In a nutshell, why our economy sucks

[ReeferMadness]

Really? How many tanker spills have we had in Burrard Inlet or Georgia Straight? The Americans have been shipping Alaskan crude into Puget Sound since the seventies and haven't had a spill. They feed the refineries just across the border where BC gets most of its fuel and other refined petroleum products.

How many would you like?

[Wilber]

How many would you like?

Dumb question. Guess they should have banned trans Atlantic travel after the Titanic hit an iceberg because we all know sea travel hasn't got any safer since then.

[ReeferMadness]

Dumb question.

Really? So here's another question for you. If tankers are so safe, why did Canada cap the liability for oil companies at $400 million per spill?

After all, if tankers are so safe, the companies should have no issues with accepting unlimited liability (as was recommended by the Harper government's tanker safety expert panel.

How much do you think a major spill in Burrard Inlet would cost? During the Kalamazoo River spill, they had to evacuate the local population due to dangerous fumes. And that was not a particularly large spill. What would it cost to evacuate the lower mainland?

[Wilber]

Really? So here's another question for you. If tankers are so safe, why did Canada cap the liability for oil companies at $400 million per spill?

After all, if tankers are so safe, the companies should have no issues with accepting unlimited liability (as was recommended by the Harper government's tanker safety expert panel.How much do you think a major spill in Burrard Inlet would cost?

That can be changed.

During the Kalamazoo River spill, they had to evacuate the local population due to dangerous fumes. And that was not a particularly large spill. What would it cost to evacuate the lower mainland?

That was not a tanker. Kinder Morgan is planning on twinning a pipeline that has already been operating safely since 1953. Guess you would want to get rid of that one to.

The tankers leaving Burrard Inlet are escorted by tugs and have pilots on board until well into the Straight of Juan de Fuca. Except for fog and exceptional circumstances, weather is not much of a factor in those sheltered waters. Although large, they are Aframax tankers which are a quarter the size of the largest supertankers and can only be loaded to 80% capacity because of draft restrictions in the Inlet

I have no problem with changing liability laws, tightening regulations and ensuring they are rigidly enforced but just saying no to everything on principle is not a option if you want a strong economy that provides a country's citizens with a high standard of living.

Edited January 29, 2016 by Wilber

[hitops]

Yes, that's right I only care about thousands of dying fishing communities and hundreds of millions of people around the planet who depend on them for food.

Except those dying fishing villages don't really affect the world food supply, they mainly just affect those villages and shift the supply into the hands of monopolies.

That's not good. But you want Canadian fishing village decline to = worldwide catastrophe. It simply is not the case, sorry. The world overall is doing better than ever, including access to food.

Maybe the village decline = catastrophe for your personal favourite issue or your situation. Well just say that then. No need to make it into something it is not.

Edited January 29, 2016 by hitops

[Big Guy]

This rhetoric makes me gag.

I sure hope you do not have difficulty singing our national anthem.

You appear unhappy with Canada. Where would you rather be living?

[ReeferMadness]

That can be changed.

I know it can be changed but will it? And more importantly, you're avoiding the question. If the risk is as low as you seem to think, why did Harper feel the need to socialize the risk on behalf of the oil transportation industry (as did other governments before him)?

That was not a tanker. Kinder Morgan is planning on twinning a pipeline that has already been operating safely since 1953. Guess you would want to get rid of that one to.

We need to get rid of fossil fuels so, ultimately yes. But we can't do everything all at once. There needs to be a balance.

The tankers leaving Burrard Inlet are escorted by tugs and have pilots on board until well into the Straight of Juan de Fuca. Except for fog and exceptional circumstances, weather is not much of a factor in those sheltered waters. Although large, they are Aframax tankers which are a quarter the size of the largest supertankers and can only be loaded to 80% capacity because of draft restrictions in the Inlet

The risk of a major spill is unlikely but it's not zero; and it will grow as the number of tankers grows. The reason I asked how many spills would you like is that based on the reading I've done on the subject, I don't believe that a major spill of dilbit in deep water will be cleaned up. Not for any amount of money. They will scrape the sludge off the beaches (as well as they can) but it will sink. And the damage done will long outlast the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this.

