TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) meanwhile a CPC funded study confirms it, Muclair is only stating what the government found to be true but now like you disavows when it's inconvenient.The paper does not say what you claim it says.From your link: The paper, "Does the Canadian Economy Suffer from Dutch Disease?," concludes that a third or more of job losses in Canada's manufacturing sector can be attributed to *resource-driven* currency appreciation.Note the word: resources. Not oil. Second, the paper ONLY looks at exchange rates and blames all job losses on the exchange rate. This is complete nonsense. No matter what happened to the exchange rate there would have been significant job losses due to competition from china. A useful paper (unlike this one) would have compared the rate of decline in US manufacturing to the decline in Canadian manufacturing. Only the difference between the two can possibly be attributed to exchange rate valuations. Here is the actual paper: http://www.economie.uqam.ca/pages/docs/Beine_Michel.pdf Here is paper that takes the changes in manufacturing into account: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/mild+case+Dutch+disease/6659960/story.html But correlation does not imply causation, and in a recent study published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, we examined trends in output for 80 different manufacturing industries using an empirical model that accounts for changes in global demand and competitive pressures as well as energy-induced strengthening of the dollar. Our results indicate that only one-quarter of total manufacturing output in Canada has been adversely affected by the dollar’s increased strength.Dutch disease most strongly affects small, labour-intensive industries such as textiles and apparel. Larger industries, such as food products and metals and machinery, are less adversely affected. To the extent that they are, the small negative impact of the strong dollar has been more than offset by strong growth in demand, such that output in those industries has continued to grow. Contrary to popular belief, the high dollar is not the primary culprit behind the woes of the automotive sector. Rather, the sector’s weakness stems from cyclical changes in demand and increasing competition from firms with lower costs, such as South Korean-made cars which have become important competitors in Canadian and U.S. markets over the past 10 years. Trends in the auto sector are mirrored in many other industries, as import penetration from Asia and other emerging markets to the U.S. reaches into other industries traditionally served by Canadian exporters. On balance, the evidence indicates that Canada suffers from a mild case of the Dutch disease. The more serious issue is the growing competitive pressures in both domestic and U.S. markets. In other words, we have bigger problems that the dutch disease and politicians that try to make an issue out of it are simply demonstrating that they have nothing useful to contribute. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 The paper does not say what you claim it says. From your link: Note the word: resources. Not oil. Second, the paper ONLY looks at exchange rates and blames all job losses on the exchange rate. This is complete nonsense. No matter what happened to the exchange rate there would have been significant job losses due to competition from china. A useful paper (unlike this one) would have compared the rate of decline in US manufacturing to the decline in Canadian manufacturing. Only the difference between the two can possibly be attributed to exchange rate valuations. Here is the actual paper: http://www.economie.uqam.ca/pages/docs/Beine_Michel.pdf Here is paper that takes the changes in manufacturing into account: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/mild+case+Dutch+disease/6659960/story.html In other words, we have bigger problems that the dutch disease and politicians that try to make an issue out of it are simply demonstrating that they have nothing useful to contribute. Thank you Tim... Your research has been informative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 We can also thank walmart and the consumer. The consumer wanted the cheapest goods possible, and walmart opened up china. And then for anyone else to compete, they to had to go to china. But as we are finding out, that they are not so cheap after all, is it. So everyone that buys everything from wally world ( you think they were going to disney world)you can only blame yourselves. Lets not forget all the small business put out of business, so one family (waltons) can have it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 We can also thank walmart and the consumer. The consumer wanted the cheapest goods possible, and walmart opened up china. And then for anyone else to compete, they to had to go to china. But as we are finding out, that they are not so cheap after all, is it. So everyone that buys everything from wally world ( you think they were going to disney world)you can only blame yourselves. Lets not forget all the small business put out of business, so one family (waltons) can have it all. The consumer wants the cheapest goods possible because they're getting squeezed by no real rise in income in the last twenty thirty years. Doesn't seem to happen in Germany, for instance. They want high quality, durable stuff, so buy much more homemade product. I guess they never developed the throwaway society we did to the same extent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I have only one question, why shouldn't companies be made to clean up their own pollution, being it the air, water, or land? Why not make companies pay for recycling, instead of municipalities? Is it they would rise prices on products? