News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 602     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1.1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.9K     8 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

Northern Light said:
I'm often concerned by the 'investment' of government in Natural Resource extraction.

If its economically viable and profitable to extract the resource, then why is government support required?

But no roads or rail lines I hear someone shout..............AND? If the government expends 1B to allow a private company to extract 5B worth of 'stuff'; then collects a
5% royalty.....or 250M, the government, meaning all of us, is out 750M.

The notion that investment is good, no matter the amount of public investment required to make it happen (ignoring, for them moment, an environmental concerns), is bizarre to me.

I like 'stainless steel' as much as the next person, but if every faucet needs to cost an extra $20 to extract the minerals required, so be it; if that causes companies to consider alternative materials, that's ok too.

But I'd rather not subsidize the extraction, anymore than I wish to subsidize a new fast food franchise. By all means, let folks set up businesses to make a profit; but don't extract my money in order to lower your costs, so that you can make one.

****

I get the argument that people in the north need gainful employment and quality of life.

IF there is economic merit to the resource extraction business, then things can go on as they are; just w/o public subsidy.

Leave government to make sure the north has good hospitals and schools etc.

Alternatively, if the existing model is not sustainable, I'm all in favour of helping people who are financially challenged w/moving.

OR

Helping northern Ontario obtain success by adopting a more southern model, w/larger, more complex urban centres, and fewer small towns.

That might be a good use of public dollars.

But subsidizing resource extraction just does not work for me as a model.
Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily have to be subsidies; it can be favourable loans, infrastructure investment, etc. The goal is not to support any particular industry, it is to employ citizens, collect royalties, taxes from the employees and ancillary employment, etc. You know, support economic growth. Like it or not, we all subsidize fast food restaurants by funding things like roads, transit, emergency services and utilities unless I can be convinced that any one business pays its full way through its business and property tax. If Sidewalk Labs, UofT Scarborough or any condo development is economically viable, why do they need public money through infrastructure?

The concept of concentrating populations into larger centres is difficult because the basis of the economy isn't necessarily there. While it is easier to say, build a wood mill in a larger centre and haul the raw product in, it becomes much more difficult with mineral extraction, and either way, it adds to costs and impacts on the competitiveness of the industries involved. You actually don't see new resource towns springing up any more and haven't for several years because the government declared many years ago that it won't approve new permanent townsites. New mines in more distant areas will have camps with employees traveling in and out on shift cycles. And not all new discoveries are distant from existing communities. It all depends on the geology.

Yes, density dictates that public money spent in Toronto will have a better 'rate of return' than in Dryden, but if that is the sole measure, then no money contributed by taxpayers across Ontario would be seen anywhere else. Sort of like a black hole.

The stainless steel, kleenex, food and electricity we all use doesn't come from from Yonge and Eglinton. Better our hinterland than somebody else's and support our economy, and if anyone thinks that other countries don't support and/or subsidize their resource industries, I have some land in Moonbeam for sale.
 
lenaitch said:
It doesn't necessarily have to be subsidies; it can be favourable loans, infrastructure investment, etc. The goal is not to support any particular industry, it is to employ citizens, collect royalties, taxes from the employees and ancillary employment, etc. You know, support economic growth. Like it or not, we all subsidize fast food restaurants by funding things like roads, transit, emergency services and utilities unless I can be convinced that any one business pays its full way through its business and property tax. If Sidewalk Labs, UofT Scarborough or any condo development is economically viable, why do they need public money through infrastructure?

The concept of concentrating populations into larger centres is difficult because the basis of the economy isn't necessarily there. While it is easier to say, build a wood mill in a larger centre and haul the raw product in, it becomes much more difficult with mineral extraction, and either way, it adds to costs and impacts on the competitiveness of the industries involved. You actually don't see new resource towns springing up any more and haven't for several years because the government declared many years ago that it won't approve new permanent townsites. New mines in more distant areas will have camps with employees traveling in and out on shift cycles. And not all new discoveries are distant from existing communities. It all depends on the geology.

Yes, density dictates that public money spent in Toronto will have a better 'rate of return' than in Dryden, but if that is the sole measure, then no money contributed by taxpayers across Ontario would be seen anywhere else. Sort of like a black hole.

The stainless steel, kleenex, food and electricity we all use doesn't come from from Yonge and Eglinton. Better our hinterland than somebody else's and support our economy, and if anyone thinks that other countries don't support and/or subsidize their resource industries, I have some land in Moonbeam for sale.
Click to expand...

You won't get any argument from me on the need to be 'fair' to those in rural areas.

Nor will I suggest we give up resource extraction.

What I would suggest is that governments often subsidize the premature (economically speaking) extraction of resource.

