Jul 8, 2014 at 15:34:59
“Agreed... This product niche in particular is based on the idea of indulgence. A bargain cupcake doesn't make sense... It'd be like a bargain Vuitton bag.
Unfortunately, engagingly in fact, many profiteers have jumped onto the band wagon to offer "me too" cupcakes which are so stupefyingly boring that you'd get more pleasure eating the wrapper.
Sadly, the moment of the cupcake is SO 15 minutes ago. :)”
Naturally Skeptical on Jul 8, 2014 at 15:40:22
“No kidding. When I visited the one in my area, I expected something kind of special but it was simply a counter, cash register, and a shelf of cupcakes. And using a mix to make them is an abomination. I doubt if it will be in business this time next year.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 15:28:18
“How far back should I be stepping? Pluto?
How about we ask the people of Philladelphia what kind of jobs they'd like, or maybe Sault St Marie or Cleveland? Buffalo? Winnipeg? It's funny, there are a lot of people there who used to work just fine before we allowed corporations to gut commodity prices with overseas exports funded by lax labor laws and slave wages.
Those cities had vibrant communities of middle class workers who earned their living building the backbone of our nations. Funny how they all got pathologically lazy.
It's a very popular trope for the "Libertarians" to want to paint the poor as lazy and looking for handouts. It absolves you of all responsibility in the greater picture. I guess Libertarians are like that, you like to live off the wealth of the land others have provided but consider it your due and without any cost or contribution on your part.
My logic IS NOT, if people want to be lazy.... My logic is that we can't all be day traders, lawyers and dentists. Some people want to be carpenters, autoworkers and garment workers. Those are NOT lazy jobs. Drop into a retirement home and ask how many lazy people are there. Be prepared to run.
Lastly... disposable income rising. Really? Where? In Shanghai, because THEIR middle class is exploding.
Do a little homework on national tourism numbers if you want a valid picture of disposable income.
And you had the nerve to call me uninformed....”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 20:14:14
“First, I'm a conservative, now I'm a libertarian? Lol.
Actually, I'm a liberal, but I'm also capable of rational thought.
Perhaps you need to go back and re-read this conversation, as your argument is getting more than a little erratic.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 14:56:51
“Ok... I just read the article you suggested.
Please tell me this is not your best source of economic advice.
Firstly the article dates back to 2008, predating the last economic convulsion we've seen run across the world.
Secondly, the author seems to surmise the entire purpose of commerce is her personal private happiness and satisfaction. Quite frankly, if there were more people like her on the planet I might just start advocating releasing the plague so that the cockroaches could get a chance to succeed better than we.
Personal desires and satisfaction are a lovely thing. They drive us all to our achievements in life. However when you fail to contextualize *your* wants and needs, well, we get the biggest mis-alocation of wealth and resources ever to be perpetrated by a single generation on the tab of all who follow them.
To illustrate using the author's example. Buying a sweater from a local shop provides income for the store owner, the shop clerk, the landlord and the state by way of taxes. These slivers of income get multiplied each time the author buys a sweater to provide a pool of money in the community to allow the clerk, owner and landlord to live and shop on their own... which in turn perpetuates the wheel of economy. Money goes from A to B to C. If B is in Hong Kong, C isn't here either.
“As I said, there is nothing in that article that refers to any economic theories. It is not "economic advice", is it a discussion strictly limited to logic. Are you seriously trying to assert that logic itself has changed since 2008? LOL
The entire point of trade is indeed to make people happier - why on Earth would anyone do it if that wasn't the point? People buy stuff because it makes them happier. It's hilarious that you're actually trying to refute this.
Further, you're using circular logic; a common logical fallacy. Your argument consists of "Keeping money in the community is good, because if it isn't kept in the community that is bad", which is essentially just saying "keeping money in the community is good, because keeping money in the community is good".
