Fakeconomics . . . .

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Fakeconomics . . . .

Jul 28, 2020 | 07:33 61 Here is a real life example of fakeconomics....


Spending 4 billion of taxpayer money for 300 farmers thinking you can create an industry while the first investment of 100000 acres hasn't done jack shit for a ROI to the taxpayers...

I was at meeting in Tugaske a few years back and a now agricultural Hall of Famer said ..." Riverhurst wasn't a big enough project to make a difference"""

Irrigation funded by the province is an excellent example of fakeconomics......
Last edited by bucket; Jul 29, 2020 at 16:29.
Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 28, 2020 | 07:50 62
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Here is a real life example of fakeconomics....


    Spending 4 billion of taxpayer money for 300 farmers thinking you can create an industry while the first investment of 100000 acres hasn't done jack shit for a ROI to the taxpayers...

    I was at meeting in Tugaske a few years back and a now agricultural Hall of Fame said ..." Riverhurst was a big enough project to make a difference"""

    Irrigation funded by the province is an excellent example of fakeconomics......
    Economics is more then just profit. The difference it made is ensuring grain supply exceeds demand. For some, that translates into good economics.

    Cheap food is good economics, the US figured out long ago to support primary production for value added businesses to use cheap food raw inputs rather then supporting all the value added industries. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 28, 2020 | 10:15 63 if irrigation had any economic sense the investor groups would have been in here long ago...Matter of fact they have had 50 years to spend their money....they phucking well know its a bad investment...

    If the province had any sense they would use the 4 billion to build the dam at Leader. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 28, 2020 | 11:13 64 The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 28, 2020 | 14:39 65 Here is a question, how many miles of highway 16 could have been twinned and how many modern rest stops could have been built with that 4B? It probably would have put more people in the heavy construction business back to work than an irrigation project. Would have made our province look a bit better. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 29, 2020 | 04:48 66
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Economics View Post
    The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions.
    Better question is ...how much are the users of the irrigation project willing to pay?

    I ask because the government is still funding the 3 major irrigation projects and they were gifted the taxpayer funded infrastructure ....

    In the riverhurst area that's a 75 million capital asset according to the asset evaluation. ....for maybe 20 farmers....

    So capital assets gifted and funding for a few years. ..plus funding throughout the last 30 years...

    A dam would have far more economic benefit for the general population in the form of tourism and recreation ....

    Wakeboard and fishing boats are not funded for by taxpayers... Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 04:56 67
    Quote Originally Posted by bucket View Post
    Wakeboard and fishing boats are not funded for by taxpayers...
    Since CERB I think some are... Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 05:01 68
    Quote Originally Posted by farming101 View Post
    Since CERB I think some are...
    Maybe but cerb is a taxable benefit.


    The 40 dollars an acre currently provided to the irrigation districts is not....nor is the capital infrastructure gifted to them....

    The least they could do with irrigation is make the funding to those that benefit from it....is make some of it a taxable benefit... Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 05:46 69
    Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Economics View Post
    The question of whether to build a dam or not is simple enough to answer: how much are the users of the water willing to pay for it? If the cost exceeds the benefits, then the dam will not be built. Politicians should stay out of the equation. They routinely tout such projects as investments when, by any sensible standard, they are money-losing, capital consuming propositions.
    The world is going electric whether some want to admit it or not, you are right it has to be feasible but with the demand for power increasing greatly you would think that it would certainly be a prudent investment for the future. But not If the petrol industry owns you I would suppose. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 07:22 70 David Rosenberg


    We've reached a sorry state where a $1T fiscal stimulus bill is viewed as austerity. Obama's 2009 stimulus was $831B, by comparison. Bush's tax cuts of 2001/2003 were $150B annually. It's not really a sorry state as much as a welfare state. Not a judgment here, just a reality. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 09:19 71
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    The world is going electric whether some want to admit it or not, you are right it has to be feasible but with the demand for power increasing greatly you would think that it would certainly be a prudent investment for the future. But not If the petrol industry owns you I would suppose.
    Really? Where did you get that data? US and Canadian electricity consumption appear to have peaked within the last 10 years. Last I checked, if you remove China and a few other rapidly industrialising nations, the rest of the world is seeing flat to declining demand. A combination of efficiencies, prohibitively expensive prices thanks to Chuck's policies which have resulted in outsourcing of energy intensive industries, demographics etc, are responsible. I would be interested to see your data. Reply With Quote

  • Jul 29, 2020 | 12:03 72 If the world is going electric, then why is Manitoba Hydro on the verge of insolvency? The dams they recently built are basically a stranded asset. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 12:22 73 When we all start plugging in cars and eventually tractors to do field work which isn’t that far off relatively speaking. The problem will be the grid not having enough power.
    Getting rid of oil or lowering consumption is here also nobody wants our oil yet we want to expand. It’s all politics of the petroleum industry controlling governments.

