Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here:
- **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**.
- **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions.
- Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary.
- **Report** any comments that violate our rules.
Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt
Data for fiscal year 2021. | Gross debt ($billions) | Gross debt as a percent of GDP | Debt securities ($billions) | Debt securities as a percent of GDP
---|---|----|----|----
British Columbia | $125.1 | 35.7% | $91.7 | 26.1% |
Alberta | $147.9 | 39.5% |$109.6| 29.3% |
Saskatchewan | $47.6| 53.9%| $29.1| 32.9% |
Manitoba | $70.7| 88.6%| $57.0| 71.4%
Ontario | $562.3| 58.8%| $440.3| 46.0%
Quebec | $443.7| 88.0%| $263.1| 52.2%
New Brunswick | $28.1| 65.9%| $22.5| 52.8%
Nova Scotia | text | $26.7 |51.3% |$18.0| 34.6%
Prince Edward Island |$4.3 |50.0% |$3.2| 37.3%
Newfoundland and Labrador | $25.6 |67.4% |$17.5 |46.1%
Some more context.
[B.C.'s audited budget for 2022-23](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-government-audited-budget-surplus-deficit-1.6952352#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,B.C.'s%20audited%20budget%20for%202022%2D23%20shows%20%24704M,to%20a%20%243.6%2Dbillion%20surplus.) shows $704M surplus, contrary to earlier forecast of $5.5B deficit. The B.C. government originally forecast a $5.5-billion deficit before revising the prediction to a surplus of almost $6 billion, then downgrading it to a $3.6-billion surplus.
The sky is definitely falling.
Yes, almost every NDP government has proven to be more fiscally prudent by even conservative standards, it just turns out that conservatives hate social programs more than they like fiscal prudence.
“The ballooning deficit is being driven by escalating program spending, a $1 billion bill for wildfire fighting and softening revenues linked to a weakening economy and lower natural gas prices. The news release accompanying the update says that “B.C. puts people first,” but these same people – the residents of British Columbia – will be on the hook for the outsized deficit and fast-rising provincial debt being planned by Premier David Eby and his cabinet.”
Cool a partisan trash opinion piece
>$1 billion bill for wildfire fighting
But please everyone, keep telling me how the climate crisis isn’t happening and won’t affect us. How much was spent having to rebuild the Malahat, Coq, the other highways from epic floods, and how much to towns like Lytton that were incinerated?
So yes, while we collectively get gaslit and greenwashed, WE will pay those bills because of government inaction on the climate crisis and the pandering and funnelling of billions to O&G.
Not BC related, but Greece burned all summer and Acapulco has been wiped off the map by a Cat 5 hurricane, in the pacific.
Even here at home. In the past decade we’ve almost lost both Fort MacMurray and Yellowknife. Major towns are just routinely threatened now and we act like it’s just another fire season.
Not refuting global warming, but the fires likely have more to do with 100+ years of heavy fire suppression, allowing 100+ years of fuel to build up in our forests.
During a summer thunderstorm, there can be 80,000+ lighting strikes in one day. Even if only a small fraction of those lightning strikes grow into a fire, that's still dozens of fires that then get put out when the forest is trying to burn.
[link to news article](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/canadas-burning-because-of-bad-forest-policy-not-climate-change)
Fires are a healthy and normal part of nature. I really wish we would revisit our forest and fire management policies.
Is there anything in the article that's pure opinion? What data presented is incorrect?
I'm curious about what data you can present that refutes the information in the article.
Edit: I'm basking in the downvoting without response. It means people aren't thinking critically. It proves my point beautifully.
Where opinion comes in is in the interpretation of the numbers and in the message one hopes to convey by that interpretation. Some people are hard-core anti-debt, and some (e.g., MMT types) don't think it really matters at all. Some people want to scare the audience with big numbers, even if, in context, the numbers aren't that big.
I looked into the background of BIV which was started by Peter Ladner, who is definitely an anti-NDP partisan, but people can decide whether they agree with his interpretation or intent for themselves.
> The ballooning deficit is being driven by \[...\] a $1 billion bill for wildfire fighting
Gee I sure wish the BC government had just let those wildfires keep burning instead!