The world is not running out of stainless steel; it has rather more gold and diamonds than are truly useful either.

When the resource is closer to running short, the market-price of said commodity will be higher, allowing private capital to underwrite the full cost, or at least a much greater
percentage of cost of said extraction.

What really gets me though is the statements we so often hear like "We will have a boom as we unleash 5 Billion worth of 'x'" While failing to mention that it will cost more in public subsidy than it will
return in royalties and corporate taxes combined.

I'm also extremely dubious of the idea such investments create 'new jobs' as oppose to simply replacing existing ones.

Let's just be honest and transparent about the benefit so we can compare it to the benefit of other choices.

There seems to be a notion among some folks that we MUST extract 'resource x'. No, we don't have to. Yes we may wish to, it may even be wise or highly profitable or both.

In which case, I'm all in favour. But let's not take 'x' out of the ground at any cost, whether it produces a material benefit or not.

***

As to the latter portion of your post.

I oppose ALL corporate welfare. I oppose subsidies for auto plants, solar panel makers, bottled water plants, real estate development or 'tech' jobs.

If government has a clear goal, completely apart from the welfare of a specific company, I'm open to the argument for alterations to taxes, or low-interest loans, or w/e
but it must be to achieve an overt, clear, public good, and it must be open to every business in Ontario equally.

So, no, I don't support public money for Sidewalk Labs.

I would exempt Dryden from the ROI formula for the provision of basic services; or for 'transformative' investment that had lasting, long-term impacts.
 
Northern Light said:
You won't get any argument from me on the need to be 'fair' to those in rural areas.

Nor will I suggest we give up resource extraction.

What I would suggest is that governments often subsidize the premature (economically speaking) extraction of resource.

The world is not running out of stainless steel; it has rather more gold and diamonds than are truly useful either.

When the resource is closer to running short, the market-price of said commodity will be higher, allowing private capital to underwrite the full cost, or at least a much greater
percentage of cost of said extraction.

What really gets me though is the statements we so often hear like "We will have a boom as we unleash 5 Billion worth of 'x'" While failing to mention that it will cost more in public subsidy than it will
return in royalties and corporate taxes combined.

I'm also extremely dubious of the idea such investments create 'new jobs' as oppose to simply replacing existing ones.

Let's just be honest and transparent about the benefit so we can compare it to the benefit of other choices.

There seems to be a notion among some folks that we MUST extract 'resource x'. No, we don't have to. Yes we may wish to, it may even be wise or highly profitable or both.

In which case, I'm all in favour. But let's not take 'x' out of the ground at any cost, whether it produces a material benefit or not.

***

As to the latter portion of your post.

I oppose ALL corporate welfare. I oppose subsidies for auto plants, solar panel makers, bottled water plants, real estate development or 'tech' jobs.

If government has a clear goal, completely apart from the welfare of a specific company, I'm open to the argument for alterations to taxes, or low-interest loans, or w/e
but it must be to achieve an overt, clear, public good, and it must be open to every business in Ontario equally.

So, no, I don't support public money for Sidewalk Labs.

I would exempt Dryden from the ROI formula for the provision of basic services; or for 'transformative' investment that had lasting, long-term impacts.
Click to expand...

Points taken.

The 'new vs. existing' jobs on a local level is an easily measured metric. If a mine or mill is new then they are new jobs since there was no work being done prior. On a broader scale, who knows, given the mobility of the labour force. The development phase of a mine is much more labour intensive than the operating phase and those skills move around in response to the work, including internationally.

From a for-profit corporate perspective, need vs. want is irrelevant if a product can be produced and sold at a profit, and it is for-profit corporations that employee people. There are all sorts of mining claims in the books that are just sitting there because it is felt they can't be developed profitably. Mines come and go based on the costs of extraction and commodity prices.

"If the government has a clear goal". I like your sense of humour.
 
Northern Light said:
I oppose ALL corporate welfare.
Click to expand...

Up the sentiment!

(Sorry, I wasn't trying to distill your post into a single line. I agree with most of what you have to say, I just wanted to highlight this particular point because of its importance to my sense of being)


I should also add that your post reminded me of the old "X will create 10K jobs!" as if 10K workers with the requisite expertise will materialise out of the ether. Jobs come out of a factory, innit.
 