Again, this notion is simply incorrect. It's built around the false idea that money simply moving around in a community - regardless of what it's used for- can magically benefit the community itself. A silly idea, that can easily be dis-proven by giving some money to your neighbour and then have him give it back to you: A total waste of time.
So to summarize:
History alone proves you wrong.
Logic alone proves you wrong.
But hey, by all means - ignore rational thought and all of history's encounters with protectionism. Bury your head in the sand and believe whatever you want.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 14:40:44
“Thank you for the link to the article, I have opened it in an other tab and intend to read it over with interest.
With regards to humanitarian solutions vs economic reasoning, I would suggest that without humanitarian conditions, what is the point of economic conditions? I may not particularly WANT to live like people in Iran, but I have a little trouble with the idea that how I live *ensures* no one else can aspire to my level of comfort. It's one thing to suspect that you're supporting oppression, it's another to know and willfully turn a blind eye.
So, in the absence of my proposal for equalizing the playing field for all, what is your idea for rectifying the current economic situation.
There is obviously smoke in the house, so what are we going to do about the underlying fire?”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 21:00:08
“Quite the opposite in fact, our economic systems have dramatically raised the wealth of the poorest members of the planet. We do this through technological innovation.
Under your "everyone has an equal amount of wealth" scenario, technological progress would stall indefinitely. How would any significant piece of technology have ever been created if there was nobody to go to for funding?
And since poverty is directly associated with crime rates, how do you expect anything to get accomplished when the entire world looks like Iran?
Many studies have shown that - while we may have too much income inequality right now - some income inequality is required for advancement.
Compare any developing country to what it looked like 50 years ago, and the difference is entirely attributable to the technological advancements that came from developed nations. Most developing countries today has similar living standards to what WE did in 1950. Another 25 years and they'll be at our 2014 standards. That is the result of our economic system.
Had your "pure equality" measures been enacted 50 years ago, the entire world would be dying from HIV, Polio and every other known disease, without any treatments whatsoever. Living conditions would still be terrible, and the planet would be stuck in the 1950's until humans finally went extinct.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 10:39:02
“As for forcing us to buy from Canadian companies... Well, not quite.
Things are too far gone in the world to close borders overnight. It would cause havoc to have the real price of goods apparent. In the long term though, I would place increasing pressure to localize production instead of relying on massive transportation subsidies.
In the sort term I would impose a simple tariff system based on standard of living. Any company can do business anywhere they want, however a tariff will be imposed in proportion to the health, welfare, safety and income of their foreign workers based on our western standards.
I'd demand a real pricing policy that accurately reflects a goods' real cost of production and transportation. The playing field is not level. Economies made on the backs of people and nonrenewable resources are shortsighted and leave our world poorer in the long run.
If we can use the world's poor to produce dangerous goods, cheaply.... Then why can we not turn that system around and use our economic clout to raise them out of the destitution and slavery they experience?
Oh yeah, let me guess. That would be too expensive, wouldn't it?
Sorry, but I personally would rather see a gigantic tax on luxury consumption that ensured a basic standard for everyone than be lulled into a false sense of happiness because there are 10 000 shoes I can buy for a pittance while someone else works in unsafe conditions to supply me with amusement.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 12:07:53
“"If we can use the world's poor to produce dangerous goods, cheaply.... Then why can we not turn that system around and use our economic clout to raise them out of the destitution and slavery they experience?"
That's a humanitarian reason, not an economic one. Like I said earlier: Humanitarian reasons for protectionism are valid, economic ones are not.
We could, in theory, even out the wealth of every individual on the planet. However, you have to recognize the realities of such an action: There is only so much wealth(We can't yet just create things out of thin air), and the vast majority of the planet is infinitely more poor than we are. If you make just $40,000/year, you're one of the top 4% wealthiest people on the planet. Spreading out that wealth would make all 7 billion people as "wealthy" as the median 50%, which is right around that of Iranians. Go visit Iran, and then tell me you want 3.5 billion people to be lowered to that level of poverty, just to raise the other 3.5 billion up to that level of "wealth".
