Alberta fighting division with division

Since the federal election in October 2019, there has been a clear increase in separatist sentiment in Alberta and other parts of western Canada. I recently blocked Wexit ads on Facebook because I was getting sick of them.

Many feel like we're under attack by the federal government and other provinces. Across our country, our health and quality of life are quite dependent on fossil fuels, and a significant chunk of that comes from Alberta. Yet in 2017 Justin Trudeau said, "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out." Even though he backpedaled on that comment, it gave many Albertans the impression that he doesn't care about our jobs and prosperity. The federal government passed laws that many in the resource industry think will make it harder to get resource projects done. And they created a national carbon tax.

So Albertans get the impression that Trudeau is against us, he has numerous scandals involving questionable ethics and competence, and then much of the rest of the country re-elects him. Yes, his party is reduced to a minority, but the balance of power is held by other parties that want more restrictions on fossil fuels, and the Bloc Quebecois that appears openly hostile to Alberta.

Justin Trudeau says he's been trying to build unity nationwide, but we've become more divided.

But as Albertans, we should not fight division with division.

First of all, let's acknowledge that human-caused climate change is serious and we need to work toward net-zero global carbon emissions in the coming decades. If you read through my Facebook feed, it's no secret that I support major action on this.

When people predict bad things in the future, the worst predictions are rarely right. In this case the worst predictions are human extinction or even the extinction of all life of earth, and I (with my limited understanding of the subject) consider these extremely unlikely. But predictions of 100 million premature deaths this century, even more in coming centuries, and accelerating extinction of other species are not the worst predictions; they represent mainstream science.

If you or someone you love works in the fossil fuel industry, it is certainly hard to support government policies that would eliminate these jobs in the coming decades. I get it. Renewable energy development, retrofitting of buildings, and transportation infrastructure construction will create many jobs, but I understand the fear of forced change. People don't know if change will help them get ahead or leave them behind.

For all of Justin Trudeau's faults, he actually brought in the most pro-Alberta climate policy of all the parties that support a carbon tax. The rebates all go to the province that the money came from; since Alberta has the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and hence the highest costs, we get the biggest rebates. If everyone in Canada simply got the same rebate, that would be another net flow of money out of Alberta. The Liberals are also the only party to support both a carbon tax and a new oil export pipeline so that we can get a better price for our oil while we can still sell it.

As for the economic effects of a carbon tax, I challenge you to find a jurisdiction that has had a carbon tax for several years where the economy has done badly. I'll mention Sweden as a success story--it has the highest carbon tax on earth, and its economy has done just fine in that time.

When we get criticized for pipeline building, oil sands mining, and stuff like that, let's not pretend that cutting the emissions from our oil production or converting our coal power plants to natural gas is enough. Yes, let's talk about the progress we've made, but let's be just as vocal about our commitment to achieving net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

As a province and as individuals, let's:

• Invest in much more renewable energy, grid energy storage systems (pumped storage hydroelectricity is just one option that doesn't need a single new invention), and maybe nuclear power.
• Finish converting our coal power plants to natural gas.
• Invest in carbon capture, both from industrial stacks and from the atmosphere. (Carbon Engineering has a promising technology to convert atmospheric CO2 to hydrocarbon fuels. If it can run on 100% renewable energy, then it would produce carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.)
• Produce oil as cleanly as we can, to sell to the world for as long as they use oil.
• Actively work toward net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (with a possible exception for industries exporting to countries that haven't achieved net-zero emissions by then).
• Diversify our economy so that when the world won't buy our oil--or anyone else's--we still have a strong economy.
• Support political candidates who show strong integrity and leadership skill, and support the kinds of policies (in many areas, not just climate change) that you think are a good idea. Speak out against hypocrisy, abuse of power, and neglect for our future.
• Don't insult people we disagree with especially if they're motivated by love and compassion; respond intelligently and respectfully. (I'm getting tired of the insults directed at Greta Thunberg on Facebook.)

The coming decades will bring an unprecedented level of change to the world. Much of it can be positive. Do we want to isolate ourselves and become an economic also-ran, or do we want to work with the rest of Canada and the world to meet this challenge head-on?

Investing: the importance of dividends

Today I'm going to get into a subject that so many have written so much about, and that I have relatively little experience with: investing.

Some time ago, I was listening to an episode of The Ongoing History of New Music about collectibles. The host, Alan talked about various rare, limited-edition CDs and LPs, played some music from them, and said how much they're worth now. One or two of them are worth a lot of money. Most of them are worth somewhere between 5 and 20 bucks. (It's been a while since I listened to it, so I might be a bit off on the price range.) That's not a bad price for a used CD, if you're on the selling end, but still, it's not a lot of money. The host made an important point: if you're going to buy a collectible, buy it because you want it; don't buy it as a financial investment.

That got me thinking, his advice could apply to any investment. Lots of investments go up in value a lot more reliably than collectible CDs and LPs, but something has to drive that increase. Some investments, like houses, provide something of physical value (such as shelter) while you own it. Others (like a savings account or GIC, or a house that you're renting out) pay money while you have money invested.

Which brings me to another very popular form of investment: the stock market. Some stocks pay dividends, so they're not just something you buy now to sell for more money later. Other stocks don't pay dividends. These companies want to put all of their profits into growth, for now. Some companies, like Google, have no plans to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. I wonder when (or if) they'll pay dividends. I'd like it if they'd give some indication of when they want to start paying dividends. Even though it seems like the most stock market money can be made by buying low and selling high, not by waiting for a slow trickle of dividends, I think every company should eventually pay dividends.

It would make sense to me that every company should plan to pay dividends eventually, but apparently some people are "critics of dividends," so I'll say a bit more to defend my view.

