CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy

[William Ashley]

If you can't beat em' shoot em. It's what the military industrial complex would do. And as much as god has the power to change the world, so has a gun.

This is not to say I plan on blowing someones head off, but I am saying that these people who think they have power can quickly be reminded, or their family atleast that all it takes off is one upset person to do something that causes change or potential change.

If this is me buying the organic instead of the regular petrobaked fruit then there ya go, that is change. It just takes people who actually want change.

an odd tangent but did you know the pentagon - years ago analyzed climate change and the expected outcomes, and reponse.

[noahbody]

But it is a free market. If only the government charged more for resource extraction, maybe we'd start seeing only useful products made.

You must be young. That's not the way the world works. Firstly, nothing is made in Canada. Secondly, Canada doesn't control the price of oil. Thirdly, if you jack up royalties, all you're going to do is create unemployment.

[William Ashley]

You must be young. That's not the way the world works. Firstly, nothing is made in Canada.

Actually a lot of things are made in Canada, but there is a growing trend for less and less to be produced and a greater and greater reliance on the natural resources such as oil and gas to be the major economic factor. That is part of the problem in Canada, they don't have enough refineries, they don't have enough self reliance. Fact is though, things are made in Canada, so you must be old and stupid or American.

Secondly, Canada doesn't control the price of oil.

And OPEC doesn't control the price of oil right? It is just the person who buys what the person selling wants. When I say resource taxes, I mean there are taxes on resources that are extracted. There ARE already royalties, stump fees and the like, but one way to insure INCOME for the government is to tax extraction. Sure there are already profit taxes called "Corporate Taxes", and there are subsidies to offset this. The whole OH NO not carbon taxes thing came in. Fact is Canada plans on running a deficit for the next 5 or so years - and the fact is that there have been corporate tax breaks in this same period. The banks have been giving over 50 billion dollars for land Canada already had rights to. Fact is Canada can regulate the price of Canadian oil, it is already some of the most expensive oil in the world.

Thirdly, if you jack up royalties, all you're going to do is create unemployment.

False. Increased royalties do not = unemployment. If companies CHOOSE to lay people off it is because they are greedy, they still have profit, if they choose profit over employed it means that increased employment is less profitable, which means their overall efficiency is low, and those people can be put to more productive work. It is an illusion, work can always be created if there is a task. The government owns the mint, it can pay people endlessly. If companies don't employ people the government should. The government has an endless money supply.

[Wild Bill]

You are gearing efficiency to consumption, and totally neglecting meaningful use, productivity, waste, quality of life, and health risks ---- from those products created. Fact is a chunk of those mass consumed products lowe quality of life and create health risks, be it hearing loss (even computer fans do this - cancer from say those waffer plants in arizona dumping toxins into the local water supply. It takes a tremendous amount of energy - and there is a tremendous amount of waste.

You seem to have your own definition of "efficiency" that differs from the dictionary. As soon as you used the term "meaningful use" in your definition you made it a political term rather than a technical one.

What is meaningful use to you may not be meaningful to me. No individual has the right to impose his own values of what is worthwhile to be produced on all the rest of his fellow men.

The efficiency of any process has nothing to do with the inherent value of that process. An electrical generating system may have a certain level of efficiency, which can be technically measured. Whether that system is "meaningful" is totally an individual value judgement. To someone living in Puerto Rico it may not be meaningful, as it may be leaving a carbon footprint larger than that individual feels is necessary. To an Inuit living on Ellesmer Island, it may be VERY meaningful! It might be all that stands between comfort and freezing to death.

This sort of thinking is very common amongst those who are young and may not have that much life experience with the practicality of many systems. I am constantly told by younger relatives that I should take public transit more and drive myself less. What they can't seem to realize is that I can't take a family's week's worth of groceries on a bus. What's more, that bus in my town only travels part of the route. I would actually end up walking more than riding. When I was in university, that wasn't as much of a hardship. Even in winter it could be more of a lark! Today, at 57, my younger relatives can frankly go stuff themselves! If I followed their advice with the poor level of public transit in my town it would likely kill me!

It has been said that "Everything is possible to the man who doesn't have to do it himself." It's only when you get your own hands dirty that you have to deal with the details of an issue. Anything is easy when you restrict the argument to an academic level.

