Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
A small business that hires 5 people tomorrow won't have a significant impact either. But things like this are cumulative, and have a multiplying effect. Again, why are you fighting so hard against job creation? Why do you discount 2500-3000 jobs during a bad recession? Solyndra wouldn't have had a significant impact on the economy either. But that didn't stop you from promoting the pissing away of $500 million tax dollars.

huh! Fighting so hard against job creation? No... I simply highlighted that industry sponsored KXL job numbers being widely circulated are suspect - they can't be substantiated.

I realize it doesn't fit your narrative, but your attempts to attribute a Solyndra business failure exclusively to Obama isn't representative of what actually occurred. As for the $500 million tax dollars you so personally covet, I'm not an American... not even a wanabee, like you. Those are American tax dollars that simply reflect upon an American failing in the marketplace - a failing that associates directly with an earlier Chinese market penetration... one Solyndra couldn't match in cost/delivery. You keep harping on Solyndra but somehow, as I recall, you've never recognized the business reality of competition and risk versus time to market. You simply want to attach "blame"... and, of course, your derangement syndrome is predisposed to blame Obama.

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

huh! Fighting so hard against job creation? No... I simply highlighted that industry sponsored KXL job numbers being widely circulated are suspect

That's the difference between you and I. I don't care what industry creates jobs. I want all industry to promote job creation. Especially when they're doing it on their own dime. You on the other hand, would rather have people continually relying on unemployment insurance, welfare and foot stamps than have a job that you or other environmentalist extremists don't approve of.

Posted
You on the other hand, would rather have people continually relying on unemployment insurance, welfare and foot stamps than have a job that you or other environmentalist extremists don't approve of.

I accept you have nothing positive to contribute and, per norm, resort to fabrication, inaccuracy and insult.

Posted

I accept you have nothing positive to contribute and, per norm, resort to fabrication, inaccuracy and insult.

And I accept that your concern that the amount of jobs created from this project won't be enough to make a real impact on the economy is just a fabrication. In reality, you don't care how many jobs will be or could be created. It could be 10 million. You'd still be against it. I find it humourous though that you're acting like the very same concern trolls you constantly denounce regarding climate change.

Posted

And I accept that your concern that the amount of jobs created from this project won't be enough to make a real impact on the economy is just a fabrication. In reality, you don't care how many jobs will be or could be created. It could be 10 million. You'd still be against it. I find it humourous though that you're acting like the very same concern trolls you constantly denounce regarding climate change.

But there wont be 10 million jobs created Shady. That is the point, your team is pretending as if there would be that many to try and paint people like waldo as crazies. Fact is this pipeline wont be a windfall in terms of the economy or jobs that is just a lie you guys tell so you wont have to argue the real pros and cons of a pipeline such as this.

I think you have demonstrated why you and people like you can not be relied on to have a real discussion and why those types should not run a country.

Posted (edited)
Fact is this pipeline wont be a windfall in terms of the economy or jobs that is just a lie you guys tell so you wont have to argue the real pros and cons of a pipeline such as this.
What strikes me is the gross hypocrisy of the enviros on this front. Perhaps the economic benefits are exaggerated but, unlike the various green job scams promoted by enviros, these jobs are created by the private sector and are real job gains (i.e. not goverment jobs that cause more job losses elsewhere due to higher taxation and/or input costs). Edited by TimG
Posted

What strikes me is the gross hypocrisy of the enviros on this front. Perhaps the economic benefits are exaggerated but, unlike the various green job scams promoted by enviros, these jobs are created by the private sector and are real job gains (i.e. not goverment jobs that cause more job losses elsewhere due to higher taxation and/or input costs).

Now why would you say green jobs are a scam? You do know there were many more green jobs created in the US then this pipeline would create but you show your hypocrisy in hating those jobs but loving these ones.

Posted (edited)
You do know there were many more green jobs created in the US then this pipeline would create but you show your hypocrisy in hating those jobs but loving these ones.
Ever hear of the "broken window fallacy"? It means you cannot create jobs by inflating the cost of energy or by taking wealth from productive enterprises and using it to fund money losing enterprises. This means any claims of net job creation by "green jobs" programs are false.

