Energy Under Liberal Conditions: Playing the Lie You’ve Got

I’m a guy who’s pro-Energy. I want the sector to thrive. But along the way, there are real constraints.

Given a Liberal government — and the base that elected them — the question becomes: what levers are available to actually develop the industry? Are they using them? And how can they do better without alienating their voters?

That’s the equation, isn’t it? Our political system — democracy, if you will — carries complications that make it non-representative of all Canadians. It isn’t designed to find the average or what’s best for everyone. That’s not how it’s been set up.

The guys who stay outraged about what they already knew aren’t thinking forward. You’re still talking about how the ball got in the bunker.

The focus should be on the mechanism to get the ball out — and make the putt. You’ve got to get up and down.

When we talk about the deficit, we have to compare it to other nations. Inflation has become a form of taxation — and over-taxation mixed with misappropriation is inherent to the system.

There’s a lot of talk from guys ready to throw their entire bag into the pond. But you need to know what the best-case scenario is. What levers are available. You have to finish the round.

Stop whining and take a drop. Play a noodle if you have to — but play on.

The energy sector — and others — still has to be built up.

In The League, we go industry by industry to understand the circumstances each one faces.

If you’re stuck behind a tree, you punch out. Maybe even lay up after that. Don’t be reckless and blow up the hole completely. It is what it is — but you keep moving. You don’t just point at your ball and say bad lie. You already know you missed the fairway.

The U.S. and China have budget issues too. The real question is: what’s the global macro analysis here?

K. Dirkse would know how to set up the equations. But he hasn’t returned yet. This guy once closed his textbooks, pushed his notes aside — he doesn’t need notes — and made the point that he could solve complex problems without preparation. Financial engineering, cause and effect, three or four layers deep.

Probably can’t hit a ball, though. Too bad — he’s not up to the task of overcoming the learning curve. Steep one. You have to play if you want to be in The League.

He’s likely never had a rank lower than one. Might’ve become a fear.

As for cuts — where do you propose them? That’s where the conversation needs to go. A non-sophisticated audience won’t ask. There's a tradeoff. Who and where do you take from?