I sent a copy of my article below to our Premier and received this response:
Thank you for your email to Premier McNeil.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest Regards,
Premier’s Correspondence Unit
Suffice to say, Stephen’s minions will never show him the email and this becomes a mute issue. That is too bad as the program was utilized in the late 80s to revitalize a struggling agriculture industry. Possibly it makes too much sense. And another question, how many people are in the Premier’s Correspondence Unit and what are their salaries? Another huge government blackhole.
Mr. Traves certainly has hit the nail on the head with the way NS governments just continue to hand out money without any realistic way of monitoring results. My take on this situation is that neither government near government people have any real financial knowledge. Most loans are likely done strictly for political reasons, which usually results in huge write-offs when these companies go bankrupt and close their doors. I would like to present a different solution, one in which I participated in during the 70s and 80s in Alberta. There simply is no reason the government should be lending money to anyone, but providing loan guarantees. The government needs to set up a program with strict objectives and guidelines, for the benefit of the province. All the companies then looking for government assistance would have to make application at a bank or credit union, who then reviews the history and projections provided. If the application makes financial sense and is within the stated objectives of the governments program, the bank or credit union would provide a copy of the application and credit decision to the government and request the government provide either a partial or full guarantee for the loan or loans. By proceeding in this manner, the proposals are reviewed by people with credit granting knowledge, not political animals intent on looking good. I would guess this method would result in substantially reduced write-offs for the province and also provide the borrowers with the financial expertise banks and credit unions would provide. Banks and credit unions are much quicker to respond when a company is approaching insolvency, due the having far more financial information than the government requires. I see this as a viable alternative to Mr.Traves recommendations.
Much of what is contained in the Traves report is very good and could certainly provide the basis for an improved way forward but really a lot of what it suggests has the ring of ‘ same ol’,’same ol’.. Unfortunately the end result is always the same because Political Considerations and Sound Business Decisions tend to be mutually exclusive.
By economic development, my assumption is that you mean providing employment for citizens in Nova Scotia, which in its effect hopes to lift the economy out of its poor standing (and not dwell on some of the other more social aspects of the subject).
As such I find your academic list of “instruments” just another ‘consulting exercise’ farmed out by the electocrats, as to what government could be doing to stimulate more workplace expansion.
Haven’t we learned that offering the carrot of government funds, doesn’t work (or last)?
The argument may be that investment capital doesn’t grow on trees, nor will the banks lend to ‘beginners’, leaving the only available ‘trough’, that of the E.D. dept. Its use contributes to already oversized government as well as further raising taxation, and around we go again.
Would a more “transparent choice” be to investigate where the capital that Flaherty and others infer is hanging around doing little, went; for it doesn’t seem to want to come to N.S.; perhaps because there is some sort of risk.
Speaking of risk, isn’t there often a reward for taking on risk. Just think of what might have been the result, if in the days of wooden ships, we had been adventurous enough to get on with iron shipbuilding.
Perhaps another transparent thing our electeds should consider is to be more supportive of things undertaken, from fish farms to quarries all of which would develope economy in their neighbourhoods, by or via local businessmen.
Have we taught our citizens not to do the work available? (We must be teaching them something, for they stay in school until midlife.)
I sent a copy of my article below to our Premier and received this response:
Thank you for your email to Premier McNeil.
This is an automatic confirmation your email has been received.
Warmest Regards,
Premier’s Correspondence Unit
Suffice to say, Stephen’s minions will never show him the email and this becomes a mute issue. That is too bad as the program was utilized in the late 80s to revitalize a struggling agriculture industry. Possibly it makes too much sense. And another question, how many people are in the Premier’s Correspondence Unit and what are their salaries? Another huge government blackhole.
Richard Randall | April 1, 2014 |
Mr. Traves certainly has hit the nail on the head with the way NS governments just continue to hand out money without any realistic way of monitoring results. My take on this situation is that neither government near government people have any real financial knowledge. Most loans are likely done strictly for political reasons, which usually results in huge write-offs when these companies go bankrupt and close their doors. I would like to present a different solution, one in which I participated in during the 70s and 80s in Alberta. There simply is no reason the government should be lending money to anyone, but providing loan guarantees. The government needs to set up a program with strict objectives and guidelines, for the benefit of the province. All the companies then looking for government assistance would have to make application at a bank or credit union, who then reviews the history and projections provided. If the application makes financial sense and is within the stated objectives of the governments program, the bank or credit union would provide a copy of the application and credit decision to the government and request the government provide either a partial or full guarantee for the loan or loans. By proceeding in this manner, the proposals are reviewed by people with credit granting knowledge, not political animals intent on looking good. I would guess this method would result in substantially reduced write-offs for the province and also provide the borrowers with the financial expertise banks and credit unions would provide. Banks and credit unions are much quicker to respond when a company is approaching insolvency, due the having far more financial information than the government requires. I see this as a viable alternative to Mr.Traves recommendations.
Richard Randall | March 31, 2014 |
Much of what is contained in the Traves report is very good and could certainly provide the basis for an improved way forward but really a lot of what it suggests has the ring of ‘ same ol’,’same ol’.. Unfortunately the end result is always the same because Political Considerations and Sound Business Decisions tend to be mutually exclusive.
bob mackenzie | March 28, 2014 |
By economic development, my assumption is that you mean providing employment for citizens in Nova Scotia, which in its effect hopes to lift the economy out of its poor standing (and not dwell on some of the other more social aspects of the subject).
As such I find your academic list of “instruments” just another ‘consulting exercise’ farmed out by the electocrats, as to what government could be doing to stimulate more workplace expansion.
Haven’t we learned that offering the carrot of government funds, doesn’t work (or last)?
The argument may be that investment capital doesn’t grow on trees, nor will the banks lend to ‘beginners’, leaving the only available ‘trough’, that of the E.D. dept. Its use contributes to already oversized government as well as further raising taxation, and around we go again.
Would a more “transparent choice” be to investigate where the capital that Flaherty and others infer is hanging around doing little, went; for it doesn’t seem to want to come to N.S.; perhaps because there is some sort of risk.
Speaking of risk, isn’t there often a reward for taking on risk. Just think of what might have been the result, if in the days of wooden ships, we had been adventurous enough to get on with iron shipbuilding.
Perhaps another transparent thing our electeds should consider is to be more supportive of things undertaken, from fish farms to quarries all of which would develope economy in their neighbourhoods, by or via local businessmen.
Have we taught our citizens not to do the work available? (We must be teaching them something, for they stay in school until midlife.)
Gordon a.... | March 28, 2014 |