The only way to create jobs is by investing money that improves productivity (i.e. allowing more to be produced with less). There are many categories of government jobs which could meet this definition but not any "green jobs" because they are invariabily part of a plan to reduce productivity.

Edited by TimG
Posted

Now why would you say green jobs are a scam?

Because once the tax money runs dry, the so-called green jobs disappear. *cough* Solyndra *cough*

You do know there were many more green jobs created in the US then this pipeline would create but you show your hypocrisy in hating those jobs but loving these ones.

Complete nonsense, and a false choice. You're comparing an entire industry to one particular pipeline project. This project reguires ZERO tax money, will create thousands of jobs, and billions in revenue to federal, state, and local governments. Your green jobs fiasco is all held up by tax payer subsidies.

Give us a break on the BS.

Posted

all the numbers... played with... originate from an industry sponsored study... by the same industry company, TransCanada, seeking a permit to build KXL. An independent analysis of those industry fronted numbers state they can't be substantiated. The independent analysis also brings forward representative numbers based on like past pipeline initiatives. Somehow... in your short sightedness, it appears you quite like the 'suspect' industry fronted numbers, hey?

the quoted Obama statement is rather 'matter-of-fact', rather benign ... what's to dispute within that statement... other than the time to complete a new environmental impact analysis on (as I recall), 4 other possible alternate pipeline routes. Your statement might carry 'some' actual weight if you could show similar environmental impact studies being done in less than a years time frame.

Fact: ANY stat can be manipulated ANY way and made to look believable. Your willingness to accept the numbers you like(and Obama's statement at face value) makes you a homer.

Posted
Fact: ANY stat can be manipulated ANY way and made to look believable. Your willingness to accept the numbers you like(and Obama's statement at face value) makes you a homer.

let's look again at that Obama written statement... as I said, it's rather benign... the only questionable point is the time frame for the required environmental impact assessment.

President Obama written statement: "
Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood
"

✓ does the pipeline have the potential to affect health and safety of Americans as well as the environment? Yes, clearly, Nebraska concerns reflect upon the initial route passing over the largest aquifer in the state. Concerns were raised directly by the Republican Governor.

✓ were there many concerns raised through the public process? Yes, clearly... one of those most significant concerns reflects on the nature of the initial environmental assessment... the one I've already stated was significantly influenced by TransCanada itself. TransCanada... the company seeking the permit to build the pipeline!

✓ clearly, to properly assess the 4 alternate pipeline routes, a complete and comprehensive environmental assessment is required. The State Department advises it needs approximately a year to complete the new assessments.

so... as I said, the Obama statement is quite 'matter-of-fact'... the only questionable item is how much time is required to complete the environmental assessments. I see you haven't taken up my challenge: to show that a years period is an inordinate process time frame for environmental assessments of this KXL significance/profile. Accordingly, your unwillingness to accept the quoted Obama statement is done so with prejudice, extreme prejudice.

as for the job numbers, you seem to favour those numbers influenced by the same company seeking a permit to build the pipeline - i.e.; TransCanada's sponsored analysis... most certainly a suspect analysis with job numbers that can't be substantiated. An analysis suspect on many levels, not the least of which is, as I stated, an analysis that wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built. Already built!... apparently, your kind of numbers, hey? And you talk of "believable stats"! I've simply offered a countering critique of your preferred industry sponsored numbers from a most comprehensive and independent analysis undertaken by Cornell University's Global Labour Institute.

