Trudeau's First Moves

[ToadBrother]

Governments generally don't bail out high tech companies. Take Nortel and Blackberry for two examples and these companies employed thousands of people. I'm glad they didn't, but don't assume the govt makes the same decision, regardless of the colour of their brand.

For some reason, high tech companies are ignored in these bailouts.

The reason largely lies in the fact that tech companies resources are far too easily dispersed, and it would be in vain to bail them out. Nortel's value by and large was its patent portfolio and research staff, both of which could quite easily be purchased and moved to almost any other location in the world.

The industrial/manufacturing sector is quite different. There are huge capital costs in building factories, not to mention they represent a significant part of any industrialized nation's overall economic capacity. Once industrial capacity is lost, particularly to cheaper jurisdictions like India or China, it's almost impossible to get it back. This is why the US and Canadian government's bailed out the auto industry, not because they wanted everyone buying Dodges, Chevs and Fords, nor even really because of the jobs that could be saved (automation has steadily been eroding manufacturing jobs for decades). It's because the auto sector represents one of the most significant blocs of industrial capacity in North America, and should it be lost, it would significantly and permanently reduce North America's industrial power.

It is for the same reason that nations have always taken a special interest in their aviation industries. This is a highly specialized industry involving a huge amount of capital investment, but also enormous technical expertise. I would say that while, as a taxpayer, I find bailing Bombadier out quite outrageous, looking at the big picture, if we lose the likes of Bombadier, we won't get it back, and our overall industrial capacity will be reduced, and we become even more reliant on US and European industrial capacity.

It's why I thought the BC government's investment in the infamous Fast Cat ferries, while a tragic engineering mistake, is so darned important even if it is a waste of money. Shipbuilding is another core industry involving a lot of up front costs and needing a lot of expertise, but the long term value in industrial capacity makes even short term wastes of money worth it.

[Derek 2.0]

It is for the same reason that nations have always taken a special interest in their aviation industries. This is a highly specialized industry involving a huge amount of capital investment, but also enormous technical expertise. I would say that while, as a taxpayer, I find bailing Bombadier out quite outrageous, looking at the big picture, if we lose the likes of Bombadier, we won't get it back, and our overall industrial capacity will be reduced, and we become even more reliant on US and European industrial capacity.

That is corporate fear mongering, as the Canadian Aerospace industry is not Bombardier........which has been only "building aircraft" since the late 80s. If Bombardier failed, other corporations would purchase the profitable divisions, or said divisions would go on as stand alone companies with outside investor support. This is no more evident than Bombardier's former defense division (formed from the corpse of Canadair) that couldn't make a cent under Bombardier management, but once Bombardier sold it off, it became a successful company in its own right.....

--------------

In other related news, the new Liberal Governments policy on runway extensions at Toronto's Billy Bishop airport will cost Bombardier over $2 Billion in a soon to be killed order from Porter Airlines.......

The Liberals, who take office in Ottawa on Wednesday, confirmed Monday that they remain opposed to allowing jets at Toronto’s Billy Bishop airport – which would kill an order worth more than $2-billion to Bombardier.

So does the Federal Government now "invest" $1 + 2 billion in Bombardier?

[ToadBrother]

That is corporate fear mongering, as the Canadian Aerospace industry is not Bombardier........which has been only "building aircraft" since the late 80s. If Bombardier failed, other corporations would purchase the profitable divisions, or said divisions would go on as stand alone companies with outside investor support. This is no more evident than Bombardier's former defense division (formed from the corpse of Canadair) that couldn't make a cent under Bombardier management, but once Bombardier sold it off, it became a successful company in its own right..

It isn't the entire aerospace industry, but it's still a rather important part of it, and taking it as a matter of faith that it's collapse would have no negative effect seems a tad optimistic, no?

[Derek 2.0]

It isn't the entire aerospace industry, but it's still a rather important part of it, and taking it as a matter of faith that it's collapse would have no negative effect seems a tad optimistic, no?

I never said it would have no negative effect, people employed in unprofitable sectors of the company would likely loose their jobs........now if the Government is concerned with the Canadian Aerospace sector, what is their plan once their policy to leave the F-35 craters the 30+ companies currently involved in the program? Will the Federal Government hand-out cash to the P&WC's, to the AVCORPS, to the Magellan's and the Honeywell's once they pull out of a program that Canadian companies are succeeding in?

By all means explain the sense in investing taxpayers dollars in a proposed risky venture versus a program, that in its infancy, has already returned nearly $1 billion dollars to the Canadian economy.......

[ReeferMadness]

Well no, we didn't stay in Afghanistan, and Obama has now extended the mission past the end of his presidency, due in large to the realization that his policy of pulling troops out of Iraq was a failure........How many decades? Who knows, for example United Nations Command (the UN command structure for forces in South Korea) was disbanded in the later 70s, over 20 years after signing on the armistice, and even then, the Americans still maintain a large military force in South Korea.

