation(or not)?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The biggest reason is the ongoing collapse of the world (free) trade order as we have known it all our lives. The US will literally be the only market able to dictate who buys their products, and whose products they are willing to buy, if any, in an every shrinking world economy. Being on the outside of that looking in will not be good for agriculture, let alone any other industry. Like I said in my first post, the third option is a normalization of trade and responsible governance, if you think both of those are likely, then disregard the entire conversation.

The fact that no one acknowledges or responds to this post tells us all we need to know about the level of preparation most farmers have made in regards to very real and imminent existential threats to their entire livelihood and value of their assets. Which completely explains why so many do not concern themselves with the consequences a separation movement would have on their operation and assets.

The vast majority still cling to the desperate hope that the Trump era is a temporary aberration, and that everything will go back to the way it should be as soon as the next election is over. And by the time they realize that this is one of those paradigm shifts, it will be too late.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Do you think America is more mathematically inclined towards its rural population? Last I checked their urban centres grossly outnumbered rural areas as well.

Also a quick look at the complete wreck their Ag industry is facing with weather alone, how much support do you really think there would be for you as a 51st state? Even if statehood was seamlessly adopted (because all things in politics are smooth and seamless, especially when politicians say they will be). The government will give relief to farmers in trouble? Sure, when such a large portion of their farmers are either flooded out or in drought, I’m sure there’ll be lots of relief to go around for us. Plus their Ag industry is highly crutched up by subsidies when compared to ours.

Maybe that’s what you want? The ability to get a higher profit from an inflated model with no actual bearing on what the market is paying. Yes in Canada our products are generally undervalued but at least we aren’t being held afloat by a thin cloud of government subsidies.

Every state has equal representation, regardless of population, which has its own obvious pitfalls, but does give rural areas much more clout than representation by population alone.

The biggest reason is the ongoing collapse of the world (free) trade order as we have known it all our lives. The US will literally be the only market able to dictate who buys their products, and whose products they are willing to buy, if any, in an every shrinking world economy. Being on the outside of that looking in will not be good for agriculture, let alone any other industry. Like I said in my first post, the third option is a normalization of trade and responsible governance, if you think both of those are likely, then disregard the entire conversation.

[Blaithin]

Do you think America is more mathematically inclined towards its rural population? Last I checked their urban centres grossly outnumbered rural areas as well.

Also a quick look at the complete wreck their Ag industry is facing with weather alone, how much support do you really think there would be for you as a 51st state? Even if statehood was seamlessly adopted (because all things in politics are smooth and seamless, especially when politicians say they will be). The government will give relief to farmers in trouble? Sure, when such a large portion of their farmers are either flooded out or in drought, I’m sure there’ll be lots of relief to go around for us. Plus their Ag industry is highly crutched up by subsidies when compared to ours.

Maybe that’s what you want? The ability to get a higher profit from an inflated model with no actual bearing on what the market is paying. Yes in Canada our products are generally undervalued but at least we aren’t being held afloat by a thin cloud of government subsidies.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

On the topic of land prices during separation, Blaithin is on the same track as I am. The economic turmoil of separation would be disastrous. Think of creating new trade agreements from scratch from a new country, finding ways to export our product, establishing a national bank and currency. All that uncertainty is really bad, and lasts for years. It's not a process that happens over a few months. Some farmers are broken by a couple bad years, nevermind 5-10 years worth of secession and establishment / entry into statehood. Separation (and then joining another country) takes time, and in the meantime, we suffer.

There are countries who would not support an independent Western Canada. They have their own independence movements that they wish to suppress, so why would they recognize and support us? That would lend credibility to their own movements. So we lose potential markets.

Then, if we're independent with our own currency, we're even more privy to the fluctuations of a petrodollar. Oil is high, economy rolling well? Currency value inflates, grain prices go down. When the opposite happens, our commodities go up but then try to buy farm equipment at a reasonable price. That kind of yo-yo-ing isn't good for investing in land. Bargain basement prices all around!

Under the scenario you lay out, the outcome would be at least as bad as what you and Blaithlin are expecting. Independence, or a long messy drawn out affair would be the worst possible scenarios. Even if the eventual outcome is joining the US, and an economic boom, most of us would have lost everything by the time that happens, not hard to have a boom starting over from scratch, also hard to participate if you have nothing...

Which is why neither of those two options are even a consideration to anyone with common sense. When asked directly about this issue, Peter Zeihan stated that Alberta would be accepted with full statehood within a few months if we asked, and Sask would be there before the ink dries. It would have to be a quick painless transition such as that to avoid massive pain.