In regards to humanitarian reasons, such an action would benefit an equal number of people as it would harm, which doesn't really sound too humanitarian, now does it?”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 11:59:50
“Again, you just offer different methods of coercion. This all falls back to my debunking of 'artificial support'. It simply doesn't work.
And also again, protectionism (your advocacy of tariff's) has been PROVEN time and time again throughout history to be disastrous to any economy. Your ideas are not new; protectionism has been used by practically every country on the planet at least once in the last 1500 years. Every conceivable variation of protectionism and mercantilism has been used, and all have been a disaster.
And the answer to why is simple: Because while it might make sense on the surface, when you start critically analyzing it, the logic falls apart.
The word limit on Huffpost really hinders my ability to explain it sufficiently, but if you're actually interested to expanding your knowledge, this article does a good job of explaining the false logic behind protectionism:
It does a good job of explaining why several of the assumed premises of 'buy local' are false: "keeping money in the community is good", and "trade should be to increase absolute money, not wealth". Both false.
While reading, keep in mind that the article never once refers to economic theory; it limits discussion entirely to logic. Most people don't refute logic.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 10:25:36
“That is the standard policy that has been put in effect since the neo-liberal policies of globalization have come into play. The assumption is that people who used to occupy menial jobs will somehow be buoyed by the forces of the market and will suddenly become educated and obtain better jobs.
It's a nice fantasy, one where everyone has the skills, intellect or desire to occupy a "better" job. The fact is that for many, a menial job is the right fit for their skill set and aspirations. So when we outsource those jobs to Indonesia, we are very literally putting those people in direct competition for those jobs, but on a completely unequal playing field. We are effectively adjusting the pay scale of those jobs to the level of a third world, unregulated economy.
So the net impact to the Canadian economy isn't one of growth for all (more neo-liberal clap trap) it is more concentration of wealth for those who've outsourced their labour to sweatshops and no option for the worker who used to earn a wage that enabled his family to improve their circumstances. We've replaced those well paid working class jobs with "service sector" work. Work that pays a wage that was created as a baseline income for a teenager, not the head of a family.
Offering fools the mirage of more shopping for less money only works as long as you can distract them from their stagnating wages and loss of real opportunities.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 11:51:23
“Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We can only grow as a nation, or as a species, if we develop ourselves. People who are content to be welfare-babies or just work at McDonalds for the rest of their lives don't really contribute too much to society. If there's a million people who all want to work at McDonalds - well, too bad. If they don't want to be broke for the rest of their lives, they'll get off their butt and get a better job.
Your logic of "If people want to be lazy, we should let them, because that helps the economy" fails miserably. Using reductio ad absurdum, we can show that your logic inevitably leads to a society where everyone does nothing except watch TV, because that's all they want to do. Obviously such a society will cease to function. So much for this idea helping the economy.
Welfare is meant to be a social safety net for when people fall on hard times, it's not meant for people who "have no aspirations or desire". Someone who is simply unwilling to get educated or get a different job is NOT an excuse to orient our entire economy around their desires. Regardless, people like this make up the minority; most people want to be better and have more wealth.
Further, as long as disposable income keeps rising, stagnant wages are irrelevant.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 07:56:43
“The point you illustrate about hiring people to do pointless work and calling it job creation is a red herring. Creating locally consumed items locally and paying a fair price for those goods is not tantamount to artificial support, it is in fact the opposite.
The same argument is occurring with the foreign worker crisis we have been seeing. Canadian employers want to reap the benefit of their local economic boom without participating in the costs by importing labour to work for wages that are unsustainable in their economy. That is exactly what is being done when we shop for goods fabricated overseas. We are disemboweling our labor market by offloading the economic reality overseas.
Some people like to think that somehow we'll become the white collar world, and the Asian manufacturing countries will be the dim witted cheap labor. Unfortunately, that only pans out for the top tier of westerners. When you export the jobs, you also export the consumer power. Hence, what you see is an explosion of the middle class in Asia, just as our own is fading from existence.
