Solar PV in Ontario: Top 5 Reasons to Invest

Since October 2009 significant financial incentives are available for Ontario homeowners to encourage adoption of renewable energy in the province. Under the Ontario Solar Feed In Tariff (FIT) Program a guaranteed price of 80.2 c/kWh (for solar PV projects 10 kilowatts or less in size) will be paid for all the electricity a project generates for 20 years.

With this legislation in place green investments in general have never made such financial sense:

Return is fantastic, while it is virtually risk-free investment
With significant incentives that are available to Ontario homeowners going solar is far more than just an environmental and socially responsible opportunity. With Solar Feed In Tariff you will earn up to 14% (!) on your investments annually for at least 20 years. And these investments are virtually risk-free (guaranteed by the provincial government)!

Provide steady and predictable income
Price in the contract is fixed for 20 years. That means that you will have steady and predictable income for at least 20 years. However, current solar panels have much longer lifespan. You will be able to sell electricity (and generate income) long after initial 20 years.

Cash incentives from the government: Home Renovation Tax Credit
On top of these huge financial incentives current $1,350 federal Home Renovation Tax Credit (HRTC) is still available.

Green investment
By making this investment you will feel really good about yourself and the planet. A 3kW Residential Solar System:

• does the same work as 0.8 acres of trees
• prevents 5,831 lbs a year of carbon dioxide
• prevents 0.1 lbs per year of sulfur dioxide
• prevents 1.7 lbs per year of nitrous dioxide

Support local jobs and communities
With local content rule built-in into the FIT Program the major part of your investment will stay in Ontario, creating green jobs and supporting local communities.

In the next article we will analyze impact of photovoltaic panels on house value.

Solar PV in Ontario

Having suspended Standard Offer Program (the first North America Feed-In-Tariff in recent twenty years) in 2008, on September 24, 2009 Ontario made its second attempt to create a green economy. Solar Feed In Tariff with a guaranteed price of 80.2 c/kWh for solar PV projects 10 kilowatts or less in size and 71.3 c/kWh for solar PV projects 250 kilowatts or less in size may initiate a solar boom in the province.

Can Ontario repeat the success of Germany? If so, we can expect installing 200-250 MW nameplate capacity in the first (2010) year.

In the next couple of articles I will try to analyze opportunities created by the new initiative. We start from investment aspects of solar PV in Ontario.

Edge of Recovery?

Today's news - Bernanke told Congress that the economy is showing “tentative signs of stabilization” and Caterpillar Inc jumped 7.7 percent after reporting earnings that tripled analyst estimates. U.S. stocks rose on these news, extending the Dow Jones Industrial Average’s longest rally in two years.

Are we out of woods? There are some doubts.

Earnings... The current stream of "positive" news on beating analyst estimates is caused mainly by two factors: a) Wall Street analysts set their expectation on "inch above the ground" (e.g. Caterpillar reported a 66% fall in second-quarter profit and still beat analyst expectations) and b) Growth in earnings is caused mainly by cuts, not by growth in revenue.

Regarding stabilization of economy... Current stimulus package (more than 800 billion dollars) effectively substitutes the 1 trillion drop in spending which is caused by alteration of consumer behavior (see my previous post Spending vs Saving). Thus, when stimulus package will be over (Q1 2010) the economy will resume its freefall to a new sustainable level, which can be estimated as 90% of its pre-crisis capacity.

Vera's Blog: Art and Design

My wife Vera recently started blogging. To learn about her art and design projects check her blog Design by Vera.

Let's talk about art

The spring finally came! It is time to think about something more eternal than economic crisis... Let's talk about art.
I like impressionists. I like contemporary art. Not everything. Something with lesser details, obscure, indistinct. I need a playground for my imagination... To get an idea what I am talking about check Abstract Art Gallery.

Economic Forecasting: Why Does It Matter?

Forecasting is a tough business, leading some people to question the value of forecasting altogether. However, economic analysis and forecasting are important for at least two reasons:

-They immediately affect stock markets. Financial analysts and economic forecasters generate on daily basis a lot of news which can easily change a market sentiment and move the markets easily by several percentage points. As a result billions of dollars of wealth can be evaporated or sublimated within seconds. One of the most notable recent examples of such impact is Kenneth Bruce’s August 2007 prediction that Countrywide Financial might go bankrupt. This prognosis was one of the key events that triggered bursting the housing bubble.