Posted
What strikes me is the gross hypocrisy of the enviros on this front. Perhaps the economic benefits are exaggerated but, unlike the various green job scams promoted by enviros, these jobs are created by the private sector and are real job gains (i.e. not goverment jobs that cause more job losses elsewhere due to higher taxation and/or input costs).

so... all those private sector jobs created via government subsidy/tax benefit... aren't "real jobs"? You mean all those brazillion dollars of government subsidy/tax benefit to private sector fossil-fuel companies hasn't resulted in any "real jobs" being created, hey?

so... in the context of today's deficit spending, apparently you take an anti-Keynesian position... claiming that government spending/job creation causes private sector job losses... can you support that statement? And so given, do you also subscribe to a corollary belief that less government spending/job creation will actually result in the creation of new private sector jobs? :lol:

Posted

✓ does the pipeline have the potential to affect health and safety of Americans as well as the environment? Yes, clearly, Nebraska concerns reflect upon the initial route passing over the largest aquifer in the state.

That aquifer currently has wells that are drilled right throught it.
:rolleyes:
/facepalm
Posted
Fact is this pipeline wont be a windfall in terms of the economy or jobs that is just a lie you guys tell so you wont have to argue the real pros and cons of a pipeline such as this.

I think you have demonstrated why you and people like you can not be relied on to have a real discussion and why those types should not run a country.

clearly! What's also somewhat confusing is to see non-Americans running with the inflated American job numbers also take on a living vicariously American persona... as if they have a personal investment in those questionable American job numbers. Go figure!

Posted

Ever hear of the "broken window fallacy"? It means you cannot create jobs by inflating the cost of energy or by taking wealth from productive enterprises and using it to fund money losing enterprises. This means any claims of net job creation by "green jobs" programs are false.

parable bunk! Green jobs aren't the window repairmen fixing broken windows... rather, green jobs are gardeners planting trees in the park across the street, working to improve the town's future economy and livability. :lol:

The only way to create jobs is by investing money that improves productivity (i.e. allowing more to be produced with less). There are many categories of government jobs which could meet this definition but not any "green jobs" because they are invariabily part of a plan to reduce productivity.

so... for example, as efficiency and productivity are two distinct entities, are you stating that efficiency initiatives don't create jobs? Are you stating that green jobs productivity won't increase over time? If a green job creates the equivalent MWh electricity as a fossil-fuel job, is there automatically a net employment adjustment? If a green job results in the loss of a fossil-fuel job is that zero net employment adjustment a generalized concern of yours... or is it just that the lost job is a fossil-fuel related job?

Posted

That aquifer currently has wells that are drilled right throught it. :rolleyes: /facepalm

suggest you direct your facepalm towards Nebraska citizens and the Nebraska Republican Governor... my quote specifically labeled the concerns as "Nebraska concerns"... which, of course, are much more than just the aquifer mentioned; i.e., there were also Nebraska concerns raised in regards to the potential impacting effects to wetland areas, shallow groundwater, nearby surface water and sensitive plant/animal species. The issue of existing pipelines crossing the aquifer or drilling into the aquifer has already been discussed previously in another MLW thread... nothing new here, Shady! Like I said, best you channel your facepalm towards the appropriate targets, hey?

Posted (edited)
so... for example, as efficiency and productivity are two distinct entities, are you stating that efficiency initiatives don't create jobs?
Yes. "efficiency initiatives" only improve productivity if the cost of implementing them is less than the potential savings in energy. Almost all of the "efficiency initiatives" promoted by the government are too expensive to justify without subsidies which means they are causing a net reduction productivity.
Are you stating that green jobs productivity won't increase over time?
You are missing the point. Subsidizing green jobs reduces the productivity of other enterprises which are taxed more or pay more for energy in order to support them. This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created. The only way green jobs could improve productivity is if they produced energy for less than existing alternatives. But if they did this there would be no need for the government to get involved.

The trouble with people like you is you think government has a magical money tree and there are no negative consequences to government spending. Every dollar spent by the government has to come from productive enterprises elsewhere. This means every dollar spent by the government starts out by reducing the productivity of the economy. There are cases where this spending makes up for this reduction but in most cases it does not.

Edited by TimG
Posted

Yes. "efficiency initiatives" only improve productivity if the cost of implementing them is less than the potential savings in energy. Almost all of the "efficiency initiatives" promoted by the government are too expensive to justify without subsidies which means they are causing a net reduction productivity.