How many major west coast cities does Canada have? One. And it's a gem. And we're risking it for some short term profit, most of which goes to foreign owned oil companies. Madness.

I have no problem with changing liability laws, tightening regulations and ensuring they are rigidly enforced but just saying no to everything on principle is not a option if you want a strong economy that provides a country's citizens with a high standard of living.

We're living in a dream world. Fossil fuels are so damaging in so many ways, I won't even get into all of them here. But we will get off of them - whether that's in 20 years, 50 years or 70 years. How much are you willing to sacrifice for an extra 30 or 50 years of being able to dig sludge out of the ground?

It's even questionable how much the fossil fuel industry has contributed to Canada's standard of living. When you account for the economic damage done to other industries due to the high dollar, it may even have been a net drag. There's a great analysis done by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives - I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

[eyeball]

Except those dying fishing villages don't really affect the world food supply, they mainly just affect those villages and shift the supply into the hands of monopolies.

That's not good.

Why is it not good? I know it's not good and why but I'm not just going to sit here and let you acknowledge that too and then walk away from it. You need to think long and hard about why that's not good and then you need to address how bad it really is. If all the canaries in the coal mine started dropping like flies what would you do? Well, you'd apparently ignore that and maintain that conditions in the mine are improving. That's what I would expect from the mine's owner who sitting safe above ground in an air conditioned office.

But you want Canadian fishing village decline to = worldwide catastrophe. It simply is not the case, sorry. The world overall is doing better than ever, including access to food.

I want it? That's a pretty weird thing to say. In any case it doesn't equal catastrophe, it simply indicates that it's occurring and why - like a canary in a coal mine. It's happening here in Canada and around the world. Ignore it at your peril.

Maybe the village decline = catastrophe for your personal favourite issue or your situation. Well just say that then. No need to make it into something it is not.

I would probably say it's a blessing if I controlled the catch that used to sustain hundreds of fishermen. I would also consider it a blessing that so many ordinary Canadians are oblivious to how I amassed my opportunity and fortune and actually believe its a good thing that I did.

I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Edited January 29, 2016 by eyeball

[Wilber]

I know it can be changed but will it? And more importantly, you're avoiding the question. If the risk is as low as you seem to think, why did Harper feel the need to socialize the risk on behalf of the oil transportation industry (as did other governments before him)?

Why not? Harper isn't in power any more. Government makes money off these exports in the form of taxes and royalties, it is only fair that it accepts some of the liability. Perhaps a formula where industry accepts sole liability up to a certain limit, after which it is shared according to a formula yet to be determined. All things are possible.

We need to get rid of fossil fuels so, ultimately yes. But we can't do everything all at once. There needs to be a balance.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just fuels and there is no realistic substitute for them when it comes to aviation.

The risk of a major spill is unlikely but it's not zero; and it will grow as the number of tankers grows. The reason I asked how many spills would you like is that based on the reading I've done on the subject, I don't believe that a major spill of dilbit in deep water will be cleaned up. Not for any amount of money. They will scrape the sludge off the beaches (as well as they can) but it will sink. And the damage done will long outlast the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this.

Nothing you do has zero risk, not even staying in bed.

We're living in a dream world. Fossil fuels are so damaging in so many ways, I won't even get into all of them here. But we will get off of them - whether that's in 20 years, 50 years or 70 years. How much are you willing to sacrifice for an extra 30 or 50 years of being able to dig sludge out of the ground?

You are the one living in a dream world. In 70 years they may be on the decline but the world will get off fossil fuels in its own good time and us not building a pipeline will have zero effect on the timetable. All we are doing is not getting a share of the pie while there is any pie left.

It's even questionable how much the fossil fuel industry has contributed to Canada's standard of living. When you account for the economic damage done to other industries due to the high dollar, it may even have been a net drag. There's a great analysis done by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives - I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

You do that and while you are at it, provide all the alternatives that will replace the income that resources provide for this country.