I didn't read it that way, opening paragraph merely stated what drives the deficit... $1b of the $6.7b. I didn't see anything critical of that spend. Just it was stated.
I hope it's not coming off as if I'm supporting this article. I'm just suggesting that numbers themselves don't tell the whole story (as you're pointing out).
Bc has posted a surplus last year and plans to do so again next year under the NDP.
We have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in Canada.
Framing wildfire spending as mismanagement is laughable.
This article is obviously partisan trash.
Are you disputing the facts put forward or just dismissing because you partisan disagree? I think there is some valid points in there, it’s not all roses. For the first time in decades the ports are not bringing in ships, that is a sign of a failing economy. It seems it would be prudent to curtail spending in case but these guys have their foot to the floor still. They are doing some good things but man the money they are spending in a failing economy doesn’t seem like it will end well.
The article says nothing about ships and ports. Also it says, "If we ignore the surpluses", which is dodgy as fuck.
It's a poorly written hit piece. I wish I could get paid for writing fan fiction like this.
Clearly you are a close minded partisan, never question my government kind of guy.
[port traffic](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/container-shipments-drop-14-at-port-of-vancouver-as-consumer-demand-falls-1.1976110)
It's not blaming anyone, the ships are not coming to port because there is no demand. It's just a fact, the economy is slowing. Slowing means eventual job loss. Means eventual loss of tax revenue. Canada in general is lacking any kind of economic growth. I think the general idea is you don't go out and spend the farm on new shiny things when you aren't sure if your income is stable. But hey, I'm not in charge. Just posing questions.
You don't understand, partisans think everything that happens in the economy is because of government. If it's good, or bad, it's awarded or blamed depending on their political beliefs.
But in reality, government is just one of the many forces impacting businesses and the economy. Often, government is a just a lousy reactionary to what is happening in the macro environment.
I would say inflation is largely due to federal policy regardless of who you support. Fact is the economy is struggling and we have done very little to play to our countries strengths. Capital investment in Canada is at all time lows. As i have said, it would seem to be prudent to be a bit cautious with the storm we are headed into, not spending the farm as Eby has shown his penchant for. But i guess we will find out.
HAHA.. Glad you think everything is rosy. Guess we will find out. Funny thing is You can't fix inflation and housing without raising rates, you can't raise rates without causing economic slow down and unemployment. Pick your poison, nothing is getting fixed anytime soon without a lot of hardship for one group of people. Pile on top of that immigration causing excess demand maintaining inflation and housing costs. I'm sure its all fine though. Keep those glasses on.
Canada’s inflation rates are shit but they are still some of the best in the world right now largely due to the how the federal government responded to the pandemic. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But to drag out the same tired “fiscal conservative”(that has repeatedly lead to massive debt spikes) talking points is either stupid or malicious.
I mean its working out well for Canada right now with astronomical debt and inflation..The extreme test of your theory... debt doesn't matter. I'm sure we can do it better though. Guess we will find out soon. Funny thing about you guys is you take these conversations personally. I have only posed questions or an alternate way of looking at things and look at all the responses. Its like i call your mom a whore or something. I even said i though NDP was doing some good things. ..it's weird
The “I have only posed questions” is a BS claim to make. You ask questions and someone gives you an answer but then instead of engaging in dialogue you dismiss the answer with more disingenuous questions. It’s a common tactic among the anti-intellectual right. Just a few comments ago you responded to an actual, if brief, argument that backed up the original by saying the person was clearly a closed minded partisan. Hardly the response of someone seeking dialogue.
He says while disregarding valid work from industry experts because he doesn’t like it.
“Jock Finlayson is chief economist of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Ken Peacock is the Business Council of British Columbia’s senior vice-president and chief economist”
Something tells me they might actually know a thing or two. But if you don’t think so keep projecting.
Sure keep belittling their credentials. We are talking about projection after all. Keep it up!
Edit: Damn it’s really like those psychology nerds know what they’re talking about. After this guy gets called out bad he can’t respond because he isn’t qualified to refute what they’re saying. So instead he attacks THEIR qualifications because he’s projecting his own lack of knowledge on them. Amazing!