    I can’t speak for Manitoba hydro except I did hear there was more a case of mismanagement rather than lack of demand. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 13:22 74
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    When we all start plugging in cars and eventually tractors to do field work which isn’t that far off relatively speaking. The problem will be the grid not having enough power.
    Getting rid of oil or lowering consumption is here also nobody wants our oil yet we want to expand. It’s all politics of the petroleum industry controlling governments.

    I can’t speak for Manitoba hydro except I did hear there was more a case of mismanagement rather than lack of demand.
    My mistake, I thought we were both talking about actual demand, not Chucks mythical electric vehicle demand. EV sales declined in 2019 long before COVID and the oil price crash, Hey are showing huge declines in 2020 and the industry forecasts declines to continue till 2022. And it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories about energy companies, it is all about economics. Besides, Wyehwood fossil fuel companies be against EV's when they are still fossil fuel powered, just indirectly?
    You really need to stop getting your info from Chuck's propaganda, and do the research yourself. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 13:47 75
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    My mistake, I thought we were both talking about actual demand, not Chucks mythical electric vehicle demand. EV sales declined in 2019 long before COVID and the oil price crash, Hey are showing huge declines in 2020 and the industry forecasts declines to continue till 2022. And it has nothing to do with conspiracy theories about energy companies, it is all about economics. Besides, Wyehwood fossil fuel companies be against EV's when they are still fossil fuel powered, just indirectly?
    You really need to stop getting your info from Chuck's propaganda, and do the research yourself.
    Sorry I don’t have time to read chucks long winded spiels. Canada is behind most countries that’s why maybe you don’t think the change is coming. We re so backwards with these western provincial governments who only have a narrow minded view of the future. Not all of us can get jobs after we destroy a provincial economy and then be consultants advising for top end oil company lawyers. Lmao!!!!

    Very familiar with what’s going on state wise. Ev car parts is expanding greatly. Major car companies shifting production. It’s what’s happenning.

    It’s sad how many are brainwashed into thinking sitting and waiting for 100 dollar oil is the future. While your sitting those crooks are raking in money overcharging is for worthless oil making us less competive to produce goods that should be the future.
    Beyond stupid!!!! Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 14:35 76 Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 17:03 77 No, actually Canada is ahead of most countries in electric vehicle sales, 2019 figures at 2.7% total vehicle sales, Compared to only 2.4% worldwide.
    With our Hydro resources, An abundant land locked nearly free natural gas, Electricity here should be so cheap that electric vehicles would be a no-brainer. But unfortunately Chuck and Friends have successfully driven electricity prices higher at a time when they should have been dropping, ruining the best incentive possible to owning an EV. Reply With Quote
    Jul 29, 2020 | 17:36 78
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertaFarmer5 View Post
    No, actually Canada is ahead of most countries in electric vehicle sales, 2019 figures at 2.7% total vehicle sales, Compared to only 2.4% worldwide.
    With our Hydro resources, An abundant land locked nearly free natural gas, Electricity here should be so cheap that electric vehicles would be a no-brainer. But unfortunately Chuck and Friends have successfully driven electricity prices higher at a time when they should have been dropping, ruining the best incentive possible to owning an EV.
    Those numbers mean about as much as the covid numbers. If you have populations that don’t change cars often they will have their old cars If low income they have their old cars and yes if electricity is cheaper they will have their electric cars. You can make any argument fit your narrative at this point. But the facts are all the major car manufactures are headed in a certain direction.
    Maybe more electric here per capita due to too high gas prices? But you’d have to look at all the other factors as well. Lol

    You also give to the argument produce more electricity to make it cheaper. That’s not only good for cars it’s good for production of any good we make. And we d make a lot more goods here if electricity and oil was cheaper here.

    Travelling stateside it is way easier to charge up your vehicle than here at least where I ve been.

    But hey let’s sit here and wait for 100 dollar oil so we can spend more than we bring in like the last time. And raise the cost of farming Lmao!!!
    Ass backwards thinking is what we currently have. But people are making good money on it. Reply With Quote
  • 1 Like


  • Jul 29, 2020 | 18:29 79
    Quote Originally Posted by the big wheel View Post
    Those numbers mean about as much as the covid numbers. If you have populations that don’t change cars often they will have their old cars If low income they have their old cars and yes if electricity is cheaper they will have their electric cars. You can make any argument fit your narrative at this point. But the facts are all the major car manufactures are headed in a certain direction.
    Maybe more electric here per capita due to too high gas prices? But you’d have to look at all the other factors as well. Lol

    You also give to the argument produce more electricity to make it cheaper. That’s not only good for cars it’s good for production of any good we make. And we d make a lot more goods here if electricity and oil was cheaper here.

    Travelling stateside it is way easier to charge up your vehicle than here at least where I ve been.

    But hey let’s sit here and wait for 100 dollar oil so we can spend more than we bring in like the last time. And raise the cost of farming Lmao!!!
    Ass backwards thinking is what we currently have. But people are making good money on it.
    Not quite sure why you are arguing with me that cheaper energy is good for economic growth and productivity? We are both on the same page here. Perhaps you should take that argument up with Chuck instead. He might actually listen to you. Reply With Quote