-They have direct impact on policymakers. The Feds use (at least in theory) their figures in setting up monetary policy. The federal government bases federal budgets and decisions on taxes, government spending and transfers on their forecasts.

And that is why I think that economists are directly responsible for the current crisis.

Why not consumers?
They are not informed properly (at least not all of them), they heavily rely on economists and government, they are moved by greed, and finally they did not have any incentives to be modest and sustainable. Why should someone be modest in this frenzy of spending with easily available credit?

Why not business (e.g. predatory lenders)?
They are moved by greed and animal spirits only ("The markets are moved by animal spirits, and not by reason" J.M.Keynes). They will do whatever is possible to take advantage of the situation. And everybody knows it. Can we blame predators for being carnivorous?

Why not the government?
Well, the government and Feds share responsibility. They did not act properly. However, the major reason for that -they heavily rely on economists in their decision-making.

So, the role of economists in this uncharted sea of modern global economy is to measure depth and foresee obstacles rather than guess where we will be in five minutes with the same wind and depth. To be useful economists must become whistblowers, not heralds.

In the next article we will consider what economic forecasters specifically overlooked.

Mainstream Economic Forecasting - Too Complex To Be Predictive

The Conference Board of Canada
model includes some 1,250 equations.

Forecasting is a tough business. It is particularly true for economic forecasting. Nowadays, economists constantly miss targets by a mile.

In the previous posting I discussed problems associated with economic forecasting in general. In this posting we will talk about the major intrinsic problem of mainstream economic models - their complexity.

There are a couple of major complications associated with complex mathematical models. The first major problem are the parameters and variables themselves. With thousands of parameters and variables it is almost impossible to monitor or assess them correctly. Typically, economists try to minimize the error on key variables only. The major consequence of this problem - inability to see the whole picture. Every physicist or mathematician knows that it is easy to get lost even in the system of 3-4 equations.

However, the biggest problem is the derivation of these models. In natural sciences many of these equations are derived from the first principles (e.g. Maxwell’s equations, gravitation law) which were tested in countless experiments. Thus, these equations allow creating extremely accurate models that guide ballistic missiles and satellites.

Predictability of other natural science models which are not based on first principles (e.g. forecasting of earthquakes and weather) are much less accurate; however, they typically have enormous databanks for testing and improving their models.

Social science models, however, lack both rigorous first principles and extensive data (it looks like we have tones of economic information, however, i) its amount is not adequate to the complexity of the system, ii) this information is much less accurate and consistent than one typically used in natural science models).

In these circumstances it is possible (and what economists actually do) to develop a model by linearizing a system in some vicinity of an equilibrium state. Thus, such model may have predictive power in some narrow range of parameters. It may run pretty smoothly if the most important parameters change insignificantly and smoothly (in this case you can adjust the model to a new state using the same set of data)- e.g. economy between two recessions.

However, with a system of 1250 equations you have thousands of parameters which almost impossible to monitor or assess correctly. And due to construction of the model, if even one important parameter or variable is changed significantly you have to re-adjust the whole model, because the system can leave the previous equilibrium state and move to a new one. However, the problem is that we don’t have factual data to feed this model at a new state. Particularly, referring to the current situation we never had a credit slump, housing bubble and $147-a-barrel oil simultaneously.

A good example of economic forecasting models is the so-called Fairmodel, a publicly available (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu) econometric model created and maintained by Professor Ray C. Fair of Yale University. The Fairmodel is a compilation of multiple regression equations based on historical data collected from 1952 and established relationships among these variables. This model produced accurate predictions for many years, however, all recent forecasts were overly optimistic.

In summary, we can conclude that most of mainstream economic models do not have predictive power in forecasting turning points or unusual market events. What is the reason why they run smoothly under the normal circumstances but failed to predict the current recession and constantly fail to predict the correct dynamic of the recession? They were developed and trained on a completely different (and irrelevant to the current situation) dataset.

Roots of Crisis: Consumer Spending vs. Saving

The recent drop in the U.S. GDP (in 0.5% in 3rd and 6.2% in 4th quarters of 2008) is casually connected with the plunge in consumer spending. The government and Feds are trying to restore the financial system in order to rejuvenate credit and boost spending. Bouncing back of consumer spending is the vital part of the economy recovery; without it any stimulus package will not be able to put the economy back on track.