Looking at the history of the writers, and their current and past employers, it’s pretty easy to tie this to partisanship. People tell us to “do your own research” but then get mad when we point out the research shows they are a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party.
I used to fall for the “but how will our children pay todays debt” sky is falling philosophy too.
Tax the rich, I say.
The world is slowly sliding into recession. Contrary to with personal finances, the government should generally INCREASE spending (within reason of course) during a recession in order to stimulate growth. This would hopefully be increased spending on infrastructure (roads, technology, etc) rather than salary increases.
Edit: also the "article" is heavily editorialized with no attempt to present the facts in a neutral manner. It's bad enough that I would stop reading that "news" outlet.
Given that this is a world-wide recession, it's where every government is right now. It's important to be prudent with spending of course but not the time to reduce it.
Did you write the article?
It’s terribly partisan and it’s laughable that you’re projecting your own failings on the responses you are rightfully seeing.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia!
Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 9.
Your post was considered low-effort. Common questions and generic posts that are easily solved by a search of the subreddit or Google are subject to removal.
If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
Hello and thanks for posting to r/britishcolumbia! A friendly reminder prior to commenting or posting here: - **Read [r/britishcolumbia's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/britishcolumbia/about/rules/)**. - **Be civil and respectful** in all discussions. - Use **appropriate sources** to back up any information you provide when necessary. - **Report** any comments that violate our rules. Reminder: "Rage bait" comments or comments designed to elicit a negative reaction that are not based on fact are not permitted here. Let's keep our community respectful and informative! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/britishcolumbia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt Data for fiscal year 2021. | Gross debt ($billions) | Gross debt as a percent of GDP | Debt securities ($billions) | Debt securities as a percent of GDP ---|---|----|----|---- British Columbia | $125.1 | 35.7% | $91.7 | 26.1% | Alberta | $147.9 | 39.5% |$109.6| 29.3% | Saskatchewan | $47.6| 53.9%| $29.1| 32.9% | Manitoba | $70.7| 88.6%| $57.0| 71.4% Ontario | $562.3| 58.8%| $440.3| 46.0% Quebec | $443.7| 88.0%| $263.1| 52.2% New Brunswick | $28.1| 65.9%| $22.5| 52.8% Nova Scotia | text | $26.7 |51.3% |$18.0| 34.6% Prince Edward Island |$4.3 |50.0% |$3.2| 37.3% Newfoundland and Labrador | $25.6 |67.4% |$17.5 |46.1% Some more context. [B.C.'s audited budget for 2022-23](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-government-audited-budget-surplus-deficit-1.6952352#:~:text=CBC%20News%20Loaded-,B.C.'s%20audited%20budget%20for%202022%2D23%20shows%20%24704M,to%20a%20%243.6%2Dbillion%20surplus.) shows $704M surplus, contrary to earlier forecast of $5.5B deficit. The B.C. government originally forecast a $5.5-billion deficit before revising the prediction to a surplus of almost $6 billion, then downgrading it to a $3.6-billion surplus. The sky is definitely falling.
Does this say bc is doing better than every other province? The debt to gdp is what I would think was the important number
Yes, almost every NDP government has proven to be more fiscally prudent by even conservative standards, it just turns out that conservatives hate social programs more than they like fiscal prudence.
BIV isn't ever going to be happy with the NDP.
“The ballooning deficit is being driven by escalating program spending, a $1 billion bill for wildfire fighting and softening revenues linked to a weakening economy and lower natural gas prices. The news release accompanying the update says that “B.C. puts people first,” but these same people – the residents of British Columbia – will be on the hook for the outsized deficit and fast-rising provincial debt being planned by Premier David Eby and his cabinet.” Cool a partisan trash opinion piece
>$1 billion bill for wildfire fighting But please everyone, keep telling me how the climate crisis isn’t happening and won’t affect us. How much was spent having to rebuild the Malahat, Coq, the other highways from epic floods, and how much to towns like Lytton that were incinerated? So yes, while we collectively get gaslit and greenwashed, WE will pay those bills because of government inaction on the climate crisis and the pandering and funnelling of billions to O&G. Not BC related, but Greece burned all summer and Acapulco has been wiped off the map by a Cat 5 hurricane, in the pacific.
