Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Alberta freest Canadian province, ranks 12th in North American; other provinces rank near bottom

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By: Dean Stansel, José Torra, Matthew D. Mitchell and Ángel Carrión-Tavárez

Alberta is, once again, the Canadian province with the highest level of economic freedom, while most other provinces rank in the bottom half in the annual Economic Freedom of North America report, published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan, public policy think-tank.

Individuals have more economic freedom when they are allowed to make more of their own economic decisions such as what to buy, where to work and how to start and run a business. And research shows that economic freedom is fundamental to prosperity.

The report ranks the provinces and states individually for each country (Canada, the U.S. and Mexico). In addition, there is a fourth measure comparing and ranking all states and provinces, across all three countries. All of the rankings measure government spending, taxation, regulations and labour market restrictions using data from 2022 (the latest year of available comparable data).

“Higher taxes, higher levels of government spending and overly burdensome regulations continue to depress economic freedom across much of Canada, which makes it harder for individuals and businesses to thrive and create jobs,” said Matthew Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and co-author of this year’s report.

In the ranking covering all three countries, which includes both federal and provincial government policies, Alberta is once again the highest-ranking Canadian province. It tied four U.S. states at 12th, having improved its ranking from 41st last year.

The next freest province is British Columbia, which ranks 43rd out of 93, followed by Ontario (47th), Saskatchewan (50th), Manitoba (53rd) and Quebec (54th).

The four Atlantic provinces— New Brunswick (57th), Prince Edward Island (58th), Nova Scotia (59th) and Newfoundland and Labrador (60th)—have the lowest levels of economic freedom among all provinces and U.S. states, only outranking the Mexican states and Puerto Rico. New Hampshire, once again, earned the overall top spot amongst all provinces and states in the rankings this year.

“The link between economic freedom and prosperity is clear: people who live in provinces or states that have comparatively lower taxation, lower government, sound regulatory regimes and more flexible labor markets tend, on average, to live happier, healthier and wealthier lives,” Mitchell said.

For instance, according to the latest report, total income in the freest jurisdictions grew 29 per cent after adjusting for inflation over the last decade, while in the least-free jurisdictions, total inflation adjusted income fell 13 per cent.

The Economic Freedom of North America report (co-authored by Dean Stansel, José Torra and Ángel Carrión-Tavárez) is an offshoot of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World index, the result of more than a quarter century of work by more than 60 scholars including three Nobel laureates.

Detailed tables for each country and subnational jurisdiction can be found at www.freetheworld.org.

Economic Freedom of North America 2024

  • The indices in the Economic Freedom of North America 2024 measure the degree to which governments in North America permit their citizens to make their own economic choices.
  • They include data from the 10 Canadian provinces, 50 US states, 32 Mexican states, and the US territory of Puerto Rico.
  • In the all-government index—which takes account of federal as well as state/provincial policies—the most economically-free jurisdiction in North America is New Hampshire, followed by Idaho, Oklahoma and South Carolina tied for third, and Florida and Indiana tied for fifth.
  • The lowest-ranking jurisdictions are all Mexican states. In last place is Ciudad de México. Above that is Colima, Campeche, Tamaulipas, and Zacatecas.
  • Alberta is the highest-ranking Canadian province, tied for 12th place with Tennessee, South Dakota, Colorado, and Texas. The next-highest Canadian province is British Columbia, which is tied with Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico for 43rd.
  • Average economic freedom across all 93 jurisdictions has fallen every year since 2017 and is now slightly above its all-time low.
  • Incomes in the freest top 25 percent of North American jurisdictions were 21 times higher than in the least-free.
  • From 2013 to 2022 the population of the freest US states grew 10 times faster and total employment grew three times faster than in the least-free states.

 

Business

Big Tech’s Sudden Rush Into Nuclear Is A Win-Win For America

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The U.S. power-generation sector has been hit in recent weeks with story after story about Big Tech firms entering into deals with power providers or developers to satisfy their electricity needs with nuclear generation.

Here are some examples:

—In mid-October, Google said it had entered into an agreement to purchase power for its data center needs from Kairos Power, a developer of small modular reactors (SMRs).

—A couple of weeks earlier, Microsoft and Constellation completed a deal that would involve the restart of Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania to power that company’s needs.

—On Dec. 3, Meta issued a request for proposals to nuclear developers to provide up to 4 gigawatts (GW) of electricity to power data centers and AI no later than the early 2030s.

—Perhaps the most extensive development of all came two days after Google’s announcement, when Amazon announced it has entered into deals to support the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) with three developers in three different regions of the country.

So, what’s going on here? Aren’t all these Big Tech companies supposed to be totally bought into the climate-alarm narrative, a narrative that claims wind and solar are the only real “clean” energy solutions for power generation? Aren’t we constantly bombarded by boosters of those non-solutions that they are able to reliably provide uninterrupted electricity if backed up by stationary batteries?

Certainly, that has been the case in the past — few corporations could hope to match the volume of virtue signaling about green energy we have seen from these tech companies in recent years. That was all fine until, apparently, the AI revolution came along.

AI is an enormous power hog, one that these and other Big Tech firms must now rapidly adopt to remain competitive.