The only problem – it is impossible. Consumer spending CANNOT be restored at the pre-crisis level in any near future. On the next figure reproduced from from the Bureau of Economic Analysis website (U.S. Department of Commerce) it is easy to see that over years 90% of DPI (disposable personal income= personal income after taxes) were spent while remaining 10% were used for saving.




This situation started changing dramatically around 1993, when the share of saving started decreasing steadily. In 2007 savings reached astonishing 0.5% ($57.4bln out of $10,170.5bln) of disposable income. So, 99.5% of all money were well spent. No provisions on safety net; no retirement planning; just buying new houses, cars and home theaters.

Is it reasonable to expect that people will stick to this pattern in the current grueling economic situation? I don’t think so. It is much more logical to expect that they will return to a traditional 90/10 pattern, which means $1,000bln drop in spending. This "traditional" pattern will probably persist at least for some period of time required to restore consumer confidence and, thus, the associated drop in spending ($1,000bln annually) cannot be offset by any reasonable stimulus package.

In the next article we will consider why this regime change was overlooked by economists.

Roots of Crisis: Why Economic Forecasts Failed?

Yesterday, Feb 27, it was announced that in the last quarter the U.S. economy shrank at a 6.2 percent annual pace. According to the median estimate of 74 economists surveyed by Bloomberg, GDP was projected to contract at a 5.4 percent annual pace; forecasts ranged from 3.8% to 6%. Moreover, the 2.4% deviation from the previous forecast was almost five times as large as the average adjustment.

Couple more examples...
- Early in 2008, the Bank of Canada forecast the Canada’s economy would grow by 2.8% in 2009 and predicted $200-a-barrel oil. Impact of subprime mortgages was widely expected to be quite temporary.
- Canada lost 129,000 jobs in January 2009; way more than the consensus of economists which called for only 40,000 losses.

How did economists miss their targets by a mile?
Well, they admit that they are not that good at forecasting “turning points” like recessions. They missed this recession; moreover, the early 80s and early 90s recessions were not very well predicted either.
However, it looks like they are not very good at forecasting on quarter scales either. So, what is the problem? And why did they miss the change in consumer spending/saving ratio? There are a couple of reasonable explanations:

Herding behavior
Herding behavior is one of the reasons:

"There’s a considerable reward for being the outlier and being right, but I think
there’s a severe punishment if you’re an outlier and you’re wrong because then
you really look bad. It’s not like everybody missed it. You alone missed it."– Don Drummond, Chief Economist at TD Bank.

Focus on Growth
Such as our economic reporting is focused primarily on growth the most of attention is typically being paid to GDP and socially important indicators: inflation and unemployment. Other important variables (consumer spending, government spending, export, and import) are being monitored, but usually they are a part of more professional discussions.

Mainstream Economic Models
Nevertheless, the major problem of economic forecasting is that mainstream economic models are extremely complex. I analyzed problems associated with this complexity in an article about mainstream economic forecasting. The two major consequences of this complexity are:
- mainstream economic models do not have predictive power for turning points and they are inadequate for unusual economic situations (like current)
- with the huge number of parameters and variables it is hard to see the whole picture.

So, what is the point of a weather forecast which by definition can’t predict a hurricane, tornado or major snowstorm? Probably nobody would pay a buck for such service. Fortunately, we have weather forecast services which are able to predict major weather patterns. Also, we managed to build a tsunami forecast service, which will probably save thousands of lives in the future. There is a downside of their imperfect forecasts – sometimes they issue false positive (no issue, but forecast identified one) warnings. But, it is perfectly fine. It is much better than false negative (there is an issue, but forecast did not identify one) warnings which were constantly issued by our lead economists. False positives save lives, false negatives lead to casualties, bankruptcies and foreclosures.

Roots of Crisis

Such as we still don’t have a comprehensive answer (other than Wall Street greed and predatory lending practices) what went wrong and why we are in the recession I decided to dive deep into the topic. The following several articles are the result of my extensive research and data mining.

My major conclusion is: mainstream economists and U.S. policymakers overlooked the substantial change in the consumer spending/saving pattern and failed to act properly. This change in regime started approximately in 1993 and is accounted for both dot-com bubble and the current depression (note, it is not a recession).