The Data Debacle continues to unfold, and new leakers are appearing in the UK, Wylie's web continues to unravel in Canada, and finally we're realizing tangible tentacles tickling Ford's traction:
No, the Facebook backlash won’t let us go back to the elections of old

ADAM RADWANSKI
Globe and Mail

TORONTO
PUBLISHED MARCH 23, 2018UPDATED 13 HOURS AGO
[...]
The dominance of Facebook goes some ways toward explaining why that is – not just because, as the Cambridge Analytica scandal has demonstrated, outside actors doing politicians’ dirty work had too easy a time getting their hands on users’ data. Facebook has revolved around an algorithm that prioritizes content generating strong reactions, including negative ones. If the potentially polarizing consequences of that model haven’t yet been fully realized in Canada, the way they have south of the border, keep in mind that heading into this spring’s provincial election Ontario Proud – a third-party group that mostly produces unflattering memes about Premier Kathleen Wynne – has gotten more Facebook traction than anyone else.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...-wont-let-us-go-back-to-the-elections-of-old/

It's an odd thing....Facebook used to be the domain of the "Elites". Seems the Hoi Polloi of the Ford Family have closely embraced the clutch shift as their own drive-train. Behold the differential!

"Ontario Proud". Have gotten loud. And disproportionate. There's more to come on this...

Addendum: I must admit to completely missing the "Ontario Proud" pimposity as it grew like a cancerous canker in the cacophony bought by Conservative coffers. There's a lot showing on Google, but this hit is especially prophetic:
WARREN — MUSINGS —03.23.2017 10:09 AM

CALLING ALL CYBER-DETECTIVES: YOUR ONTARIO POLITICAL MISSION, IF YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT
It could be disgruntled Liberals, sure. It could be a certain ambitious cabinet minister, aided and abetted by a lobby firm and trade association he is connected to. It could be Tories or Dippers trying to cause dissent and trouble. It could be some shadowy lobby group trying to exert pressure to achieve some policy goal. It could be average folks, too – but those people wouldn’t likely be hiding their identities, I don’t think. They’d say who they are.

One thing is certain: this effort is pretty slick and there is money behind it. They’re using Nationbuilder, for example, and Nationbuilder ain’t cheap. It isn’t nothing.

I’ve got some of the smartest, web-savvy readers around. Who wants to dive into this, and try and find out who the sneaks are who are behind it? Let’s out them, for fun!
[...]
Click to expand...
http://warrenkinsella.com/2017/03/calling-all-cyber-detectives/

NationBuilder: Software for leaders
https://nationbuilder.com/
 
Last edited:
people are not going to quit facebook over this.

They will quit when actual competition for facebook exists,

For the 30 plus demo, there is none and these people use facebook and can get swayed by fake news.
 
Jasmine18 said:
people are not going to quit facebook over this.

They will quit when actual competition for facebook exists,

For the 30 plus demo, there is none and these people use facebook and can get swayed by fake news.
Click to expand...
They're already quitting. Big time. How fake is that? But not the Ontario Proud pride:

The Progressive Conservatives' not-so-secret weapon | TVo_Org
Click to expand...
https://tvo.org/blog/current.../the-progressive-conservatives-not-so-secret-weapon
Jul 20, 2017 - Steve Paikin writes that a new political action group Ontario Proud is growing — but can it make an impact on the 2018 provincial election?
Click to expand...
The most popular political Facebook group in Ontario targets Kathleen ...
www.cbc.ca/news/.../ontario-proud-facebook-kathleen-wynne-liberal-election-1.417381...
Jun 24, 2017 - Ontario's Proud's Facebook page is a mix of mainstream media news stories, anti-Liberal memes and shareable videos made by Ballingall. The posts primarily target Wynne, but include regular smackdowns of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with an overarching theme against government waste, tax hikes ...

A new political force in Ontario is exploding on social media, with defeating Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals in the 2018 election as its key goal.

It's called Ontario Proud, and its Facebook page has amassed nearly 145,000 followers — more than the provincial Liberals, PCs and NDP combined.

Created little more than a year ago, it has become the province's biggest online political group.

"Goes to show you that Ontarians are really fed up with the status quo, and they want change," said Ontario Proud's founder, Jeff Ballingall.

"I'm trying to showcase that people have a right to feel grievance and outrage that they're essentially being trampled on by this government that's so out of touch," Ballingall said Friday in an interview with CBC Toronto.

Ontario's Proud's Facebook page is a mix of mainstream media news stories, anti-Liberal memes and shareable videos made by Ballingall. The posts primarily target Wynne, but include regular smackdowns of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, with an overarching theme against government waste, tax hikes and mismanagement.

"No one [in Ontario] is doing what we're doing online," said Ballingall. "We can say and do things that traditional media and political parties can't. We can be funny, we can be a little more hard-hittting."

He said the content received 3.2 million engagements in the past month and believes it's succeeding "because we're talking about hydro and jobs and pocketbook, kitchen-table issues."