[ReeferMadness]

Why not? Harper isn't in power any more. Government makes money off these exports in the form of taxes and royalties, it is only fair that it accepts some of the liability. Perhaps a formula where industry accepts sole liability up to a certain limit, after which it is shared according to a formula yet to be determined. All things are possible.

I don't know why not - why don't you ask Harper? Clearly, there is some reason they decided to subsidize industry.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just fuels and there is no realistic substitute for them when it comes to aviation.

Today, there is no realistic substitute when it comes to aviation. So, let's focus on those areas where is there a realistic substitute. There's no logic to the premise that since we can't get rid of 100% of fossil fuels immediately, we should just throw up our hands and say there's nothing we can do.

Nothing you do has zero risk, not even staying in bed.

I don't think there's any chance that me staying in bed will cause the evacuation of Vancouver.

You are the one living in a dream world. In 70 years they may be on the decline but the world will get off fossil fuels in its own good time and us not building a pipeline will have zero effect on the timetable. All we are doing is not getting a share of the pie while there is any pie left.

Yeah. A share of the pie. That gold rush mentality that is distorting our economy and driving out sustainable industries in favor of an unsustainable and unstable one.

What happens in 70 years remains to be seen. However, most of the cheap oil is gone and what's left will just continue to get more expensive. Oil will gradually price itself out of existence. If we're smart, we'll hasten that with carbon taxes (we being the world, not just Canada).

The internal combustion engine is a dinosaur, horribly complex and grotesquely inefficient. The sooner it's gone the better.

You do that and while you are at it, provide all the alternatives that will replace the income that resources provide for this country.

The document shows that in the late 20th century, Canada was making good progress towards a diversified economy. In other words, low oil prices are good for Canada. Then came the price run-up and a disastrous Harper regime (and his policies geared towards making us an "energy superpower"). It's quite possible (I would say probable) that the focus on digging sludge out of Alberta has done more harm than good to the whole of Canada, even if you only care about money.

[Topaz]

The Tories did bring down the deficit to 941 M in October 2015 but they did it by increase personal income and GST and they always said they are/were cutting taxes for Canadians, which wasn't true and they still had to cut spending to get to that number so, were they really overspent? http://www.macleans.ca/economy/ottawa-posts-941-million-deficit-for-october/

[hitops]

Why is it not good? I know it's not good and why but I'm not just going to sit here and let you acknowledge that too and then walk away from it.

What are you even arguing here? Your claim was that the world was going to hell. The basis for your claim was the fisheries problem and inequality. Yes, the fisheries have problems. No, the world is not going to hell, in fact it is improving. Those two facts can, and do, exist simultaneously, and that's ok. There's nothing illogical or impossible about that.

I want it? That's a pretty weird thing to say.

You want to believe it, because it's the story you want to tell. Most likely, you want to conjure up sympathy for the fishermen losing out. To do so, you need this to be an apocalyptic event. It's just not.

I would probably say it's a blessing if I controlled the catch that used to sustain hundreds of fishermen. I would also consider it a blessing that so many ordinary Canadians are oblivious to how I amassed my opportunity and fortune and actually believe its a good thing that I did.

I'd be laughing all the way to the bank.

Quite right. And completely unrelated to your accompanying claim, that the world is falling apart. Separate the issues. Life is way, way better today for hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis and many others, even if it is worse for thousands of Canadians, compared to 20-30 years ago.

Other people (for example the poorest on earth) deserve an chance to improve their lives too, not just us. If those lives are improving due to globalization and dispersing for manufacturing and labor markets, and this raises worldwide standards of living, even if we feel more of a pinch in our corner, I embrace it.

Edited February 1, 2016 by hitops

[eyeball]

What are you even arguing here? Your claim was that the world was going to hell. The basis for your claim was the fisheries problem and inequality.

The basis for my claim was that the economy sucks as bad as it does because of inequality due to government interference. The best evidence I'm aware of is local to fisheries the region I live in and you will find the same inequity reflected globally.

If the world is going to hell it's mostly because the economy sucks.

Yes, the fisheries have problems. No, the world is not going to hell, in fact it is improving. Those two facts can, and do, exist simultaneously, and that's ok. There's nothing illogical or impossible about that.