The results of this overlooking will be extremely severe: more than 10% drop in GDP and significant (up to 15%) unemployment. Economy will not rebound from this nose-dive. If we do not reinvent ourselves, after this depression the economy will grow not faster than by 2 percent annually.

The stimulus package is vitally necessary. It will not prevent economy from plunging to the new, lower level, but it may smooth transitioning from the current state to the new one (e.g. it will not allow the economy to plummet by 20% and than recover by 10%) .

All these figures are for the U.S. economy. Health of the Canadian economy is much more dimmed and will be mostly determined by the transitioning of U.S.economy. The only one thing is obvious - there will not be any recovery in the second half of 2009 as promised by Mr.Carney.

In the next articles I discuss why economic forecasting is important, what was particularly overlooked and why it was ignored. Finally, we will discuss the grueling consequences of this negligence.

Are we climate-change deniers?

Momoko Price in his latest article in the Toronto Star analyzes why most of us aren't doing much about climate change. Lack of actions is caused by many reasons: people are programmed to want results right away; humans tend to want to respond by doing just one thing (e.g. changing bulbs), but, there is a silver lining: our susceptibility to peer pressure. By applying social norm we could not just change attitude but also solicit required actions.

It definitely makes sense. But, establishing social norms requires government actions. And governments even do something in this direction - e.g. on Jan. 24, U.S. President Barack Obama called for the installation of 40 million smart meters in American homes; the Ontario government has already promised to install smart meters in every house and small business by 2010.

However, here we have a classical double-standard problem. From one side, the government establishes a smart metering social norm and targets ambitious 2% reduction in energy consumption. From the other, it subsidizes oil&gas industry.

With such mixed messages I doubt that any kind of public campaigns will be able to cause any significant changes in our behavior.

To change our behavior clear and coherent messages from the government confirmed by appropriate financial incentives are required (e.g. revenue-neutral carbon tax).

Ontario in the Creative Age

Fortunately, my first impression of the "Ontario in the Creative Age" report was oversimplified. My second thought: bold and visionary study. Not all proposals are actionable, but it is a good starting point in goal-setting. Some comments:

Talents: While we have only 22.3% of population over 25 with university degree in general, this concentration is much higher in Greater Toronto, Ottawa, and Kitchener-Waterloo regions. We can take advantage immediately, strengthen existing clustered industries and seed new ones.

Technology: A number of patents per capita is not a reliable indicator of level of technology (though it is pity that we are behind almost all OECD countries). Japan in 50-60th mostly procured patents, however was able to build an innovative economy. It is a matter of management and culture.

Clustering: We have to take full advantage of our existing human capital and seed new industries: bioscience, alternative energy. This step will set demand on researchers and immediately: a) re-employ some professionals with university degree who are underemployed on routine-based jobs, b) increase attractiveness of creative jobs and stimulate college enrolement.

This crisis is a unique opportunity to build a new economy and prosper. But we must act and act quickly!

P.S. Fasttrack roadmap for Toronto: due to the presence of world-class research facilities (University Health Network, The Ontario Cancer Institute, etc.) Toronto can be positioned not just as a center for financial-related jobs (which can be easily outsourced), but also as a bioscience center (these jobs require significant infrastructure spending and cannot be outsourced easily.) To make it happened all we need to do is to give biomedical companies a 5-10 year tax holiday (subject to some conditions). Perhaps the budget will not receive some corporate taxes (which are anyway highly doubtful for companies with long R&D cycle) but we will have a significant increase in personal income taxes from highly paid researchers, bust in lodging, etc.

Creative Edge for Ontario

The day after I published my Sustainable Ontario post, Richard Florida and Roger Martin announced their report "Ontario in the Creative Age". While definitely being a step in the right direction, the report is not overly-ambitious and actionable. Some excerpts:

"Currently, in Ontario, 30 percent of our jobs are creativity-oriented, and they account for nearly half (47 percent) of all our wages. ...To realize a competitive advantage for Ontario and ensure broad prosperity for all Ontarians, the province should strive to have more than 50 percent of its employment in creativity-oriented jobs by 2030."

It can be easily done much faster (5-7 years instead of 21) in major areas: Greater Toronto, Greater Ottawa and Kitchener-Waterloo using existing human capital provided that provincial and federal governments a) grant appropriate incentives to the biomedical and telecommunication companies and b) create new scientific centers and facilities. These measures employ temporarily a lot of currently laid-off workers on construction and create a lot of knowledge-based jobs in the long run.