Economists are like Phrenologists of the past. A revered bunch of pseudo-scientists who are laboring under concepts that are at best flawed, at worst dangerously false and self limiting. Economists operate under the idea that stasis is death, that only growth is life. In fact this fundamental belief is distorting our economies and destroying the earth.
Economists are the last people who's opinion I'm interested in.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 10:22:12
“"Creating locally consumed items locally and paying a fair price for those goods is not tantamount to artificial support"
People are free to do exactly this. You are not advocating that any restrictions on this type of activity be lifted (because no restrictions exist), you are advocating that people be coerced (either through regulation, or through societal pressures) into choosing 'locally made' items over non-local items, when they would have chosen the non-local items instead.
That is artificial support.
"Some people like to think that somehow we'll become the white collar world, and the Asian manufacturing countries will be the dim witted cheap labor. "
The same inherent market forces that cause similar industries to group together (ie, auto dealers are usually concentrated, retail shops are usually concentrated), also play out on larger scales. For example, this same force caused tech companies to concentrate into Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley was only possible because of free trade between the various States in America - had each State enacted protectionist policies, there would be 50 small 'Silicon Valley's in each State.
This same force WILL inevitably cause exactly as you say: China is already the world's manufacturing plant, and other countries will begin to specialize more and more.
I don't know what you have against specialization - our own economy would fall apart without it.
"Economists are the last people who's opinion I'm interested in."
Ironically, If someone paid you to write these ideas, you'd be an economist.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 06:58:12
“I love food and I love trying new things... but, perhaps there's a bit of a flaw in a system where a novelty baker goes public to make money and expand across the country.
Cupcakes are about the novelty, the uniqueness of the hand crafted cake. People pay(ed) a premium for these things based on the notion that they were buying an indulgence that was crafted to be an experience. Made from the best ingredients to be a unique creation.
Cupcake shops should be small and unique. If they lose that aura, they'll lose what makes them magical. Once the magic is gone... so do the clients”
Naturally Skeptical on Jul 8, 2014 at 09:07:57
“The product also has to be better than what the average person can make at home. A cupcake shop opened near me and it's not worth the price. I can tell by the taste that they're made from mixes and the icing comes in a can. And, yet, they charge $2.50 per cupcake. The size, BTW, is the same as one makes at home - just regular sized cupcakes.”
Jul 8, 2014 at 06:35:00
“Why on earth is this even legal?
I realize the government is an elected body (though I certainly didn't vote of this one) and as such has some power to act on our behalf... But secret trade deals?
I'm sorry, but globalization has been a pretty poor deal for the citizens of the world since the infection started back in the 80's. We've seen entire segments of our economy disemboweled and entire strata of our society decimated.
the rich and powerful have gotten far more so, while the poor have become dispossessed and the middle class is disintegrating.
Kids going into university these days have worse odds of getting ahead than their parents. They'll be saddled with catastrophic debt and a job market saturated with unpaid "internships" high turn over and a housing market which they'll likely never accede.
So, secret trade deals with Asia? Ummm, yeah, never mind, I want to hear the details and read the print NOW.
I trust these people to do only ONE thing... monetize everything they can regardless of cost. The benefit flowing ONLY in the direction of the rich multinationals.”
TwistedHoro on Jul 8, 2014 at 09:16:24
“Faved Fanned, check out WIkileaks, Global Trade Watch, and Expose the TPP on Twitter”
Jul 8, 2014 at 06:27:02
“Actually I have been doing quite a bit of reading over the past 10 years about the economic fall out of the policies championed by neo-liberal economists. My conclusions remain unchanged. The current trend of allowing corporations to source their labour in inexpensive, unregulated corners of the world is corrosive to the social fabric of our own economies.
