Category Archives: The Economy

Government Budget Pronouncements

The Yin……….

Hysterical, hysterical federal Conservative anti-Mulcair fear mongering.

Or, when you don’t want the public to pay attention to your fiscal and policy debacles, point your finger elsewhere and scream FIRE!

Adding irony to the hysterical black humour of the Conservative’s American style hysterical  fear mongering attack ads is the fact that, as this latest Conservative “look out – it’s the Bogyman’ fear mongering campaign was getting underway, the federal Conservative finance minister was announcing that this year’s deficit would be at least $5 billion higher than the Conservatives had previously guessed.

Listening, truly listening, [with the thinking inherent in true listening] to the federal Conservative ads designed to stampede Canadians into hysterical panic over a – potential – $20 billion NDP carbon tax, provides evidence of the level of hysteria, panic and fear the Conservatives feel lest Canadians begin to scrutinize the actual outcomes of Conservative policies.

I say ‘potential’  tax because the fact is that while a carbon tax is part of the NDP platform, the NDP have no plan or course of action laid out to implement a carbon tax; much the same way that, while a balanced budget is part of the Conservative platform, the Conservatives have no plan or course of action laid out to achieve a balanced budget. Which is why the Conservative’s mythical future date for achieving a balanced budget continually moves farther and farther into the future.

The question of whether we can afford Mulcair and the NDP becomes moot when you consider the actual financial ‘achievements’ of the Conservative government.

A Conservative government that a few short years after inheriting a $14 billion a year surplus and a federal deficit reduced to $457.6 billion by the actions of the prior Liberal government, has rocketed the federal deficit past the $600 billion mark on the last weekend of November 2012. A precipitous climb with no trustworthy evidence to suggest the Conservatives over promised, under delivered, balanced budget will ever materialize under the direction of a Conservative government.

The reality is that the reasons for Canadian hysteria, panic and fear lie in the behaviours and policies of the federal Conservatives.

The un-spun Reality is that we cannot afford Harper’s Conservatives.

We just cannot afford them.

……and the Yang.

Pray that Clark is Lying.

If Christie Clark is actually serious about balancing the budget next year, come hell or high water, it is time to consider voting green or to run for the legislature as an independent.

The right always likes to trot out the bogyman of irresponsible NDP spending to scare voters as is currently happening in Ottawa.

And while Adrian Dix has demonstrated a worrisome lack of understanding of, or connection to, the financial realities of the province and its citizens Premier Clark’s promise to balance the budget next year borders on the insane.

Insane: utterly senseless: an insane plan.

Consider these givens: the 2012/13 budget called for expenditures of $43,869,000; the deficit for 2012/13 has been revised upwards to $1,470,000 which is 3.4% of the budget; the rise in the deficit is mainly a result of falling provincial revenues, revenues that are realistically not going to recover for the 2013/14 budget year; the promises Finance Minister Mike de Jong has made concerning the return to the PST means provincial sales tax revenues will suffer a significant reduction next year (on top of the $300 million HST repayment to Ottawa); the cost to provide the same services next year as were provided this year will be higher – particularly health costs which are rising faster than costs in other areas; the rationing of mental health services has already resulted in the deaths of British Columbians as a result of the lack of sufficient services; the increases in Justice costs (police, incarceration etc) will necessitate cutting more funds from the rest of the budget.

Balancing the budget for 2013/14 will require cutting 3.4% (+) from next year’s budget.

Given the realities of the way the province spends its money most, if not all, of the cuts will have to come from healthcare and education.

Yes you could make cuts to social services, family services and related programs…..but the hard facts are that cuts in those areas do not result in any savings. Rather they result in higher costs to the government in other areas of the budget such as Justice.

Trying to avoid cuts to health and education by making cuts in other areas, areas that tempt politicians and the public because they seem ‘easier’ than cuts to healthcare and education, will inevitably force even deeper cuts to be made to education and health.

Given the level of wilful denial, of self imposed blindness, embraced by both voters and politicians in British Columbia –  Pray that Clark is Lying.

 

No Customers = No Business

It likely bodes ill for the future of print media that often the biggest laugh is not found of the comic pages but among what passes for ‘news’ or ‘reporting’ these days.

Take for example this recent  ‘news report’ from the business pages of The Province:

Rogers Communications Inc. had a weaker quarterly profit and flat revenue due to competition in its wireless and cable divisions, but the Toronto company said Tuesday it has started to see the benefits of cost cutting, including 650 jobs this year. Rogers said its second-quarter net income declined 2.4 per cent to $400 million, or 75 cents per share, off from $410 million a year ago, or 74 cents per share.

One hopes that even at a time when getting government subsidies, government bailouts, favourable labour laws, market protection, restrictions on competition etc is what passes for good management at Canadian businesses, even Rogers competitors would not waste resources to lure Rogers customers away from Rogers when Rogers is doing such a magnificent job of driving Rogers customers to other providers.

Given the fact that managing at Canadian wireless and cable companies is based on maintaining government policies that allow them to charge customers usury rate levels exceeding those paid by customers elsewhere in the world, it is an extremely remote possibility that Rogers fellow beneficiaries of largesse from the federal Conservative government are capable of actual competition and raiding Rogers for customers.

Aside: Yes, it would be very beneficial to Canadians if the federal Conservative Party were to realize/remember that they have a duty of care to all Canadians, not just the bank account of the Conservative Party and Canadian Businesses filling those coffers. But then if Prime Minister Harper were to deny Banks in Canada the right/ability to bleed Canadians to cover excessive salaries and the hundreds of millions of dollars lost through bad management, Harper would not be able to run around the world lecturing world leaders on how wonderful a leader he is and the solidness of Canadian Banks because he is such a magnificent leader.

In this case, the lack of ability of Rogers fellow corporations in the wireless and cable business is a benefit to shareholders as it prevents them wasting resources on uneccessary expenditures.

Competent management would tell you that when dealing with Rogers in terms of customers one need to follow the axiom from The Art of War – “When your enemy is in the process of destroying himself, stay out of his way.”

Although in the case of Rogers it would be more appropriate to apply Woodrow Wilson’s  “Never … murder a man who is committing suicide” .

No competitor could be anywhere near as successful at getting Rogers Customers to switch to another provider as Rogers itself. Rogers might well want to consider that the time to act to retain customers is before Rogers drives them to change to another, any other, provider. Requiring customers to speak to ‘Retention’ after Rogers treatment of customers drives them into changing providers is adding salt to the wound – not to mention pointless.

Rogers customer problem is not that it ticks some customers off and they change providers. That happens to some degree with all providers.

Rogers problem is threefold.

First that their behaviour drives customers to the point of anger that “I don’t care if it costs $1500.00, its worth twice that not to have to deal with those @@%&###”

Secondly that while other providers may have customers switch to another provider, those customers will (and have) returned to the provider they dropped. Rogers provokes customers to the point that “I will never, NEVER, deal with Rogers again” with the customers sticking to their vow to never deal with Rogers again.

Thirdly, when people make enquires of others as to what provider to use the growing pool of Never, Ever Rogers ex-customers  is telling them just that: “Never, Ever Rogers” and providing them with horror stories of the way Rogers treats those it allows to give Rogers their hard earned cash, nickel and dimeing them to death and them *BLEEPing* all over them.

The question Rogers must answer is whether they have the ability to change their policies of customer alienation before they reach the tipping point where they cannot stop their customer base from continuing to erode. Which would see Rogers continually shrinking as customers go ABR (Anywhere But Rogers) until the ABR customers service Rogers into the corporate dustbin.