So, let's summarize. NATO, the most powerful military alliance in human history can't pacify one primitive country in a decade. Apparently, your solution to solving the worlds problems is to simply occupy countries indefinitely. And you think Trudeau is wrong-headed. Did I get that about right?

The only commentator on this subject that has made any sense at all to me is Gwynne Dyer. And what he's pointed out is this: the benefactors of security spending in the western world (arms suppliers, generals, spy organizations, right wing politicians, private army corporations) and the extremist Islamic leaders need each other. The security industry needs an enemy to keep the population fearful so nobody will question enormous spending and repressive legislation. And the extremist Islamic leaders need the west to keep killing Muslims because that's what keeps recruitment going.

That may seem paranoid but it's the only lens through which any of this madness actually makes logical sense.

[Derek 2.0]

So, let's summarize. NATO, the most powerful military alliance in human history can't pacify one primitive country in a decade. Apparently, your solution to solving the worlds problems is to simply occupy countries indefinitely. And you think Trudeau is wrong-headed. Did I get that about right?

No you didn't get it right, as I already said to you:

There isn't a need to occupy countries, but to ensure we support the Governments of said countries that are fighting ISIS and request help from the international community.

The only commentator on this subject that has made any sense at all to me is Gwynne Dyer. And what he's pointed out is this: the benefactors of security spending in the western world (arms suppliers, generals, spy organizations, right wing politicians, private army corporations) and the extremist Islamic leaders need each other. The security industry needs an enemy to keep the population fearful so nobody will question enormous spending and repressive legislation. And the extremist Islamic leaders need the west to keep killing Muslims because that's what keeps recruitment going.

Mr Dwyer should remove his tin-foil hat........the defense industry made far more money during the Cold War, and if said industry was able to create another "boogeyman", it would be another Super-Power nation state. Inversely, using Syria as an example again, radical Islam had no need for the West during the outset of the Syrian uncivil war.

That may seem paranoid but it's the only lens through which any of this madness actually makes logical sense.

Conflict and War have been around far longer then the "military-industrial complex" or Islam for that mater.

[WestCoastRunner]

So, let's summarize. NATO, the most powerful military alliance in human history can't pacify one primitive country in a decade. Apparently, your solution to solving the worlds problems is to simply occupy countries indefinitely. And you think Trudeau is wrong-headed. Did I get that about right?

That may seem paranoid but it's the only lens through which any of this madness actually makes logical sense.

I understand what everyone is saying on this topic but really do we not have a responsibility to fight terrorism when they are blowing international flights out of the sky? What are your suggestions RM? I certainly don't have any but we can't withdraw our combative support can we?

[The_Squid]

I understand what everyone is saying on this topic but really do we not have a responsibility to fight terrorism when they are blowing international flights out of the sky? What are your suggestions RM? I certainly don't have any but we can't withdraw our combative support can we?

I'm surprised the nutso Russians haven't blamed the USA for it.

We have no responsibility to support Putin the despot in anything he does. Should we help bring people to international justice? Yes. Should we intervene with our military for Russia? No.

[ToadBrother]

I'm surprised the nutso Russians haven't blamed the USA for it.

We have no responsibility to support Putin the despot in anything he does. Should we help bring people to international justice? Yes. Should we intervene with our military for Russia? No.

Which doesn't really deal with the big issue here; that ISIL is likely beginning to plant bombs on international flights. We can blame Russia because the jet was their's, we can blame Egypt for potentially shoddy security at their airport, but the fact is that this may very well hearken a new strategy by ISIL. And do you think they're not going to be trying to get bombs on to other countries' airliners?

ISIL is filled with very vile and repugnant people, and they don't give a flying whatever that the new government of Canada won't be dropping the odd bomb on them.

[Smallc]

Which doesn't really deal with the big issue here; that ISIL is likely beginning to plant bombs on international flights. We can blame Russia because the jet was their's, we can blame Egypt for potentially shoddy security at their airport, but the fact is that this may very well hearken a new strategy by ISIL. And do you think they're not going to be trying to get bombs on to other countries' airliners?

ISIL is filled with very vile and repugnant people, and they don't give a flying whatever that the new government of Canada won't be dropping the odd bomb on them.

And bombing Iraq isn't helping any of that.

[ReeferMadness]

No you didn't get it right, as I already said to you:

In fairness, you also lamented Obama pulling out of Iraq too early (how many decades would have been enough?) so it seemed like you were a "boots on the ground" aficionado. No matter. Bombs or boots - they both work - as long as your objective is to keep people fearful and keep the "security industry" filled up with citizen's funds.

Mr Dwyer should remove his tin-foil hat........the defense industry made far more money during the Cold War, and if said industry was able to create another "boogeyman", it would be another Super-Power nation state. Inversely, using Syria as an example again, radical Islam had no need for the West during the outset of the Syrian uncivil war.

That's Dr. Dyer to you.