You are missing the point. Subsidizing green jobs reduces the productivity of other enterprises which are taxed more or pay more for energy in order to support them. This is why studies that look at "green jobs" conclude that 2 jobs are destroyed for every "green job" created. The only way green jobs could improve productivity is if they produced energy for less than existing alternatives. But if they did this there would be no need for the government to get involved.

The trouble with people like you is you think government has a magical money tree and there are no negative consequences to government spending. Every dollar spent by the government has to come from productive enterprises elsewhere. This means every dollar spent by the government starts out by reducing the productivity of the economy. There are cases where this spending makes up for this reduction but in most cases it does not.

You are forgetting the head start for when all industry has to be converted to green energy. Like it or not someday the whole US as well as every other country will need to be on a green energy plan, when that day comes the demand will sky rocket so those who already have a head start will end up being the world leaders. Go figure planning for the future instead of the present. Something conservatives hate.

Posted
Like it or not someday the whole US as well as every other country will need to be on a green energy plan, when that day comes the demand will sky rocket so those who already have a head start will end up being the world leaders.
Who says the alternatives to fossil fuels have to be "green" as defined by the enviros today? They could be nuclear, fusion or another type of fossil fuel. In fact, there is no sign that fossil fuels are going to run out any time soon given the size of the natural gas deposits that we keep finding. And even if your argument was not nonsense, it does not refute my point that green energy policies cannot create jobs today because they decrease productivity.
Posted

Who says the alternatives to fossil fuels have to be "green" as defined by the enviros today? They could be nuclear, fusion or another type of fossil fuel. In fact, there is no sign that fossil fuels are going to run out any time soon given the size of the natural gas deposits that we keep finding. And even if your argument was not nonsense, it does not refute my point that green energy policies cannot create jobs today because they decrease productivity.

Sure but again those finite sources, like it or not if we plan in sustaining our life in this planet we will run out of finite sources.

Posted

Sure but again those finite sources, like it or not if we plan in sustaining our life in this planet we will run out of finite sources.

Yes, let's kill jobs now because 100 years from now, they'll be less fossil fuels to use. :rolleyes:

You gotta love how the left always bemoans the loss of manufacturing and construction jobs, and pretends to be on the side of the working guy, unions, etc, while at the same time they work to destroy all of their industries. Heckuva job guys! :lol:

Posted

Yes, let's kill jobs now because 100 years from now, they'll be less fossil fuels to use. :rolleyes:

You gotta love how the left always bemoans the loss of manufacturing and construction jobs, and pretends to be on the side of the working guy, unions, etc, while at the same time they work to destroy all of their industries. Heckuva job guys! :lol:

Ok Shady you keep up with that 100 years number, there is a reason China is the leading buyer of US made Solar panels and it aint cause they are worrying about 100 years down the road. They are thinking about 5-10 years. There is a limit caused by how fast you can take it out of the ground and as energy needs grow and the third world moves into the industrial age the problem will only get worse.

Maybe I am the only who remember that from 2004-2008 oil went from 28 dollars a barrel 140 dollars a barrel. The only thing stopping the price rise right now is the recession is flooring the price of oil. It however is also flooring the price of those alternatives that will be needed when the world gets itself back to work again.

Short sightedness is a sad thing indeed.

Posted

Ok Shady you keep up with that 100 years number, there is a reason China is the leading buyer of US made Solar panels and it aint cause they are worrying about 100 years down the road.

Yep, and there's a reason why China's going around the world locking up oil contracts and building coal powerplants on a weekly basis.

Killing this pipeline and the jobs with it will have no effect on new technology developed for the future.

Posted

Oh, and btw, guess which country will step in for America if the pipeline deal doesn't go through?

CHINA! :lol:

/facepalm :lol:

Yah been hearing a lot of that yet they seem to hate Harper because of somethings he said pretty early as PM. I think what will happen if they don't build the pipeline is the oil companies will be forced to refine in Canada and ship from there.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...