[William Ashley]

You seem to have your own definition of "efficiency" that differs from the dictionary. As soon as you used the term "meaningful use" in your definition you made it a political term rather than a technical one.

I see it as "logical" more so than "political" If it was political, it would involve systemology, not idealism.

What is meaningful use to you may not be meaningful to me.

I agree 100% BUT here is the clincher, we may agree on some things that are meaningful, and then we can see how it may not be an efficient global process. I would tend to agree it isn't all black and white but there are colours also.

No individual has the right to impose his own values of what is worthwhile

...

Mkay. I think that imposition and agreement are two different things. Perhaps someday you will know what I know, or vice versa, then we can see meaningful cooperation to acheive rather than both of us, or one of us, live in pain emotionally because of the imposition of others on them, eg. auto exhaust, polution of the water supply, cancer causing products, and the list goes on. Fact is all these productions ARE imposing on other people, EVEN IF they don't buy or use the product. Figure that. Who will start holding their breath and living in a whole first? It doesn't work that way, but we should prevent and reduce the level of harm, that is why it is important for us as individuals to communicate to determine what we actually need and what we don't. I'm not talking communism, but I am talking it shouldn't be the buck, because we arn't equals in spending, we are equals in humanity. We can't let money decide, or else, it really is a small group of individuals, an oligarchy that is determining where the money goes and what choices are made. We are equals as persons, but respect of one another and communication is an important element of insuring peaceful coexistence.

The efficiency of any process has nothing to do with the inherent value of that process.

Think global act local. Not think local don't act.

An electrical generating system may have a certain level of efficiency, which can be technically measured. Whether that system is "meaningful" is totally an individual value judgement. To someone living in Puerto Rico it may not be meaningful, as it may be leaving a carbon footprint larger than that individual feels is necessary. To an Inuit living on Ellesmer Island, it may be VERY meaningful! It might be all that stands between comfort and freezing to death.

What no more ingloos? You might wonder how efficient living on an island in the artic is? But the fact is, would you have them survive, while that plant causes their food source to be destroyed? Fact is global warming has devestated the region, so for you to say some plant that contributes to that is meaningful you are pretty much wanking the day for your future away. Of course that is your choice, but understand the whole picture, not just the closed effect. If you only do the short circuit you arn't going to be doing anything good. Like for instance sure cocaine is a high but it has adverse effects also. So all this produced crap is all good for some people but it has adverse effects. We need to be rational, else it is a wank mentality and in that case you suck.

I can't take a family's week's worth of groceries on a bus. What's more, that bus in my town only travels part of the route. I would actually end up walking more than riding.

OK? Why not get groceries daily? Oh would you have less TV and internet time? Right, it is values. I understand completely. It is a lot about that wankery. Why make your life harder if you don't need to. You are 57 you'll die soon enough, long before those younger folks like your children need to live in the world your wankery created, hell maybe it won't be bad, maybe it will be better than your life even though the environment was devestated over your lifetime for your own selfish fullfillment. Who knows?

It has been said that "Everything is possible to the man who doesn't have to do it himself." It's only when you get your own hands dirty that you have to deal with the details of an issue. Anything is easy when you restrict the argument to an academic level.

Frankly what I think is socially relevant and what is personally relevant are two seperate things. Why not contact your bus line and request a stop at the time you would like to get groceries.

Edited December 24, 2009 by William Ashley

[Wild Bill]

...

Mkay. I think that imposition and agreement are two different things. Perhaps someday you will know what I know, or vice versa, then we can see meaningful cooperation to acheive rather than both of us, or one of us, live in pain emotionally because of the imposition of others on them, eg. auto exhaust, polution of the water supply, cancer causing products, and the list goes on. Fact is all these productions ARE imposing on other people, EVEN IF they don't buy or use the product. Figure that. Who will start holding their breath and living in a whole first? It doesn't work that way, but we should prevent and reduce the level of harm, that is why it is important for us as individuals to communicate to determine what we actually need and what we don't. I'm not talking communism, but I am talking it shouldn't be the buck, because we arn't equals in spending, we are equals in humanity. We can't let money decide, or else, it really is a small group of individuals, an oligarchy that is determining where the money goes and what choices are made. We are equals as persons, but respect of one another and communication is an important element of insuring peaceful coexistence.

