Be nice if all those projects are completed before May 09. There will be long dry summers after the 09 election.

Cheers

Naw, they will find the money to do more. We are running at a surplus, paying off the provincial debt slowly and improving the lives of British Columbians.

"Towns for Tomorrow" .... can I get a consulting contract to come up with some of those catch phrases? .....

How does this relate to the "Roads for Tomorrow" pragram?

Can anyone remember the catch phrase for the last program dealing with towns?

Is there a "Cities for Tomorrow" program?

Can we combine programs:

"Smart Growth in Towns for Tomorrow"?

Maybe combine three programs ... the "now" series of programs with the "smart" series and the "tomorrow" series ....?

"Smart Growth Now in Towns for Tomorrow"?

Does "now" cancel out "tomorrow".

Gee, this is getting tough. I am obviously going to be earning my consulting fees.

;-)

He speaks:- "We are running at a surplus, paying off the provincial debt slowly and improving the lives of British Columbians."

Are we? What does the provincial debt, in total, stand at now? What does the OVERALL debt, the total owed by not only the BC government but including that owed by ALL British Columbians stand at now?

Are we "improving the lives of British Columbians" in an EQUAL proportion to the extent of OVERALL debt growth?

In an EQUAL proportion to just government debt growth?

Or are BOTH total government debt obligations and total OVERALL debt growth growing faster?

In other words, for the overwhelming majority of British Columbians does our ongoing COST of living continue to outpace our STANDARD of living, even though for many both may be increasing?

socredible .... I tend to agree with what you continue to say about the debt of the province and the personal debt of the individuals in the province.

However, that is only one side of the ledger. There are also assets.

I also understnd that when one considers assets, the value is only as good as the day they are utilized. Thus, oil at $60 per barrel a few years ago has increased to $140 or so and may just go back down to $60 or even lower if conditions change.

So, what is the net value of oil and gas in the ground at any given time?

Also companies which are in this province now, may relocate and their benefits will no longer be an asset to the province.

MPB may remove 90% of the 40% or so of the merchantable fibre on the stand which is affected.

Things change. But, there should be an asset account as well for both individuals and the province. Without that we are merely looking at the negative balance on credit cards and loans rather than the positive balance of savings and investments and annual income.

It is like the ongoing question: "is it better to go into debt to purchase a house, or should one rent and not create such a huge dept (without giving consideration to the asset value)?

[urlhttp://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/archive/budget00/reports/bgt2000_topicbox_b03.htm[/url]

Owl, I quite agree. The 'value' of the Assets for a Province or a country is a bit different than the 'value' of Assets on the Balance Sheet of a limited company, however.

In the company's case the Assets are valued based on what the firm paid for them when acquired. This is simply a 'bookkeeping' figure, which may, or may not, accurately reflect what those Assets are 'worth' at any future point in time.

What REALLY determines their 'worth' is there being an "effective demand" for them, or the products they can produce. To a lumberman, for instance, a couple of million board feet of 2x4s in inventory is definitely an Asset he has incurred 'costs' to produce, and are valued on his books at that cost.

But if there's no "effective demand" for 2x4s, (the ability and willingness of some purchaser to meet that cost in money), and he's stuck with them, he certainly doesn't view them as being an 'Asset' equal to their cost! For he'll be facing the likelihood of having to write them down below that cost to ever sell them.

In the case of a change to the way the Province, or country, currently does its books, we need only take a look at determining a 'capitalized' value for everything within that country, including its population. That 'value' could be made to rise with every new birth, or discovery of new sources of oil or minerals, or improvements in technology, education etc. And it would fall by every death, depletion of mineral or petroleum reserves, tearing down of plant, etc.

This is not particularly difficult to determine, most of the statistics, if not all, are already kept and available. We know, for instance, how many years is an 'average' person's lifespan, and how many of those years, on average, are 'productive' ones.

We know what is being added, year by year, in the way of new plant and infrastructure, etc. And we know how much of that is depreciating, or becoming obsolescent, or has been destroyed.

In general, in most years, there will always be an increase in our overall capacity to "produce" over and above our overall capacity to "consume". WE currently PAY for ALL this ongoing increase in that overall capacity to "produce" from what WE ACTUALLY DO "consume".

In other words, we are charged, in prices and taxes, for all the 'costs' of production, not only of final product, but of the plant that made it. But we only get delivery of the final product! if we can aford it!

We should, if the financial system is truly to reflect the 'reality' it pretends to, be 'credited' with the difference between TOTAL 'capital depreciation' and TOTAL 'capital APPRECIATION' that occurs over any given fiscal period.

As our capacity to "produce" becomes ever larger and more efficient, this should result in an effective fall in prices to us, across the board. That's NOT what we're seeing.

Sure, there are some items that come down in price due to the efficiencies of mass production. But that ONLY is the case so long as ALL the articles that have been 'mass produced' ACTUALLY SELL!

For it is their TOTAL COSTS that have to be liquidated on sale, and if only a PORTION of what's been made actually DOES SELL there is no long term saving ~ the costs of that which DIDN'T sell will go into future costs of future production, raising prices