"To meet the need that 70 percent of new jobs require post secondary eduction, we must aim to have a 60 percent participation rate among our 18 to 24 year olds. ... About 40 percent of our 18 to 24 year olds are currently in post secondary education. We expect this will reach 50 percent in the next twenty years based on the current momentum."

Our 18 to 24 year olds (as well as all other human beings) are very responsive to incentives. If a researcher in the University of Toronto with PhD earns $45,000 a year and struggles to resume a contract every single year, it is very appealing to find a routine-based job in unionized environment starting from $50,000 and do not waste any time (and money) in colleges and universities. The message is clear- we need to change this perception first. And it cannot be done without government intervention.

The bottom line is... It is only the government that can change the HR landscape in Ontario. By shifting its support and subsidies from companies with routine-oriented jobs to creative-oriented ones (it actually can be the same company, e.g. GM) and creating additional workplaces in publicly-funded research and education the government will send a strong message to business community and population, which are very susceptible to incentives. And it is the only way to our prosperity.

Sustainable Ontario

"There's no place like this"
The slogan of Ontario

And it is true. For more than two decades Ontario and especially GTA was a unique crossroad, which absorbed (and still absorbing!) the significant part of new immigrants. Canadian immigration policy welcomes primarily independent immigrants (which typically are high-skilled professionals), that is why during last twenty years we managed to build the strong community with very high level of education (e.g. GTA is the 3rd biggest IT center of North America with 300,000 IT professionals).

But, our economic policy is still characterized by short-sighted subsidizing - rather than transforming- declining sectors like the auto industry. Why should a foreign PhD work on an autopart plant or drive a cab? Is it more productive?

With all its human capital Ontario should be a center of science and 21st-century industries, not an assembly plant. Ontario requires not physical infrastructure upgrades but long-term public investments in scientific research and development. This is a unique opportunity to switch to 21st-century industry and pull out of this crisis with a greener and more competitive economy.

Some thoughts about green energy

We all know fossil (and especially coal) power is dirty power, but all non-fossil power projects like nuclear power or incinerators and even renewable power projects like wind farms routinely face fierce opposition.
As older power plants age, they need to be replaced. However, we will have a hard time letting go of fossils until we change our attitude, which cannot be done without proper incentives from the government. Leadership and vision are required...

Solar Panel Price Survey

Here is the link to the Solar Panel Price Survey:
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
They keep it updated.

Home Renovation Tax Credit: Making Big Bang For Your Bucks

Effective January 27, 09 through Jan. 31, 2010, Canadian homeowners can claim a 15-per-cent tax credit against spending of more than $1,000 and capped at $10,000, with a maximum credit of $1,350. By comparison, the personal income-tax measures in the 2009 budget would amount to one-year savings of $483 for a two-earner family with two kids and income of $150,000.

The best thing about the Home Renovation Tax Credit is that it can be coupled with other government programs. For instance, making your home more energy-efficient can qualify you for grants of up to $5,000 under the ecoENERGY Retrofit Program and you will still be able to claim the Home Renovation Tax Credit.

The tax credit would apply to a variety of home improvements, such as renovating a kitchen, bathroom or basement, new carpet or hardwood floors, building an addition, deck, or fence, installing a new furnace, painting the inside or outside of a house, or laying new sod.

Expenses such as building permits, professional services, and equipment rentals are also eligible. Routine repairs, maintenance and purchasing furniture, appliances, electronics, or construction equipment will not qualify for the credit.

Houses, cottages and condominium units owned for personal use are eligible.

The government estimated the total value of the tax credit at about $3 billion, and expects about 4.6 million families to benefit.

2009 Federal Budget: Lack of Ambitions

The 2009 Federal budget is a complete lack of vision and ambitions:

a) only $1 billion for "green" infrastructure, $1 billion for clean-energy research and a two-year, $1 billion Community Adjustment Fund to help single-industry communities adjust to economic hardship,

b) tax cuts to spending ratio ($22 billion to $25.5 billion) is dramatically different from Obama's proposals ($275 billion to $550 billion, respectively).

Thus, we will run into huge deficit even without an attempt to change something and create a competitive edge.