Taking an entire segment of the population and dropping their wages to be on par with that of a third world country is economic piracy and leads to the growing wealth disparity we continue to observe. Perpetuating these policies will only lead to growing inequality which has been proven to lead only to war and revolution. Once you impoverish the poor to the point that they no longer have hope, you create a class who has no stake in the status quo. That's a bad, bad thing.
Henry Ford is famous for revolutionizing industry through automation. He is also known for paying his laborers unheard of salaries. His notion was simple, the men who work for me should be able to afford to buy my cars. When we choose to support overseas production, we are filling our stores with products the workers can't afford to buy.
Any economist who doesn't understand the inherent unsustainability of that basic premise isn't worth much in my book.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 8, 2014 at 10:13:44
“Income inequality and free trade are not connected in the way you think.
You say, "Taking an entire segment of the population and dropping their wages to be on par with that of a third world country", however that is not reflective of reality. When menial jobs are outsourced, they are gone: nobody's wages are "being dropped to that of a third world country". Further, we have minimum wage laws here - it doesn't matter what someone in China is making.
In fact, I would assert that protectionism and income inequality are correlated instead. When you advocate protectionist policies to force jobs to stay here, you are benefiting the corporations. Rather than giving the citizens the option of buying cheaper goods elsewhere, you would force us to buy from Canadian corporations just because they are Canadian - undoubtedly at a higher price. These companies benefit, and the disposable income of the citizens are reduced.”
Jul 7, 2014 at 12:46:21
“Actually, that was a rhetorical question. I really wasn't looking for your interpretation.
Perhaps you should use the internet to teach you something about successful human interaction and exchanging views and opinions in a useful way.
Perhaps then you'd be able to meet up with a real flesh and blood person to take out your frustrations on.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 7, 2014 at 12:54:22
“Also, I'd like to prove my last assertion with the simple fact that my first post was very civil and provided you all of the facts you needed - yet obviously didn't work very well. It only caused you to get defensive and then retort with more opinions - whereas my second post actually caused you to do some serious research on the subject.
Food for thought.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 7, 2014 at 12:51:31
“I take it you educated yourself and now understand the flaws in advocating for protectionist policies?
If so, I apologize for being harsh, but people are often most motivated to educate themselves when they want to prove someone wrong.”
Jul 6, 2014 at 14:41:41
“Economists? Aren't they the guys who're driving our global economy to the brink of collapse? Yeah. Those are the people I want to be taking advice from.
You need to ask yourself who these people are crafting their advice for, the business owners or for the world's population. Because from my observation, economists are really only interested in the people who have wealth and are looking to acquire more of it. Not really surprising since most economists have never so much as met a poor person or had to deal with them in a professional sense. In economist terms, slavery is the absolute best possible economic structure as it ensures maximum GDP.
That is basically the entire driving force behind globalization. Escaping local laws, taxes and unions and equalizing the world labor cost. That means taking jobs from an expensive place like Canada and sending them to Bangladesh where they can be performed for wages that would starve Canadians.
On paper, the company looks extra competitive... Except there are now fewer Canadians who can afford to buy the product.
Economists have us eating our tails and have convinced us that it's good for us. It's not good for anyone except those with the money, and since they're the ones hiring the economists... it sorta makes sense doesn't it?
Lawyers don't make laws, they don't enforce laws... they tell their employers how to do what they want using the law to protect them. Economists are lawyers for money.”
TwoZeroOZ on Jul 7, 2014 at 09:37:17
“"Economists? Aren't they the guys who're driving our global economy to the brink of collapse?"
Uhh, no. Wow, you have an incredible lack of knowledge - I don't think I could possible spend enough time educating you. Just try educating yourself on the failures of protectionism. This is 2014 and you have the internet: Use it.”
Jul 4, 2014 at 13:31:53
“You do realize that every-time you cross the border to "shop" you are helping dismantle the fabric of the society we've built, right?
You understand that prices are lower in the US because their minimum wage is below poverty level, right?
