Conservative Leader Stephen Harper hopes to surf a wave of Newfoundland nationalism and support for “green” energy towards a majority, pledging controversial federal financing for a $6.2 billion mega hydro project in Labrador
A classic example of focusing on one group in the short-run, instead of all groups in the long run. And then there's the economic calculation problem. Without rational prices in a free open market, how can the State allocate resources efficiently for a project like this? (Hint: they can't). Finally there's the immoral act of stealing from everyone to benefit a few. Even professional economists don't like this idea:
Critics say it is not economically viable, evidenced by the fact it requires such huge public subsidies... Some suggest Harper has made a “political calculation, not an economic” one.... “I think this ‘green’ stuff is a total fig leaf,” said economist Brian Lee Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based think-tank.
All government decisions are political ones. Even those with economics in mind are usually influenced by Keynesian fallacies.
Conservative officials said a federal contribution would likely take the form of a $4.2 billion loan guarantee. It would allow the province to borrow money at lower rates, given Ottawa’s superior credit rating. Tax dollars would not be at risk unless the proponents of the project defaulted on the loan.
Ottawa's superior credit rating is coming to an end. Interest rates are on the rise. Taxpayers will be picking up the pieces of this botched project for years to come.
In Montreal, NDP Leader Jack Layton said he’s behind the idea of support for the Lower Churchill River project and “projects that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” But Layton said there needs to be “clear criteria” for such investments. “It shouldn’t be just political.”
That should be your indication, Harper. If the Socialist is supporting the project, then it probably isn't a good idea. And enough of this “government investment” propaganda. There ain't no such thing as a government investment (TANSTAAGI). The State can only consume, it only destroys wealth. This is fundamental. It's an economic law.
Don't ignore it, Harper. You'll just make us all poorer.
It’s about using Newfoundland nationalism in order to get back in the good graces of the Newfoundland voter
Newfoundland should separate. They've only been apart of Canada since 1949. There are no perks to this relationship, it's an abusive, violent one. If the emergence of the Dominion of Newfoundland is met with small government, low taxes, strong private property rights and a free market (with the intent of phasing out the State altogether); the country would see a surge in popularity and population. A reversal of the current trend. The question is: why haven't they separated yet? Why are they listening to Harper's green fascism and not taking matters into their own hands?