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 I have only one question, why shouldn't companies be made to clean up their own pollution, being it the air, water, or land? Why not make companies pay for recycling, instead of municipalities? Is it they would rise prices on products? They would, but then people would pay less taxes. Most recyclable products have a fee you pay at purchase to pay for the recycling. But I think we need to go a long way to set a price on the environment, and charge polluters that true cost. That was Mulcair's point in part - air and water and land ain't free, somebody has to pay at some time - it should be the people making a profit from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 They would, but then people would pay less taxes. Most recyclable products have a fee you pay at purchase to pay for the recycling. But I think we need to go a long way to set a price on the environment, and charge polluters that true cost. That was Mulcair's point in part - air and water and land ain't free, somebody has to pay at some time - it should be the people making a profit from it. I agree. This should be common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) air and water and land ain't free, somebody has to pay at some time - it should be the people making a profit from it.A fair point but the problem is it is often impossible eliminate adverse effects on the environment without imposing costs that exceed the value of the resource. This means the government really only has two options: live with the degradation or forego the economic benefits of resource development. Governments with voters clamouring for health care education services don't really have the option of forgoing revenue. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 the problem is it is often impossible eliminate adverse effects on the environment without imposing costs that exceed the value of the resource. do you have examples (cited)... or should we just view this as a continuation of your big oil shilling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 do you have examples (cited)... or should we just view this as a continuation of your big oil shilling? Nevermind that the costs just go further up, the longer we wait. Not much fiscal responsibility in that kind of agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 A fair point but the problem is it is often impossible eliminate adverse effects on the environment without imposing costs that exceed the value of the resource. This means the government really only has two options: live with the degradation or forego the economic benefits of resource development. Governments with voters clamouring for health care education services don't really have the option of forgoing revenue. A fair point - the key is to find the right balance. We often don't. In BC, for instance, the effect of a tanker spill would be catastrophic, so for the Enbridge pipeline to proceed, they should have to put up a bond to compensate for any foreseeable damage - ie for billions of dollars. If that makes the project uneconomic, so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 do you have examples (cited)... or should we just view this as a continuation of your big oil shilling? Tim has cited many things, went back and learned many things and its not unreasonable to assume that certain environmental factors when costed could make a particular operation unsustainable. But... the market is an interesting thing and adapts to legislation. Some things are not adaptable, but then its good reason to consider the risk vs the public good. He is not shilling for big oil as I have read it. I do see an unreasonable hostility towards Mulcair but politicians have that effect on people. Same can be said when Harpers name is used, some people go all apey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 A fair point - the key is to find the right balance. We often don't. In BC, for instance, the effect of a tanker spill would be catastrophic, so for the Enbridge pipeline to proceed, they should have to put up a bond to compensate for any foreseeable damage - ie for billions of dollars. If that makes the project uneconomic, so be it. Exactly. It is a fair point. And I think its just as fair to look into what is happening and its effects. I believe the country could go forward in UNITY if the benefits of Sustainable development were explained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 A fair point - the key is to find the right balance. We often don't. In BC, for instance, the effect of a tanker spill would be catastrophic, so for the Enbridge pipeline to proceed, they should have to put up a bond to compensate for any foreseeable damage - ie for billions of dollars.Right balance? There is no attempt at balance with your claim that a spill would be 'catastrophic'. It would be messy and take years to clean up but it is not the end of the world. Such rhetoric is not helpful. The pipeline maker should be required to carry insurance to cover the costs of a clean up or (more reasonably) a percentage of the revenue earned should be put into a cleanup fund. The BC government should also receive a portion of the royalties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) Tim has cited many things, went back and learned many things and its not unreasonable to assume that certain environmental factors when costed could make a particular operation unsustainable.The problem is it is often impossible to put an economic value on an environmental concern. For example: what is 'value' of a species that goes extinct? What this means is people demanding that the 'polluter pays' have no interest in seeing the polluter pay. They want to shut down development and assign whatever value they need to unquantifiable environmental concerns in order to achieve that objective. It is dishonest rhetoric that does not help find the right balance. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 the problem is it is often impossible eliminate adverse effects on the environment without imposing costs that exceed the value of the resource. do you have examples (cited)... or should we just view this as a continuation of your big oil shilling? Tim has cited many things, went back and learned many things and its not unreasonable to assume that certain environmental factors when costed could make a particular operation unsustainable. no - MLW member, 'TimG' has neither given examples or cited anything to support the quoted statement. He is not shilling for big oil as I have read it. you have read it... wrong. MLW member, 'TimGs' MLW board existence is predicated upon shilling for Big Oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 The paper does not say what you claim it says. From your link: Note the word: resources. Not oil. wow Tim now you're trying to claim oil is not a resource?... expecting resource industries to protect the environment and clean it once they're done is not unreasonable it needs to be mandatory, not requiring the industries to foot the bill for a total clean up is equivalent to a government subsidy because if they don't do it the taxpayer ends up paying the bill... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 A fair point but the problem is it is often impossible eliminate adverse effects on the environment without imposing costs that exceed the value of the resource. This means the government really only has two options: live with the degradation or forego the economic benefits of resource development. Governments with voters clamouring for health care education services don't really have the option of forgoing revenue. correction three options...3-wait until the value of the resource rises in value to a point that it can developed economically and ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 wow Tim now you're trying to claim oil is not a resource?...It means it is not simply a question of oil. The numbers I quoted earlier show that oil is only about 1/3 of Canada's resource exports. Picking on oil is completely unjustified.expecting resource industries to protect the environment and clean it once they're done is not unreasonable it needs to be mandatoryWhat if it is simply not possible to restore the environment to its original state? Do you simply forego the benefits of resource extraction or do you accept some 'best effort compromise'?Tailings ponds are a good example of this: toxic waste dumps that can't be 'cleaned up'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 The problem is it is often impossible to put an economic value on an environmental concern. For example: what is 'value' of a species that goes extinct? What this means is people demanding that the 'polluter pays' have no interest in seeing the polluter pay. They want to shut down development and assign whatever value they need to unquantifiable environmental concerns in order to achieve that objective. It is dishonest rhetoric that does not help find the right balance. the value of a species? priceless...the polluter must pay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) correction three options...3-wait until the value of the resource rises in value to a point that it can developed economically and ...In the meantime governments pay for social services with what exactly?The oil sands provide a good counter example. The government allowed the development to proceed even though this meant some nasty toxic waste dumps were created. Recently, suncor has developed a technology that allows them to reduce the size of tailings ponds by 95%. It is unlikely that this technology would have ever been developed if the government did not allow oil sands companies to exploit the resource before they had any idea on how it would be cleaned up. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 (edited) the value of a species? priceless...the polluter must pay...Nonsense. Most species are completely worthless economically. But your response illustrates why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about development/environmental trade offs with followers of the 'eco-religion' like yourself. You are no different from a pro-lifer demanding that abortion be banned. Edited May 23, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 In the meantime governments pay for social services with what exactly? cancelled F35 contracts for a start...then a change in long term economic strategy as well, perpetual growth is an impossibility even more so when it's resource based but government after government keeps at the delusion unwillingly to deal with the reality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Nonsense. Most species are completely worthless economically. But your response illustrates why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about development/environmental trade offs with followers of the 'eco-religion' like yourself. Nonsense. Most species are completely worthless priceless economically. But your response illustrates why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about sustainable development/environmental trade offs with followers of the 'ecomarket-religion' like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 cancelled F35 contracts for a start.A drop in the bucket..then a change in long term economic strategy as well, perpetual growth is an impossibilityReally? Based on what? How many times do the Mathusians have to be proven wrong before this ideology dies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.