You understand that even with all the screaming of the rich about the burden of "ObamaCare" there are still millions of Americans who go without basic medical care?
You understand that your $7 t-shirt or $15 shoes were made in a third world country with no labor laws, no environmental laws, no health and safety laws by labour just north of slavery... You get that right?
Hey. It's your money and it's your karma. But when you bitch about there being no decent jobs for your kids and dying small towns, just remember you contributed directly to the situation.
Companies and rich people don't make the economy work... citizens do. When we make our decisions about what we buy, we decide how many jobs are in our town next year. We decide how well those jobs will be paid.
Making price your only determining factor essentially says, "slavery, environmental abuse and poverty are fine, as long as they're happening to someone else somewhere else and I can still get my cute shoes. Who cares if my neighbor can't pay his mortgage anymore"
Take a good long look at the state of America next time you drive over the border to "save". That's the future you're buying for your kids.”
“You have good points about your humanitarian reasons for buying local, but your economic reasons are without weight. Have you ever wondered why there are so few economists who support 'buy local'? As a percentage, there's less pro-buy-local economists than there are global warming denialist climate scientists. Both are fringe beliefs with minimal basis in reality.
Artificially supported jobs that shouldn't exist in the market are not a benefit to our economy. To explain this concept, imagine if the government hired a million people to dig holes and then refill them, ad infinitium. That would create a million jobs, drop the unemployment rate to zero, and be a massive, colossal waste of time with utterly no benefit to the economy (in fact, if it actually caused people to quit their jobs to do this, it would harm our economy). Similarly, artificially supporting these extra jobs with a psychological feel-good motivation like "buy local" doesn't do jacksquat with our economy.
Also, there are many common misconceptions about the poverty line. The poverty line is defined by 'typical goods purchased at the time': a smart phone with a data plan is a typical good, so if you can't afford that - you're below the poverty line. That's why the poverty level moves over time. Even those well below the 'poverty line' can still easily afford all necessary basics like Shelter, food, etc.”
Digitalhero on Jul 4, 2014 at 16:37:32
“Well I don't cross boarder shop that often. Only when I travel to the states as I live in the north. I am not helping to dismantle anything. I buy food and fuel in this country and I am taxed 40%.
The minimum wage is too low in the US, which is why there is a battle going on right now over it.
There are many Canadians without proper health care as well. Our health care covers major nessessities however many drugs that many people require to treat diseases are only covered if you are lucky enough to have a work plan or pay for your own (blue Cross and the like).
I am from Nova Scotia where it's been declining and dieing for many years. It's also happening in many other areas of the country because small towns and even big cities in Canada cannot compete with China, Thailand and the like for the ability to employ cheap labour. They can build faster, cheaper, and get it here sooner.
In terms of how we make our economy work does depend somewhat on how we spend our money but, to what extent? Shop at target or Walmart. Shop at best buy or future shop. Etc. The fact is because of the mega acquisitions that are taking place there becomes an illusion of your money going where you think when in reality it goes all in the same account. Which brings me to the buy Canadian mantra...”
Jul 4, 2014 at 13:20:15
“We need a national strategy to inform consumers of the provenance of the product they buy. If we can manage to figure out the calorie count in every food item in a grocery store, we can manage to track back the provenance of all the things we buy.
I think in the absence of trust worthy information, people choose the most affordable option. In the world of lies and exaggeration we live in, it's completely normal to mistrust blanket statements and unsubstantiated assurances.
I think given a simple way to understand who you're supporting in your buying decisions will have a very real impact on what people buy, even if it means spending more to support our local economies.
However, I suspect that as long as the Reform Party is in power, this will be like the effort to label GMO food. Regardless of what Canadians want, Harper and his right wing pals always choose the hand that greases best.”
Jun 21, 2014 at 16:34:30
“So, when do we end the bullshi# economic experiment that's guaranteed the rich become billionaires faster than ever in human history, while jobs evaporate, the middle class dies and the working poor move into boxes in alleys.