Sadly, super-power nation state military alliances are not so easy to create. It must have caused a real panic on the part of the security industry when communism collapsed - all those people living under totalitarianism didn't want to play anymore. Suddenly, crazy peacniks were running around talking about 'peace dividends'. Can't have that. But hey. It turns out that a ragtag bunch of extremists with stolen weapons can fight a multi-trillion-dollar military alliance to a stand-off so clearly the answer is more money of the security industry.

Conflict and War have been around far longer then the "military-industrial complex" or Islam for that mater.

I think what you mean to say is that the military-industrial complex has been around a lot longer than the term (coined by President Eisenhower in his farewell address).

[ToadBrother]

And bombing Iraq isn't helping any of that.

Killing every ISIL fighter we can get our hands will help. They need to die, each and every one of them.

[Smallc]

Killing every ISIL fighter we can get our hands will help. They need to die, each and every one of them.

There seems to be an unlimited supply. I'm no pacifist, but this strategy is failing.

[ToadBrother]

There seems to be an unlimited supply. I'm no pacifist, but this strategy is failing.

There were lots of Nazis, too. That didn't mean we went "Whoah, too many, we'd best just go home instead."

[WestCoastRunner]

Killing every ISIL fighter we can get our hands will help. They need to die, each and every one of them.

Well, I have heard that we need hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground to defeat isil. Why not? Let's do it once and for all.

[Derek 2.0]

Which doesn't really deal with the big issue here; that ISIL is likely beginning to plant bombs on international flights. We can blame Russia because the jet was their's, we can blame Egypt for potentially shoddy security at their airport, but the fact is that this may very well hearken a new strategy by ISIL. And do you think they're not going to be trying to get bombs on to other countries' airliners?

ISIL is filled with very vile and repugnant people, and they don't give a flying whatever that the new government of Canada won't be dropping the odd bomb on them.

Exactly, it is a global problem, that doesn't only threaten the West, but also the Russians and even the Chinese.....

Now when was the last time the West, the Russians and Chinese put aside their differences to achieve a common goal in ending a threat to global stability?

[Derek 2.0]

In fairness, you also lamented Obama pulling out of Iraq too early (how many decades would have been enough?) so it seemed like you were a "boots on the ground" aficionado. No matter. Bombs or boots - they both work - as long as your objective is to keep people fearful and keep the "security industry" filled up with citizen's funds.

Yes I did, but that does not equate to occupying other nations....as to for "how long"...simple, until there is no longer a threat that can't be contained by local forces.

(I'm going to take a pass on the conspiracy theories though)

[Derek 2.0]

There were lots of Nazis, too. That didn't mean we went "Whoah, too many, we'd best just go home instead."

Exactly, mostly when we finally halted Nazi expansion........

[ToadBrother]

Exactly, it is a global problem, that doesn't only threaten the West, but also the Russians and even the Chinese.....

Now when was the last time the West, the Russians and Chinese put aside their differences to achieve a common goal in ending a threat to global stability?

I don't know. There were a lot of Japanese and German soldiers. It would be very hard to beat them, and it would require lots of indiscriminate bombing, which seems rather wrong. Perhaps we could just drop aid packets on Occupied France and Indo-China and help train some resistance fighters. I mean, that would be fine, wouldn't it?

[ToadBrother]

Exactly, mostly when we finally halted Nazi expansion........

Indeed. And the Allies stopped Nazi expansion by shooting a lot of Nazis, bombing a lot of Nazis, sinking a lot of Nazis, and yeah, unfortunately, killing a lot of Germans, too. At the end of the day, the destruction of the Nazis was worth the sacrifice of Allied lives, and, really, the sacrifice of a lot of German lives, too.

[Smallc]

There were lots of Nazis, too. That didn't mean we went "Whoah, too many, we'd best just go home instead."

That was a bit different though. It was easy to know who's side everyone involved was on. That's not nearly so simple here.

[Derek 2.0]

I don't know. There were a lot of Japanese and German soldiers. It would be very hard to beat them, and it would require lots of indiscriminate bombing, which seems rather wrong. Perhaps we could just drop aid packets on Occupied France and Indo-China and help train some resistance fighters. I mean, that would be fine, wouldn't it?

My thoughts exactly.........

[ToadBrother]

That was a bit different though. It was easy to know who's side everyone involved was on. That's not nearly so simple here.

Was it that different? The Allied armies and air forces literally bombed and shot their way through Occupied Europe, and a lot of German civilians died as Nazi Germany was literally pummeled into ruins. Ask the folks of Dresden and Tokyo. Uniforms don't mean a thing from 20,000 feet.

[Derek 2.0]

Was it that different? The Allied armies and air forces literally bombed and shot their way through Occupied Europe, and a lot of German civilians died as Nazi Germany was literally pummeled into ruins. Ask the folks of Dresden and Tokyo. Uniforms don't mean a thing from 20,000 feet.

Exactly, and with the advent of smart munitions and new means of gathering intelligence, unlike then, we now have the ability to greatly reduce the loss of innocent life.

[Argus]

There seems to be an unlimited supply. I'm no pacifist, but this strategy is failing.

On what do you base this statement? Do you know how much territory ISIS would control today if not for the bombing?