What no more ingloos? You might wonder how efficient living on an island in the artic is? But the fact is, would you have them survive, while that plant causes their food source to be destroyed? Fact is global warming has devestated the region, so for you to say some plant that contributes to that is meaningful you are pretty much wanking the day for your future away. Of course that is your choice, but understand the whole picture, not just the closed effect. If you only do the short circuit you arn't going to be doing anything good. Like for instance sure cocaine is a high but it has adverse effects also. So all this produced crap is all good for some people but it has adverse effects. We need to be rational, else it is a wank mentality and in that case you suck.

OK? Why not get groceries daily? Oh would you have less TV and internet time? Right, it is values. I understand completely. It is a lot about that wankery. Why make your life harder if you don't need to. You are 57 you'll die soon enough, long before those younger folks like your children need to live in the world your wankery created, hell maybe it won't be bad, maybe it will be better than your life even though the environment was devestated over your lifetime for your own selfish fullfillment. Who knows?

Frankly what I think is socially relevant and what is personally relevant are two seperate things. Why not contact your bus line and request a stop at the time you would like to get groceries.

Unbelievable! Frankly, I find your "reasoning" quite arrogant! You know nothing about me or my lifestyle yet you feel free to make impractical suggestions as if they are not only worthwhile but easy!

You make an accusation that I personally am responsible for the state of the world today. You make the assumption that first of all your world view is correct (who handed YOU the Gospel?) and that second, I helped it happen! For all you know I could be David Suzuki's personal aide!

You also feel free to denigrate the Inuit for using things like generators. Rather patronizing and frankly, insulting! You won't make many friends amongst those people.

Sorry, life is just too short. It's time for another addition to my "ignore" list. Somehow I suspect it may be another decade or two before I can expect a better debate from you.

Have fun - with someone else!

[William Ashley]

Unbelievable! Frankly, I find your "reasoning" quite arrogant! You know nothing about me or my lifestyle yet you feel free to make impractical suggestions as if they are not only worthwhile but easy!

Oh, I'm not being arrogant, I'm being frank, frank is known to be a jerk sometimes though, blame frank not me.

You make an accusation that I personally am responsible for the state of the world today.

What hole did you just crawl out of? No no don't get me wrong, I don't think you are personally responsible for the rape of the planet, I think that if you are 57 you allowed and took part in the rape of the planet. Sure their are concentration camp people who worked there --- 7000 workers at one.. and only 700 got into trouble for it. Those 6300 people were just blind idiots who were cows trying to bring some milk home for the children. I understand you are an innocent bystandard who only put a few jabs in cause you liked it and were blindly ignorant to all the harm you were accepting be done to the world for your car, your house, etc.. Heck its what was provided, with a few choices right? Who wants to live in meekness, in "a frozen land some people who maybe didn't fully clue in decided to settle many years ago

".

You make the assumption

what colour of paint is that....

that first of all your world view is correct

What is my world view again?

(who handed YOU the Gospel?)

U.L.C.

and that second, I helped it happen!

OK, am I wrong? Did you try to save the world. How is St. Peter doing?

For all you know I could be David Suzuki's personal aide!

I bet David helped too. Does he drive a car? I'm not saying the much loved and respected venerable David Suzuki is a hypocryt, but I would say maybe he isn't Jesus incarnate - even with that nifty beard. However I bet he lives more sustainably than Mr. Harper, maybe that would be a good topic to check out. Heck Harper wasn't even going to fly to Europe, maybe it was to reduce the carbon footprint the airplane would have left? Does David have wings?

You also feel free to denigrate the Inuit for using things like generators.

What colour was that? No I'm just saying a power plant that contributes to global warming maybe may help harm their traditional ways of living, such as eating seal hearts. What I was questioning was not their use of generators, it was, what the hell are they still doing up there if there is no sustainability in their traditional life style - if they can't survive up there - why the hell are they still up there? Now it is their choice to stay, and many Canadians might thank them for what they contribute to the artic.. but I still wonder. Maybe I just havn't seen it with my own eyes to know the beauty of their terraforming landscape.

Rather patronizing and frankly, insulting! You won't make many friends amongst those people.