Corporations hire people when they need labour. They need labour when sales go up AND when the products they make are made locally. Cutting taxes and allowing multinationals to park their billions in the tropics is killing our economies for the sole profit of share holders alone.
Make corporations carry their fair share of the social contract. That means taxes that pay for infrastructure, playgrounds and schools. Oblige them to produce their goods in the country they intend to sell them in, or provide a steep tax in exchange for sending jobs elsewhere. Demand that they support higher learning by providing well paid summer positions to students and bursaries and grants to kids who want to be trained for better skills.
Legislate social responsibility over shareholder profits and make remuneration of the board, presidents and managers directly proportionate to the income of the lowest wage earners in the company.
There is a way to engineer a fair society... but it requires effort and balls. Apparently our current leaders have not appetite for work that doesn't improve their bank balance, as opposed to ensuring the public well being, with which they are entrusted.”
MJWood on Jun 22, 2014 at 21:44:31
“Right on. Make the greedy pay.”
renegade28 on Jun 21, 2014 at 23:39:08
“Not this is good. Heading to a just society.”
BT Coop on Jun 21, 2014 at 22:29:47
“The Harper government will do NOTHING to change things. This is because they expect to join the boards of those bloated corporations that have billion$ stashed away as soon as their political lives are over.
Did you REALLY think that the Reformers were making decisions to improve the lives of regular, hard-working Canadians? Not a chance! Oh but they talk a good story, while spending our money on tv ads to brainwash us into believing they are doing the right things. (Action plan? War vets being cared for? Pipelines are beautiful? Oil is our salvation?) It's all spin, psychology, smoke and mirrors, and indoctrination. Did YOU fall for it? I sure didn't.
The likes of Harper, Kenny, etc, made the right decisions FOR THEM while in office as MPs. Hudak and friends had plans to do the same as MPPs. Once they are voted out they ca$h in. And they ca$h in BIG TIME!
Remember Mulroney? Harper will make Mulroney look like a peasant.”
Jun 21, 2014 at 16:21:24
Canada British Columbia
“I think you need to get a better understanding about what invasive means.
When a foreign species is introduced into a new territory there are risks that it will find a home where it will not only establish itself, but also find itself without competition or predator. This can be incredibly disruptive to the natural ecosystem, not to mention dangerous to the new visitor as well.
When an omnivorous species appears in an area, they can extirpate the local fauna as they multiply without control and will eat just about anything they can catch. In some cases we see entire native species decimated this way and a population boom of the new arrivals which ultimately crashes once the food sources have been depleted.
Jun 19, 2014 at 14:30:32
“I agree that the capital costs are huge and that indecision, coupled with past poor decisions, make the challenges we face today harder. However, I think we need to look at this issue in terms of the big picture.
As a society we have no trouble borrowing great sums of money to tackle short term problems and saddle the next generation with the payments. Investing in infrastructure to extend the benefit of the one time oil resource is short term pain for a longer term benefit. Canadians need to use this windfall wisely to leverage it towards better quality jobs which in turn will help pay for educations and research for future generations.
Unlike our timber, once the oil is gone, the wealth from extracting it will be too. If we don't maximize the returns and invest them in our future, our children's children will look poorly upon us having allowed our wealth to be piped into the pockets of others.
That was the genius of OPEC nations and where we are missing our opportunity”
Jun 19, 2014 at 12:51:52
“Sorry, I hadn’t seen the link. A very interesting article, very informative. Thanks for passing it along.
However, what caught my eye in reading it doesn’t make the point I’m making less valid...
“Most of our oil industry is American-owned, and they decide to build our refining capacity elsewhere, rather than in Canada,”
“When they talk about what’s cost-effective and so on, they’re speaking from the perspective of their company, and not Canada or Canadians or Albertans," he said.