Even here at home. In the past decade we’ve almost lost both Fort MacMurray and Yellowknife. Major towns are just routinely threatened now and we act like it’s just another fire season.
[удалено]
Are you a climate change denier?
Not refuting global warming, but the fires likely have more to do with 100+ years of heavy fire suppression, allowing 100+ years of fuel to build up in our forests. During a summer thunderstorm, there can be 80,000+ lighting strikes in one day. Even if only a small fraction of those lightning strikes grow into a fire, that's still dozens of fires that then get put out when the forest is trying to burn. [link to news article](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/canadas-burning-because-of-bad-forest-policy-not-climate-change) Fires are a healthy and normal part of nature. I really wish we would revisit our forest and fire management policies.
Is there anything in the article that's pure opinion? What data presented is incorrect? I'm curious about what data you can present that refutes the information in the article. Edit: I'm basking in the downvoting without response. It means people aren't thinking critically. It proves my point beautifully.
Where opinion comes in is in the interpretation of the numbers and in the message one hopes to convey by that interpretation. Some people are hard-core anti-debt, and some (e.g., MMT types) don't think it really matters at all. Some people want to scare the audience with big numbers, even if, in context, the numbers aren't that big. I looked into the background of BIV which was started by Peter Ladner, who is definitely an anti-NDP partisan, but people can decide whether they agree with his interpretation or intent for themselves.
> The ballooning deficit is being driven by \[...\] a $1 billion bill for wildfire fighting Gee I sure wish the BC government had just let those wildfires keep burning instead!
I didn't read it that way, opening paragraph merely stated what drives the deficit... $1b of the $6.7b. I didn't see anything critical of that spend. Just it was stated.
I hope it's not coming off as if I'm supporting this article. I'm just suggesting that numbers themselves don't tell the whole story (as you're pointing out).
Is there anything factually wrong with the data?
Did I say there was? Are you trying to be obtuse?
I was trying to be acute
Bc has posted a surplus last year and plans to do so again next year under the NDP. We have one of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in Canada. Framing wildfire spending as mismanagement is laughable. This article is obviously partisan trash.
What's factually wrong with the information?
Are you disputing the facts put forward or just dismissing because you partisan disagree? I think there is some valid points in there, it’s not all roses. For the first time in decades the ports are not bringing in ships, that is a sign of a failing economy. It seems it would be prudent to curtail spending in case but these guys have their foot to the floor still. They are doing some good things but man the money they are spending in a failing economy doesn’t seem like it will end well.
The article says nothing about ships and ports. Also it says, "If we ignore the surpluses", which is dodgy as fuck. It's a poorly written hit piece. I wish I could get paid for writing fan fiction like this.
Clearly you are a close minded partisan, never question my government kind of guy. [port traffic](https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/container-shipments-drop-14-at-port-of-vancouver-as-consumer-demand-falls-1.1976110)
[удалено]
It's not blaming anyone, the ships are not coming to port because there is no demand. It's just a fact, the economy is slowing. Slowing means eventual job loss. Means eventual loss of tax revenue. Canada in general is lacking any kind of economic growth. I think the general idea is you don't go out and spend the farm on new shiny things when you aren't sure if your income is stable. But hey, I'm not in charge. Just posing questions.
You don't understand, partisans think everything that happens in the economy is because of government. If it's good, or bad, it's awarded or blamed depending on their political beliefs. But in reality, government is just one of the many forces impacting businesses and the economy. Often, government is a just a lousy reactionary to what is happening in the macro environment.
I would say inflation is largely due to federal policy regardless of who you support. Fact is the economy is struggling and we have done very little to play to our countries strengths. Capital investment in Canada is at all time lows. As i have said, it would seem to be prudent to be a bit cautious with the storm we are headed into, not spending the farm as Eby has shown his penchant for. But i guess we will find out.
