Grand River Transit

[ijmorlan]

I think part of the problem was the Liberals had poorly considered ideas. “Buck a ride” is dumb unless it’s clear what happens to the overall funding level. I don’t trust the populace at large to evaluate policy decisions well, but on some level I think many people can, at least some of the time, detect when a policy is just a brainstorm idea from an election campaign rather than a well considered idea that actually has some solid thinking behind it. I mean, I like the idea of lowering fares, but only in the context of increasing funding so the service can handle the additional ridership and to increase the number of people for whom the newly-reduced fares are useful.

Dumb ideas doesn't seem to hurt conservatives.

Yeah, I don’t know why that is. What I’d like to see in Ontario is for more of the population to wake up and notice that the Conservatives are, at present, toxic, and that on the other hand the NDP, while nowhere near perfect, would be no worse than the 2 bigger parties. Until the Conservatives get their act together the main contest should be Liberal vs. NDP.

It’s possible Doug Ford saved himself by booting out those anti-vaxxers from his party. It signalled that he is not going to go down the Trumpian route. We’ll see if it’s an accurate signal.

[ac3r]

As awful as Ford is, I don't think he was ever at risk of sliding into Trumpian style populism here. He's intelligent enough to know that the majority of Canadians aren't like that and we witnessed that by how atrocious the PPC, New Blue and Ontario First parties did. That shit just doesn't really fly up here. The pandemic offered him an opportunity to capitalize on that sentiment, but he never really did and primarily made rational decisions. He knew being sympathetic to pro-death Covidiots would have buried his centrist support and made the left hate him even more.

Ultimately, he's your standard Tory. Friendly to big busines and people with money, fiscally conservative, socially neutral (more or less). Even his handling of the pandemic wasn't as bad as it could be compared to other conservative leaders and politicians in the country or around the world. We had lockdowns and restrictions much longer than most Western nations which did help.

It's just...now that the pandemic is basically over, we screwed up by giving him 4 more years. Considering all the problems we face that are not related to that, we needed a fresh government but the opposition parties had terrible leaders and so he walked right onto his next term without needed to do much to convince voters (well, the 40ish percent that even bothered to vote). I won't give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll do anything useful for transit or whatever else...we'll just have to see how bad things continue to get - especially now that we're on the edge of global economic catastrophe.

[danbrotherston]

As awful as Ford is, I don't think he was ever at risk of sliding into Trumpian style populism here. He's intelligent enough to know that the majority of Canadians aren't like that and we witnessed that by how atrocious the PPC, New Blue and Ontario First parties did. That shit just doesn't really fly up here. The pandemic offered him an opportunity to capitalize on that sentiment, but he never really did and primarily made rational decisions. He knew being sympathetic to pro-death Covidiots would have buried his centrist support and made the left hate him even more.

Ultimately, he's your standard Tory. Friendly to big busines and people with money, fiscally conservative, socially neutral (more or less). Even his handling of the pandemic wasn't as bad as it could be compared to other conservative leaders and politicians in the country or around the world. We had lockdowns and restrictions much longer than most Western nations which did help.

It's just...now that the pandemic is basically over, we screwed up by giving him 4 more years. Considering all the problems we face that are not related to that, we needed a fresh government but the opposition parties had terrible leaders and so he walked right onto his next term without needed to do much to convince voters (well, the 40ish percent that even bothered to vote). I won't give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll do anything useful for transit or whatever else...we'll just have to see how bad things continue to get - especially now that we're on the edge of global economic catastrophe.

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it.

Ultimately, he's not a sociopath in the same way Trump is.

[ijmorlan]

[…]

Excellent analysis!

[WLU]

The government collects more than fuel tax.  They collect HST on the final fuel purchase.  They are raking in substantially more HST right now because of high fuel prices.

This is likely false or nearly false.

It would only be true if the money people are spending on gas would have otherwise been spent in a way that doesn't result in HST being collected. I.e., if they're buying gas instead of food, or gas instead of investing their money.

If they're buying gas instead of other luxuries (the most likely case) then it's HST neutral.