The trouble with AI and the data centers needed to make it go is that it requires the reliable, constant injection of electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days every year. While these Big Tech firms would no doubt love to be able to virtue signal about sourcing their power from wind and solar backed up by enormous banks of batteries, each and every one of them has assessed that option and realized it cannot reliably fill their needs.

Thus, the recent rush to nuclear. After all, once they’ve been built and placed into service, nuclear reactors are a very real zero emissions power source. And unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants do not have to be backed up by an equal amount of generation capacity provided by another fuel, consisting most often of natural gas plants. Nuclear reactors are basically the Energizer Bunnies of power generation: They just keep going and going.

Another big advantage nuclear brings over renewables is the avoidance of the need to invest in massive new transmission networks. This is especially true of SMRs, which can be installed directly adjacent to the contracting data centers. By contrast, wind generation installations must be located in areas where the wind reliably blows. Such areas are often hundreds of miles away from big demand centers, as has been the case in Texas.

Where solar is concerned, the provision of multiple gigawatts (GWs) of generation capacity can require the condemnation of hundreds of acres of land, often thousands. The stationary battery centers for 1 GW of solar or wind would require another large swath of land to be condemned. By contrast, the land footprint for a pair of 500 megawatt (MW) SMRs would amount to no more than a few acres.

Where the deal between Microsoft and Constellation is concerned, sourcing power from an older generation nuclear plant like Three Mile Island will involve interconnecting into an already extant transmission system, though some upgrades and extensions will no doubt be required.

This sudden rush to nuclear by some of the largest companies in the country will benefit all Americans. The massive infusion of capital will accelerate development of SMRs and other advanced nuclear tech, pressure policymakers to modernize antiquated nuclear regulations, and to streamline Byzantine permitting processes that currently inhibit all forms of energy development.

It is a win-win situation for all of us.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Business

Bernie Sanders says Musk is right on military spending

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

“The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent”

President-elect Donald Trump’s new Department of Government Efficiency has energized Republicans, but it’s also receiving attention from some liberal lawmakers, including Bernie Sanders.

Sanders, the independent from Vermont, wants to help Trump’s DOGE, which is co-led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.

Sanders has his eye on the U.S. military budget.

“Elon Musk is right,” Sanders wrote on X. “The Pentagon, with a budget of $886 billion, just failed its 7th audit in a row. It’s lost track of billions. Last year, only 13 senators voted against the Military Industrial Complex and a defense budget full of waste and fraud. That must change.”

Sanders comments come before the U.S. House is set to vote on a compromise version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes nearly $900 billion to support U.S. military service members, infrastructure, and defense capabilities during the 2025 fiscal year. The 1,813-page document released Saturday by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees outlines U.S. defense policy priorities and their costs for 2025. Most of the proposed funds, $849.9 billion out of the $895.2 billion topline, would go to programs within the Department of Defense.

Ramaswamy and Musk wrote in a November op-ed that the military is on their list.

“The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent,” they wrote.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s annual audit once again resulted in a disclaimer opinion. That means the federal government’s largest agency can’t fully explain its spending. The disclaimer this year was expected. And it’s expected again next year. The Pentagon previously said it will be able to accurately account for its spending by 2027.

Musk has gone even farther in his criticism of military spending. He called the military’s most expensive ever project, the F-35 stealth fighter, “obsolete.”

“The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level, because it was required to be too many things to too many people,” Musk wrote on X. “This made it an expensive & complex jack of all trades, master of none. Success was never in the set of possible outcomes. And manned fighter jets are obsolete in the age of drones anyway. Will just get pilots killed.”

TCS - F-35
U.S. Air Force F-35 Lightning IIs from the 356th Fighter Squadron at Eielson Air Force Base fly side by side with Republic of Korea Air Force F-35s from the 151st and 152nd Combat Flight Squadrons as part of a bilateral exercise over the Yellow Sea, Republic of Korea, July 12, 2022. 

In May, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found the cost of the Pentagon’s most expensive weapon system was projected to increase by more than 40% despite plans to use the stealth fighter less, in part because of reliability issues.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s F-35 Lightning II is the most advanced and costly weapon system in the U.S. arsenal. It’s a joint, multinational program that includes the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, seven international partners and foreign military sales customers.

The Pentagon has about 630 F-35s. It plans to buy about 1,800 more. And it intends to use them through 2088. DOD estimates the F-35 program will cost over $2 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain over its lifetime.

The Pentagon hasn’t responded to Musk’s comments. Late last month, a reporter asked Defense Department Press Secretary Air Force Major General Pat Ryder about Musk’s comments on the F-35.

“Yeah, as I’m sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I’m not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35.”

Trump set lofty goals for the new group.

“It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhattan Project,’ of our time,” Trump’s announcement said. “Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time.”

The original Manhattan Project was a research and development project during the second World War that led to the creation of nuclear weapons.

Ramaswamy and Musk have previously outlined their plans for DOGE, which could include mass federal layoffs and reductions in federal regulations. Musk and Ramaswamy said they won’t rely on action from Congress and will instead “focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X