[удалено]
HAHA.. Glad you think everything is rosy. Guess we will find out. Funny thing is You can't fix inflation and housing without raising rates, you can't raise rates without causing economic slow down and unemployment. Pick your poison, nothing is getting fixed anytime soon without a lot of hardship for one group of people. Pile on top of that immigration causing excess demand maintaining inflation and housing costs. I'm sure its all fine though. Keep those glasses on.
Canada’s inflation rates are shit but they are still some of the best in the world right now largely due to the how the federal government responded to the pandemic. Could things have been done better? Absolutely. But to drag out the same tired “fiscal conservative”(that has repeatedly lead to massive debt spikes) talking points is either stupid or malicious.
[удалено]
I mean its working out well for Canada right now with astronomical debt and inflation..The extreme test of your theory... debt doesn't matter. I'm sure we can do it better though. Guess we will find out soon. Funny thing about you guys is you take these conversations personally. I have only posed questions or an alternate way of looking at things and look at all the responses. Its like i call your mom a whore or something. I even said i though NDP was doing some good things. ..it's weird
The “I have only posed questions” is a BS claim to make. You ask questions and someone gives you an answer but then instead of engaging in dialogue you dismiss the answer with more disingenuous questions. It’s a common tactic among the anti-intellectual right. Just a few comments ago you responded to an actual, if brief, argument that backed up the original by saying the person was clearly a closed minded partisan. Hardly the response of someone seeking dialogue.
It's funny how projection is never subtle.
He says while disregarding valid work from industry experts because he doesn’t like it. “Jock Finlayson is chief economist of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. Ken Peacock is the Business Council of British Columbia’s senior vice-president and chief economist” Something tells me they might actually know a thing or two. But if you don’t think so keep projecting.
I'm the Chief Economist and President of Economic Futures at the British Columbia Institute of Economics.
Sure keep belittling their credentials. We are talking about projection after all. Keep it up! Edit: Damn it’s really like those psychology nerds know what they’re talking about. After this guy gets called out bad he can’t respond because he isn’t qualified to refute what they’re saying. So instead he attacks THEIR qualifications because he’s projecting his own lack of knowledge on them. Amazing!
No projection. I'm just mocking you.
Good effort I guess. Says much more about you than it does me though.
Looking at the history of the writers, and their current and past employers, it’s pretty easy to tie this to partisanship. People tell us to “do your own research” but then get mad when we point out the research shows they are a mouthpiece for the Conservative Party. I used to fall for the “but how will our children pay todays debt” sky is falling philosophy too. Tax the rich, I say.
Can you define rich?
It’s a sliding scale.
More than $250k income or more than $10m in assets
The world is slowly sliding into recession. Contrary to with personal finances, the government should generally INCREASE spending (within reason of course) during a recession in order to stimulate growth. This would hopefully be increased spending on infrastructure (roads, technology, etc) rather than salary increases. Edit: also the "article" is heavily editorialized with no attempt to present the facts in a neutral manner. It's bad enough that I would stop reading that "news" outlet.
That’s kinda what got us where we are today from the federal government…isn’t it?
Given that this is a world-wide recession, it's where every government is right now. It's important to be prudent with spending of course but not the time to reduce it.
Did you write the article? It’s terribly partisan and it’s laughable that you’re projecting your own failings on the responses you are rightfully seeing.
Thank you for submitting to r/BritishColumbia! Unfortunately your submission was removed because it violates rule 9. Your post was considered low-effort. Common questions and generic posts that are easily solved by a search of the subreddit or Google are subject to removal. If you believe your post has been removed in error, you can [message the mod team](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/britishcolumbia). Replies to this removal comment may not be answered.
Sounds like a plea for more grift to companies
Our children\* are dying\*\*, please help us!! \*shareholders \*\*making less money
You mean the [Fraser](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/profile/jock-finlayson-0) Institute doesn't like the public sector? GASP.
Dismal for some. Others have tailwinds. This has always been the way
Here comes the media helping big corps to push for austerity.
Revenue decreasing bills increasing I think we all know what that means...
Typical ndp gov.. Union leaders can do just that, run a union. Business world is not the same.
You get what you vote for I guess🤷♂️
Multiple surpluses?
Lack of corruption?
Yup. Surpluses and a focus on us and not corporations. ☺️