People make this argument all the time but it's assuming things exist in isolation...they don't.

"IF" they're buying gas instead of other "luxuries" O.K.  But there's still a ton of people who haven't given up on any "luxuries" to buy gas.  They pay the current higher prices of fuel including HST, suck it up and move on and then pay the HST on their other purchases that they would normally pay it on.  There is more HST being collected from these consumers.       

Regardless, I can only speak for myself and I haven't had to give up anything just to purchase more expensive gas and judging by the amount of cars on the roads out there, I'm not alone.

Don't forget about the transportation industry that uses millions of litres of diesel per day and the additional amount of HST that is being collected there.     

Sometimes people assume because they struggle financially or have to make tough choices on where they should spend their money that everyone else is in the same boat.

[taylortbb]

"IF" they're buying gas instead of other "luxuries" O.K.  But there's still a ton of people who haven't given up on any "luxuries" to buy gas.  They pay the current higher prices of fuel including HST, suck it up and move on and then pay the HST on their other purchases that they would normally pay it on.  There is more HST being collected from these consumers.       

Regardless, I can only speak for myself and I haven't had to give up anything just to purchase more expensive gas and judging by the amount of cars on the roads out there, I'm not alone.

By definition you did have to give up something else. If gas prices were lower, but you drove the same amount, you would have more money. Even if your employer was reimbursing your gas cost, that's still money they would have otherwise had. That something might just be savings, but that's still something you have given up.

That extra money would have been spent on something. If your personal budget is in surplus then that something might not have been today, it might have gone into your savings. But ultimately, unless you were planning to have a cash bonfire, someday that money would be spent on something.

Maybe you wouldn't spend that money until retirement, but until retirement you'd still have put that money to some use (e.g. buying assets). Even if you left it in the bank, the bank would lend that money out (fractional reserve banking) and the borrowers would spend it.

Fundamentally high gas prices cause a reallocation of money within the economy, but they aren't going to be significantly positive on HST revenues (if they're positive at all). In fact, the larger economic slowdown that's likely to result will probably depress overall HST revenues.

[Acitta]

I think that I bought gas once in 1988 when I rented a car after just getting my licence at age 35. I haven't purchased any gas since, so I don't care much about the price of gas.

[danbrotherston]

This is likely false or nearly false.

It would only be true if the money people are spending on gas would have otherwise been spent in a way that doesn't result in HST being collected. I.e., if they're buying gas instead of food, or gas instead of investing their money.

If they're buying gas instead of other luxuries (the most likely case) then it's HST neutral.

People make this argument all the time but it's assuming things exist in isolation...they don't.

"IF" they're buying gas instead of other "luxuries" O.K.  But there's still a ton of people who haven't given up on any "luxuries" to buy gas.  They pay the current higher prices of fuel including HST, suck it up and move on and then pay the HST on their other purchases that they would normally pay it on.  There is more HST being collected from these consumers.       

Regardless, I can only speak for myself and I haven't had to give up anything just to purchase more expensive gas and judging by the amount of cars on the roads out there, I'm not alone.

Don't forget about the transportation industry that uses millions of litres of diesel per day and the additional amount of HST that is being collected there.     

Sometimes people assume because they struggle financially or have to make tough choices on where they should spend their money that everyone else is in the same boat.

Suck what up?

Money doesn't come from nowhere. Like I said, if you are pulling it from your savings, that's one option that does increase GST collected (although only by shifting it to now, rather than later, presumably you would eventually spend your savings).

But most people are not going to have that option, and are going to forego some other expenditure.

And the same follows for industry, that HST collected then would have been collected on some other business expense, or would have been paid in labour which is taxed at a higher rate (as would dividends).

The only thing which increases the amount of GST collected is either an increase in the GDP or a shift of spending from GST exempt items to non-exempt items.

[timc]

Money kind of does come from nowhere. It is created when banks lend money.

The suggestion could be that people will just borrow more money to pay for the things they want as well as gas. Which is probably true for a lot of folks. But that's going to hurt even more the higher interest rates go.

[danbrotherston]

Money kind of does come from nowhere. It is created when banks lend money.