“Can we build refineries? Can we build upgraders? Yes we can. We need a commitment from the government to look at policies that favour that kind of construction, and that kind of value-added production,” he told The Huffington Post. “What we have right now is a government that favours the opposite: exporting of raw bitumen.”
Citing data from the CEP, an NDP report estimated that 18,000 Canadian jobs are lost for every 400,000 barrels of raw bitumen that are exported, and recommends that government discourage this practice.
“[The] Conservative government has chosen to focus almost entirely on non-renewable energy export, with little if any consideration given to domestic supply of energy-related renewable or non-renewable resources,” the report argues, adding that the Conservative approach “is driven by the corporate interests of major energy companies.”
But as the global oil industry has evolved, the economics of building a new refinery in Canada have only become more difficult -- and the political will to do so even less apparent.”
Jun 19, 2014 at 10:08:27
“The proposed pipeline is (currently) estimated at 7 billion... And the estimate value of that completed pipeline in terms of economic output is 300 billion... but it will only create 560 long term jobs. So, where do you think the money's going?
Of course companies don't *want* to spend money building refineries. Companies would not build housing for their workers if they could convince them to live in shacks instead. Companies aren't interested in building countries, their only objective is monetizing resources as cheaply and as quickly as possible. Their only concern is for the profits of investors, none of whom are liable for any damages caused by the company's practices. Convenient.
I raise the Middle East, not as an example to follow verbatim. First of all we are not a theocratic monarchy and if there was any example not to reproduce it would be a corrupt dictature empowered by delusional fundamentalist clerics. However, the harnessing of their petroleum resources has been a boon to their population who's standards of living have been elevated by the nationalization of this singular resource.
Governments need to treat our natural resources as the one time endowment provided to all citizens by the planet. As such, that wealth belongs to Canadians and it's exploitation should be done at the pleasure of the people for the benefit of the people.”
Jun 19, 2014 at 09:02:59
“what I'd like someone to explain is how we have plenty of money to buy land, build a pipeline and provide for an emergency fund but building refineries where the oil is, is unsustainable.
I thought there was supposed to be more oil in the tar sands than Saudi Arabia. Why are we shipping out an unrefined product to be processed elsewhere and the resold to us at a higher price? Are we still so colonial that we can't figure out the money is in the processing?
I suppose that's just one more example of the Reform party's close relationship with the oil industry, for whom the profit is in paying us so much for crude and the selling it back to us later at twice the price as gasoline.
Interesting to note that the Middle Eastern countries who are currently so rich that they own most of the United States real estate got that way because they nationalized their oil reserves and license extraction. Yet, Canada seems to be content to sell her wares like a $5 prostitute.
I wonder how long it might take for us to wrap up the state debt if we actually started to harness our national wealth properly?”
Jebus Lives on Jun 19, 2014 at 15:10:46
“"what I'd like someone to explain is how we have plenty of money to buy land, build a pipeline and provide for an emergency fund but building refineries where the oil is, is unsustainable."
Refining oil is a low profit activity.
Extracting and selling oil is a high profit activity.
.. having said that, I don't think anyone is opposing the idea of BC developing refining capabilities. (.. expect the same environmentalists that oppose anything that looks like progress)”
KL-MTL on Jun 19, 2014 at 09:27:22
“Harper doesn't believe in value added business that would stimulate the economy Nationwide even if it means ignoring the substantial cost advantage we have for the oil, gas, and materials.
Also, Harper believes that if he exports our pollution problems that he can continue to claim that his environmental policy includes for the lowest per/capita output of GHGs.
Jun 13, 2014 at 15:43:36
“Oh, wow. Are these guys still talking to the press?
When did we get a direct link to American politics anyways? The Americans get polarized parties, and somehow so do we...
I'd LOVE to see the Ford brothers in charge of the Conservative Party. It's certainly put the "party" into the conservative corpse. Whatever's left after Hudak's done beating it to death, the Ford brothers can stuff into a pipe and smoke.”