And Blaithlin, your suggestion of advocating for change from within, is certainly admirable, but it comes back to my earlier comment about those with the ability to do math. It is not mathematically possible that the west can affect change from within the current political structure, regardless of who is in power, or where their sympathies lie. It is political suicide given the population distribution of the country. One party may pay more lip service to it than the other, but none dare actually do anything to alienate the voting base in the ROC.

[grassfarmer]

I don’t see how you can say most land, other than 9.7%, is owned by the Crown, or Queen of England, when the Dominions Land Act gave ownership to homesteaders upon meeting the requirements.

Agreed - I know when I sold up in AB the money went into my bank account not Liz's.

[the big wheel]

Those that don’t like Canada should fk off to trump land. Do you people that want to separate really think we have the brain power at the leadership positions to manage the chaos that there would be? Wall couldn’t even manage 110 dollar oil broke all of us and sent the bill to us farmers. Meanwhile his best friends at input and ag capital and all the land dead etc filled their pockets. And what else do we have here? Lmao

[chuckChuck]

The overvalued petro dollar and high energy prices had negative impacts on many other sectors during the boom. Fuel prices, labour and land price inflation all had a negative impact on many farms. Inflation drove up the cost of living in western canada. It was great if you had a high paying oil job but the rest of us didn't and had to pay more.

Lots of manufacturing jobs were lost in Ontario with the high dollar. Farmers were lucky that the price of many ag commodities were also high other wise we would have been killed by the high dollar. Imagine current prices of grains if the USD and CAD were par now? Take 30% off your prices!

Now that the shoe is on the other foot there is a lot of complaining from the oil sector. Yes it sucks to be out of a job. But the world price of oil dropped because of supply and demand. Other countries saw the same impact regardless of what national policies they had or have. Even the Saudis are planing on diversifying!

Many people have short memories and want to blame politicians for everything.

[Marusko]

On the topic of land prices during separation, Blaithin is on the same track as I am. The economic turmoil of separation would be disastrous. Think of creating new trade agreements from scratch from a new country, finding ways to export our product, establishing a national bank and currency. All that uncertainty is really bad, and lasts for years. It's not a process that happens over a few months. Some farmers are broken by a couple bad years, nevermind 5-10 years worth of secession and establishment / entry into statehood. Separation (and then joining another country) takes time, and in the meantime, we suffer.

There are countries who would not support an independent Western Canada. They have their own independence movements that they wish to suppress, so why would they recognize and support us? That would lend credibility to their own movements. So we lose potential markets.

Then, if we're independent with our own currency, we're even more privy to the fluctuations of a petrodollar. Oil is high, economy rolling well? Currency value inflates, grain prices go down. When the opposite happens, our commodities go up but then try to buy farm equipment at a reasonable price. That kind of yo-yo-ing isn't good for investing in land. Bargain basement prices all around!

[samhill]

In 1871, the Government of Canada entered into Treaty 1 and Treaty 2 to obtain the consent of the indigenous nations from the territories set out respectively in each Treaty. The Treaties provided for the taking up of lands "for immigration and settlement". In order to settle the area, Canada invited mass emigration by European and American pioneers, and by settlers from eastern Canada. It echoed the American homestead system by offering ownership of 160 acres of land free (except for a small registration fee) to any man over 18 or any woman heading a household. They did not need to be British subjects, but had to live on the plot and improve it.[1


I don’t see how you can say most land, other than 9.7%, is owned by the Crown, or Queen of England, when the Dominions Land Act gave ownership to homesteaders upon meeting the requirements.

[chuckChuck]

Aspiring to do better is the opposite of doom and gloom. It is called ambition and optimism for the future. You are the one who keeps referring to anyone not willing to accept change and improvements as Knuckle draggers or similar.

And I'm sure you don't see the irony in having someone from the eternal climate doomsday cult calling anyone with a plan to improve our future prospects a doomsdayer?

Protecting the environment and creating a sustainable 21st century economy that provides good jobs for everyone is not a step backwards.

You want to take us back to the "glory" days of resource extraction with no regulations and little enforcement to protect the environment. One industry towns and maybe provinces sometimes turn into empty shells when the resources run out and they don't want to pay attention to the changes in markets and environmental issues.

Take the easy money and run and let somebody else pay to cleanup the mess! That's the history of resource extraction and exploitation around the world. Privatize the profits and socialize the cleanup and degradation.

The oil companies aren't even willing to pay for cleaning up the suspended, abandoned and orphaned wells, let alone the devastation caused by the tar sands or damage caused by climate change.

Taxpayers and landowners will be on the hook for billions and the legacy of environmental degradation and resource depletion.