How social media will influence the campaign
Ontario Proud's large following is another example of how a growing number of people primarily access political news via Facebook groups, and it may give a taste of how social media will influence the 2018 provincial campaign.

"If you see your uncle, your cousin or your neighbour sharing a political message, you're way more likely to engage with it than a television commercial," said Ballingall. "It's much less passive."

Ballingall, 31, established Ontario Proud last year. He grew up in Sarnia, has worked on Parliament Hill as a Conservative political staffer, at Toronto city hall for Coun. John Parker, and for the strategic consulting firm Navigator. He acknowledges he is a small-c conservative but says the group is non-partisan.

Despite the site's staunchly small-government, right-of-centre tone, Ontario Proud will encourage "strategic" voting in 2018, by telling its audience which party's candidate it believes has the best chance of defeating the Liberals in each constituency. (Ballingall, who lives in the Toronto riding of Beaches-East York, says he will vote NDP.)

What's not clear is whether Ontario Proud's posts are actually influencing people to turn against Wynne and the Liberals or merely attracting followers who've already made up their minds.

Some members voted Liberal
A survey of its Facebook community indicated 20 per cent voted Liberal in the last election, according to Ballingall.

"I honestly think we're making a huge difference," he said. "We are reaching people from all age groups and predominantly women."

Non-partisan interest groups have been a key force in recent Ontario elections. The most influential has been the Working Families Coalition, the union-funded agency whose mission has been to keep the PCs out of power through attack ads. The group spent $2.5 million in the 2014 campaign.

By contrast, Ontario Proud is working on a shoestring. Ballingall says the venture has cost just $5,000 so far.

Ontario Proud's current activities are just online but Ballingall says it has collected a "war chest" and will spend money on political advertising closer to the June 7 election.

CBC Toronto asked Wynne's office about Ontario Proud. A spokesperson responded: "We're not going to comment on a website that supports profane, hateful and abusive comments."

Comments about Wynne that were visible Friday on the Ontario Proud Facebook page included:

  • "That ugly nasty greedy no good money grubbing snot faced witch" (Debbie Berube).
  • "The ugliest human dyke who ever existed" (Darryl Mckee).
  • "I'm surprised that no one has shot her but maybe the bullets cost to much" (Thomas Duncan).
  • "The most lying, cheating, selfish, self centred, uncaring, mean ugly bitch that ever was in power in Ontario" (Barry Howard).
"I try my best to police comments and put filters up but I can't obviously catch everything," said Ballingall.

Ontario Proud is incorporated as a non-profit, with Ballingall, Toronto lawyer Ryan O'Connor and tech entrepreneur Chris Spoke as its directors.

Facebook page likes (as of June 2017):
  • Ontario Proud: 143, 817.
  • Kathleen Wynne: 55, 090.
  • Ontario PC Party: 55, 431.
  • Ontario NDP: 19, 224.
  • Ontario Liberal Party: 9, 152.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...ook-kathleen-wynne-liberal-election-1.4173817

Well, well, well. "Ballingall says the venture has cost just $5,000 so far. ". I guess he won't mind repeating that when more inquiring minds come knocking for the real story?

This is getting good....
 
Last edited:
I love that Twitter is promoting #deleteFacebook. No self-interest there.

And Facebook users need to accept some responsibility for installing those third-party apps.

But really, anyone who thought their data was tucked away all safe and cosy in Facebook's vaults was delusional.
 
Um the number people of deleting facebook would likely be recovered by the growth of Facebook in developing countries 100 fold I imagine.
 
PinkLucy said:
...And Facebook users need to accept some responsibility for installing those third-party apps.

But really, anyone who thought their data was tucked away all safe and cosy in Facebook's vaults was delusional.
Click to expand...

I got forwarded this yesterday:
upload_2018-3-24_19-49-0.png



I had to reply to my friend:

"This is like stripping naked in Dundas Square, multitudes film it, and then you complain about your sense of privacy being violated".

What in hell is anyone on Facebook thinking? And as if the individual's lack of common sense isn't enough, many publications insist on reader responses being channelled through Facebook.

Act like sheep, and be treated like them...
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-24_19-49-0.png
    upload_2018-3-24_19-49-0.png
    171.7 KB · Views: 289
Jasmine18 said:
people are not going to quit facebook over this.
Click to expand...

You're right, I quit years ago. Though, partly because of things like this. Also, the whole thing was beyond creepy. Most of my friends now no longer use it (ages 25-40).
It was creepy, annoying, useless, and boring. I don't see the purpose of it except to read a bunch of inanity and to troll friends which I made a fun hobby of but got bored of real quick. It turns out having a laugh with your mates is better in real life (which we already knew).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top