"Smart" Money

"Smart money" are defined as the funds controlled by investors who should have special knowledge of the right kinds of investments to make. Essentially, the term refers to funds controlled by insiders or to institutional money. The implication is that if the individual investor can figure out where the smart money is going, he or she can follow suit and make above-average profits.

Given that the Dow Industrial is down 33.5% over the year and group average for 2935 International Stocks funds on morningstar.com is -45.1% over the same period should we still consider these money "smart"?

Infrastructure Spending vs. Tax Cuts

CIBC economist Benjamin Tal estimated every $10-billion of spending on infrastructure can potentially create about 115,000 Canadian jobs and lift economic growth by almost 1.5 percentage points.

According to Tal, personal tax cuts of a comparable $10-billion would create half the number of jobs – 57,000 – and boost GDP by just 0.8 percentage points.

Thus, infrastructure spending is much more efficient than tax cuts, however, is less efficient than investment in healthcare. According to David Macdonald from the Alternative Federal Budget Project at the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, putting $1 billion into healthcare would produce about 18,000 new jobs.

Canadian Stimulus Budget: Why Will It Fail?

In a few days our federal finance minister, Jim Flaherty, is going to unveil his “stimulus” budget and put us on the road to a $64 billion deficit over the next two years.
The only problem, it’s unlikely to accomplish much.

First of all, I suspect that Canada is not in a crisis at all. Yes, our economy is hit by a global financial crisis, where international banks, loaded with trillions of “toxic” assets stopped lending. It triggered the global economic misery and consequent drop in commodities prices. However, our situation is completely different. Our financial system is solid; our housing prices are much more sustainable with income than to the south of the border. Our economy is punched just through falling exports. So, any short-term actions to improve our economy should be focused mostly on increasing global demand on our commodities. And here definitely any government’s stimulus package will fail to deliver something meaningful. With 3% of global GDP we are not in a position to impact on global demand. Moreover, any other stimulus packages unveiled around the globe will have little positive impact until global financial system digests “toxic” assets and restores its functioning.

Second, the proposed budget likely is a mixture of infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Both of them likely will not work as expected. When newly converted Keynesians on both sides of the border propose to follow the prescription for 70 year old Great Depression, they probably forget that in the last case the infrastructure in the USA and Canada prior to the Great Depression was fairly inadequate. Thus, significant infrastructure upgrade not just employed millions of people; it also stimulated trade and manufacturing, which was the engine for next economic booms. Currently, situation is completely different. Definitely, it would be nice to have some aging infrastructure replaced or repaired; but such as we do not expect any significant advances in manufacturing, any significant infrastructure projects may employ temporarily thousands (but due to technology advances not millions) on low-paid jobs but will almost certainly fail to deliver the most crucial competitive edge, which will drive further economic development.
Tax cuts will likely have even smaller impact. Analyzing 2008 US stimulus package we can expect that most of tax savings will funnel to reduce individual consumer debt, while remaining part will be spent on import goods (e.g. electronics) rather than on domestic services. Thus, overall effect will be quite negligible.

Finally, this huge hole in the budget is a government’s panic reaction on coalition threat from opposition parties. In this case, the budget is likely not well thought. If money goes too quickly, they are wasted on poorly managed projects. If wisdom prevails and the government spends some time and thought to ensure that funds are well spent, the money arrives too late and the economy recovers by its own.

So, what to do? First of all, don’t rush and try to mimic the USA. We have a different set of problems, and they require different approaches. Second, economy definitely requires government intervention, but instead of blindly following John Maynard Keynes with infrastructure spending we have to understand his approach more generally. Thus, we have to build infrastructure, but infrastructure of the new economy. Not bridges and tunnels, but scientific centers and facilities. It will employ temporarily laid-off autoworkers, but it also employ people in long term on highly paid jobs and will eventually create competitive advantage for the Canadian economy.
And probably nothing we can do with the demand on our lumber, oil, and base metals. We either can wait until situation on global markets improves or try to mitigate its impact by building more sustainable and diverse economy.

P.S. Unfortunately, in current circumstances we don’t have a privilege to expect something meaningful and reasonable from the government. To please the opposition the government will spend our money on overpaid and poorly-managed projects and instead of enjoying the free ride on the huge US stimulus package we will dive deep into the debt.