My house is like an igloo too. I think distance may be a factor to making friendships BUT I must say that with the internet high speed backbone expanding into rural communities it is only a matter of time.

Sorry, life is just too short. It's time for another addition to my "ignore" list. Somehow I suspect it may be another decade or two before I can expect a better debate from you.

Have fun - with someone else!

Did I hurt your feelings, I was just being frank.

Edited December 24, 2009 by William Ashley

[noahbody]

Actually a lot of things are made in Canada,

Name ten and show five you don't think are useful.

but there is a growing trend for less and less to be produced and a greater and greater reliance on the natural resources such as oil and gas to be the major economic factor.

That's Canada. We have resources others need, so they're marketable. Other countries have high populations and low labour costs so they can market low-cost manufacturing.

That is part of the problem in Canada, they don't have enough refineries, they don't have enough self reliance

.

Because we can't produce goods at a competitive price.

Fact is though, things are made in Canada, so you must be old and stupid or American.

When I say nothing is made in Canada it's like saying you have no brains.

And OPEC doesn't control the price of oil right? It is just the person who buys what the person selling wants. When I say resource taxes, I mean there are taxes on resources that are extracted. There ARE already royalties, stump fees and the like, but one way to insure INCOME for the government is to tax extraction.

You don't consider royalties an extraction tax?

Fact is Canada can regulate the price of Canadian oil,

Sure it can make it so expensive that world supply is decreased. And everyone will get imaginary green jobs and be happy.

it is already some of the most expensive oil in the world.

Not for you or me.

False. Increased royalties do not = unemployment.

Don't be naive.

If companies CHOOSE to lay people off it is because they are greedy, they still have profit, if they choose profit over employed it means that increased employment is less profitable, which means their overall efficiency is low, and those people can be put to more productive work. It is an illusion, work can always be created if there is a task.

Companies compete for shareholders. If a company can no longer give a return on investment to its shareholders, what do you think will happen to it and its employees?

The government owns the mint, it can pay people endlessly. If companies don't employ people the government should. The government has an endless money supply.

LOL! Good idea, Canada could be a nation of teachers. Three teachers per child. What do you think that would do to the dollar? Come on.

[Argus]

I fall into the group that likes to have people paid to kill animals and cut down trees for me.

I like to eat kittens. I had a number of well-baked kittens for dinner the other night. Cooked them on my coal powered stove. Mmmmmm.

[Argus]

how so? Any of the attempts by Riverwind to spin that cycle have been soundly refuted -

Really? Who did that? Not you, certainly.

[jbg]

Fact is though, things are made in Canada, so you must be old and stupid or American.

Are you saying old = stupid = American? That's a pretty large stretch.

And OPEC doesn't control the price of oil right? It is just the person who buys what the person selling wants.

Correct. Oil prices are set in free trading on exchanges.

When I say resource taxes, I mean there are taxes on resources that are extracted. There ARE already royalties, stump fees and the like, but one way to insure INCOME for the government is to tax extraction.... False. Increased royalties do not = unemployment. If companies CHOOSE to lay people off it is because they are greedy, they still have profit, if they choose profit over employed it means that increased employment is less profitable, which means their overall efficiency is low, and those people can be put to more productive work.

Unless set at levels that steer production and exploration activity elsewhere, such as Saskatchewan or North Dakota.

It is an illusion, work can always be created if there is a task. The government owns the mint, it can pay people endlessly. If companies don't employ people the government should. The government has an endless money supply.

If you love having any money you have inflated away, sure it does.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Are you saying old = stupid = American? That's a pretty large stretch.

Correct. Oil prices are set in free trading on exchanges.

Unless set at levels that steer production and exploration activity elsewhere, such as Saskatchewan or North Dakota.

If you love having any money you have inflated away, sure it does.

Yet he is partially right.

We need to meter the oil and the gas coming out of the ground and weigh the bitumen being processed. We need to meter every pipline and every refinery to ensure compliance with current legislation. This isn't always done, and it is a sure way to gain the fair share of royalties. Secondly, what comes out of the oil sands isn't bitumen, its oil and our royalty framework was designed to provide tax breaks for the construction of extraction facilities. Bitumen has half the royalty on it than conventional oil. We need to take a better look at that.

Lastly the banks need major reforms, as well as the entire national monetary system.