All economies are exploitative: there will always be winners and losers, and those who will take more out of a system than they give to it. Should we be looking at a model for our economy that mitigates this: one that creates more “haves” than “have-nots,” or one that creates a more balanced perspective for our economy. Is this possible, without scaring those who have obviously benefitted from the previous economy here in Alberta?
“The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw
All economies are exploitative: there will always be winners and losers, and those who will take more out of a system than they give to it. Should we be looking at a model for our economy that mitigates this: one that creates more “haves” than “have-nots,” or one that creates a more balanced perspective for our economy. Is this possible, without scaring those who have obviously benefitted from the previous economy here in Alberta?
Alberta has always been exploited for its resources, from furs to agriculture to lumber, coal and, today, oil. It has been a de facto colony: the Europeans were first to exploit our resources, then Central Canada, as we industrialized as a nation, and, after the National Energy Program issue, we found ourselves in a north-south relationship, though other foreign entities are also here. We have tried to diversify, we want to diversify, but it seems that we are continually unable to do so. Is it that we cannot do so, or is it that we have not been allowed to diversify?
Most economists will tell us that our two greatest handicaps in building an economy in Alberta are our low population base and geographic location as a landlocked province. Whatever we build here becomes too expensive to take to other markets, so we have resigned ourselves to being a resource based economy. To look at any other option is considered to be, by these great minds, preposterous. But is it our way of thinking that is wrong?
Economics, like all theories, is based on conjecture, creating a pattern of thought: it looks backwards for its evidence, extrapolating forward to create a line of progression. Linear thinking of this nature has epistemological flaws, too many to go into here, but it creates a binary way of thinking. Either something will work or it will not; either something is good or it is bad. And the high priests of economics say we cannot change, because it serves their philosophies, their way of thinking. What if there was a different economic model, one that may not exist yet, that could help us create a better way of planning Alberta's economy, because our current pattern of thinking has not served or helped all Albertans.
In the end, however, the government will find its greatest support from those who will benefit most. Will change be an answer to creating a greater benefit for Albertans, or will we continue along the same economic patterns as before. With this new NDP government, there is a renewed sense of optimism and hope in Alberta. There will be some trepidation, of course, but if we look for a system that is not so dependent on a commodity-based economy, an economy that is not so sensitive to outside market factors beyond our control, then maybe we can realize that plan set out by Peter Lougheed. Maybe the change we need is to change our model of economics, to find the courage and strength to do things differently.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