Ultimately, I believe that the hope of future dividends should be the only thing driving stock prices. A typical dividend-paying company pays the same amount per share every quarter, occasionally changing the amount. It seems hard to believe that this could drive the fluctuations in a company's value that can happen in minutes, but I suppose things that happen during the day can affect the company's prospects years down the road. If a company's price isn't affected by the hope of future dividends, then it's only driven by the hope that someone else will pay more later. And they will only be willing to pay more because they believe someone will pay even more later. This infinite chain seems like a flimsy foundation for a company's value. Sure, shareholders own an asset while they own the shares, but it's an asset they can't use. What good is that?

Let's imagine a stock market where no companies pay dividends. Then any money you make from the stock market has to come from outside of the stock market--employment income, small business income, interest from other types of investments, and debt. The amount of money coming out of the stock market as people sell has to be less than or equal to the amount coming in from buyers. This sounds kind of like a casino. The house (in this case, the stock brokers) always wins. Some others win and some others lose, but on average, they lose.

But in real life the stock market goes up on average. People do make money from it, and not just from dividend-paying stocks. Maybe that's because more and more people are investing more of their money. If the number of investors and their wealth stops growing, the value of stocks would stop growing (again, assuming no dividends). If you can't make money off your investment without a growing number of people coming in after you, investing even more money, you're in a Ponzi scheme.

I can only see two differences between investing in a Ponzi scheme and investing in a company that will never pay dividends:

1. Ponzi schemes makes more consistent profits (for a while).

2. In a Ponzi scheme, you don't really own anything. In the stock market, you own something you can never use; you can only sell it to someone who also can never use it. Is this really a difference?

Am I missing something here? Or do all successful companies eventually pay dividends, or sell out to a company that pays dividends?

Becoming less conservative

I've heard that Winston Churchill said, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." It turns out this isn't true, but I'm going to talk about that quote today anyway.

By these standards, my brain has been atrophying over the last several years. My parents have generally supported right-wing political parties for as long as I can remember, so I was raised with a conservative bias. I let myself be influenced by other conservative people too, so by the end of high school, I might have been more conservative than my parents. Come to think of it, they might have been more moderate than I thought.

Conservatives tend to favour smaller government and lower taxes. This made sense to me. If people pay lower taxes, they can buy more, stimulating the economy. If companies sell more stuff and pay less taxes, they can hire more people, stimulating the economy. I cared about poverty too, but the old "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime" made me think conservative poverty-fighting programs were just as good as liberal ones.

More recently the media has talked about how the American economy did so much better under Bill Clinton than under George W. Bush. I know the president isn't the only factor, but here was a big example of economic success under a liberal leader. Last year, Scott Adams (the writer of Dilbert) commissioned a survey of economists to find out which presidential candidate they thought would be best for the economy. Overall, they favoured Obama over McCain. It also turned out that more economists are registered as Democrats than Republicans. (To anyone who thinks political affiliation biased the results: in general the Independents favoured Obama. Also, the fact that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the survey shows that economists tend to favour liberal policies in general.) So there's more evidence that liberal policies could be good for the economy.

Changes in my faith in God (yes, I'm still an evangelical Christian in case you're wondering) have made me less inclined to support socially conservative causes too, but I'm not going to get into the reasons for that today.

I've still never voted for the Liberal party. I'd generally consider myself moderate, not so much liberal or conservative. But my recent votes against the Liberals have had more to do with integrity and leadership than with policies.

The End.

Do you ever notice themes to certain years in your life? I half-jokingly called 2007 my year of worldly success. I started that year unemployed, living with my parents, and without a girlfriend. By the end of the year, I had a job, I owned a condo, and I had a girlfriend.

2008 seems to be the year of endings.

For the first time that I know of, a couple whose wedding I attended are now separated.

My girlfriend and I broke up (in February).

On more of a national and global scale, our economic growth has ended, for a while. Somebody even said, "We are not in a recession. We are not even in a depression. We are at the end of an era." I have no idea if they're right.

For the second time that I know of, a couple whose wedding I attended are now separated.

Recently, the Christian college I attended in 2000-2001 (Taylor University College) announced that it is closing next year. Its seminary will remain open.

Most of these things don't directly involve me, and I can't say that I regret the changes that do directly involve me. But thinking about all this stuff puts me in a bit of a melancholy mood.

Election day

I'm watching the TV coverage of the Alberta election as I'm writing this. So far it looks like the Progressive Conservatives will have a strong majority, but it's not over yet.

Over the last year and a bit, I've been moderately satisfied with Ed Stelmach's leadership. One of my biggest worries about him was that he's too nice and can't make tough decisions or take criticism. But he's been decisive on issues like natural resource royalties and some other areas that Ralph Klein neglected.

Then there's the issue of integrity. He may not be very charismatic, but he seems trustworthy. But I'm concerned about some things, like having his own party appoint the people running the election--not his party's election campaign, but the actual polling stations and things like that. Maybe this was a lapse in judgment, and I doubt it would lead to any significant electoral fraud. As much as I hate "slippery slope" arguments, I have to say that this could be a slippery slope to increased government corruption. Maybe this wasn't Stelmach's idea, but in his position, he has a responsibility to stop this kind of thing. Since he didn't stop it, it shows some weakness in his leadership.

I also think we should slow down this crazy rate of economic growth here, and Stelmach doesn't want to do that. The Liberals, NDP, and Green Party all want to slow the growth. Actually, I've been more impressed with Kevin Taft than any other Liberal leader (provincial or federal) in my voting years. I tend to think the NDP is too left wing and the Wildrose Alliance is too right wing. I'd like to see the Green Party gain some seats, but so far it doesn't look like they will.

So how did I vote? I'm not telling.