The suggestion could be that people will just borrow more money to pay for the things they want as well as gas. Which is probably true for a lot of folks. But that's going to hurt even more the higher interest rates go.

*sigh*...

We can make this an economic philosophy debate if you want.

Money is nothing more than a representation of resources and human capital (as represented VERY imperfectly by GDP). Banks printing more money might make the system more liquid, but it does not by itself increase the GDP (supply of resources of human capital). Printing money while what money represents doesn't increase is fundamentally inflation.

[ijmorlan]

Money kind of does come from nowhere. It is created when banks lend money.

The suggestion could be that people will just borrow more money to pay for the things they want as well as gas. Which is probably true for a lot of folks. But that's going to hurt even more the higher interest rates go.

*sigh*...

We can make this an economic philosophy debate if you want.

Money is nothing more than a representation of resources and human capital (as represented VERY imperfectly by GDP). Banks printing more money might make the system more liquid, but it does not by itself increase the GDP (supply of resources of human capital). Printing money while what money represents doesn't increase is fundamentally inflation.

Yes. Also, “banks” do not “print” money; only the Bank of Canada (in Canada) does. Regular banks can only lend out deposits. The Bank of Canada can buy assets (usually government bonds, but in principle could be anything) and loan money; and to do so, it can use “new” money that it didn’t get from anywhere but rather it just created.

Of course, nowadays “printing” money doesn’t mean firing up the printing presses; instead it just means telling the computer that there is more money.

[taylortbb]

Yes. Also, “banks” do not “print” money; only the Bank of Canada (in Canada) does. Regular banks can only lend out deposits. 

"Printing money" isn't a firmly defined economics terms, so I can't say you're right or wrong as it depends on what exactly you mean. But through fractional reserve banking we do consider other banks to create money, see https://www.managementstudyguide.com/how...-money.htm .

There's multiple formal definitions of the money supply, see M0, MB, M1, etc at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supp...rve_System . Some of them would only measure money created by the central bank, others measure money created by commercial banks.

[ijmorlan]

Yes. Also, “banks” do not “print” money; only the Bank of Canada (in Canada) does. Regular banks can only lend out deposits. 

"Printing money" isn't a firmly defined economics terms, so I can't say you're right or wrong as it depends on what exactly you mean. But through fractional reserve banking we do consider other banks to create money, see https://www.managementstudyguide.com/how...-money.htm .

There's multiple formal definitions of the money supply, see M0, MB, M1, etc at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supp...rve_System . Some of them would only measure money created by the central bank, others measure money created by commercial banks.

Yes, they do create it in a sense; but they don’t create it out of nowhere. They lend money that was deposited with them, which has the effect of allowing 2 people to consider themselves to have the money: the depositor, and the borrower. In fact, they can’t even lend all their deposits, thanks to the cash reserve ratio. The money lent by a bank is limited by the money they have available, just as the money you can lend a friend to pay a restaurant bill is limited by your cash on hand. Anybody could set themselves up as a bank, by offering to pay interest on deposits and also offering to loan money; but long experience has taught us that this activity must be regulated quite strictly, so in practice only organizations of significant size can actually do so (legally).

By contrast, the only thing preventing the Bank of Canada from buying every current real estate listing in the country for double its current asking price, and also offering to buy every Government of Canada bond in existence for face value, while simultaneously funding every transit project ever proposed, is that doing so would be a grossly irresponsible exercise of the Bank’s power to create money out of nowhere.

[Bytor]

https://kitchener.citynews.ca/local-news...23-5530648

Nova Bus has been selected to supply Grand River Transit's first electric buses.

The first buses are expected to arrive in spring 2023. GRT has ordered an initial six buses. Five additional electric buses are scheduled to follow in 2024.

[ac3r]

The new Route 79 Breslau starts service on July 11.

Route 79 is a new on-demand transit service in the town of Breslau and the surrounding area, including YKF, with connections to Routes 34 and 204. Try it free until Sept. 2.

https://twitter.com/GRT_ROW/status/15447...cSjxQ&s=19