It's WHY the fisheries have problems that you are oblivious to. What is really illogical is that in the face of these problems thousands of people can lose their livelihoods and access to a public resource while a billionaire ends up with access to 40% of what's left after the dust settles. What's impossible to fathom is imagining these simultaneous events can occur and being ok with it.

You want to believe it, because it's the story you want to tell. Most likely, you want to conjure up sympathy for the fishermen losing out. To do so, you need this to be an apocalyptic event. It's just not.

I want to explain why the economy sucks, in a nutshell. Fishing villages do that wonderfully. The politics of fishing are utterly venal and brutal and have only gotten more so in the face of dwindling catches. Have you seen what the price of fish is these days? The catches may be dwindling but the prices are going through the roof. Instead of too many boats chasing too few fish we now have too many dollars chasing them...huge dollars and yet the income gap is soaring in fisheries. If I go fishing this year I'll have to pay $8 - $9 a lb so I can go make a $1 a lb. I'll pay this to a "fisherman" who will "earn" up to $80,000 for the pleasure of receiving his share of a public resource. You okay with that too? Don't you think you should be getting that $8 - $9 instead. It's your resource after all.

Quite right. And completely unrelated to your accompanying claim, that the world is falling apart. Separate the issues. Life is way, way better today for hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, Bangladeshis and many others, even if it is worse for thousands of Canadians, compared to 20-30 years ago.

Hang onto that thought a little longer. The worst government interference in opportunities in Canada's fisheries started about 20 - 30 years ago too. Catches are still declining, prices income gaps are soaring, lobbyists working for quota holders are busy as hell trying to lobby for more.

Other people (for example the poorest on earth) deserve an chance to improve their lives too, not just us. If those lives are improving due to globalization and dispersing for manufacturing and labor markets, and this raises worldwide standards of living, even if we feel more of a pinch in our corner, I embrace it.

Not for much longer, the inertia they've built on is running out along with the world's natural resources. These people are hooped and they're oblivious to the reasons why too.

You're embracing a charade.

Edited February 2, 2016 by eyeball

[Hal 9000]

Hang onto that thought a little longer. The worst government interference in opportunities in Canada's fisheries started about 20 - 30 years ago too. Catches are still declining, prices income gaps are soaring, lobbyists working for quota holders are busy as hell trying to lobby for more.

Who are the quota holders and why aren't the fishermen owning the quotas?

[eyeball]

Some fishermen do own quota but its all eventually being gobbled up by wealthy individuals and big companies with deep pockets.

A real neat trick is to decide to make a derby fishery into a quota fishery then assign so little quota to participants it's impossible to make a living at it. This causes fishermen to sell their quota to someone else and before you know it it's all owned by a handful of people - a delightful process we call fleet-cannibalization. The cannibals of course now have to recoup their investment, hence the new phrase too many dollars chasing too few fish. This means lobbyists for heavily vested interests badgering government officials to increase their quotas.

Indications a derby fishery was going to be turned into an individual transferable quota fishery often triggered a spate of what's termed fear-fishing. Fishermen are fearful they'll be left out because they don't have enough landings to qualify for a quota. A few pushed it to hard and were killed trying to fish to the deadline. Ironically quotas were touted as a way to make fishing safer.

Why is all this happening? Ease of management and a market-based solution to the problem of assigning opportunity according to DFO. By co-incidence it also just happens to make a handful of individuals so fabulously wealthy and entitled it's ridiculous.

Edited February 2, 2016 by eyeball

[hitops]

The basis for my claim was that the economy sucks as bad as it does because of inequality due to government interference. The best evidence I'm aware of is local to fisheries the region I live in and you will find the same inequity reflected globally.

Except it isn't. Our fisheries have no relation to global welfare. The whole can do well, while one part does poorly. This is incredibly difficult for you to grasp, for reasons unknown.

It's WHY the fisheries have problems that you are oblivious to. What is really illogical is that in the face of these problems thousands of people can lose their livelihoods and access to a public resource while a billionaire ends up with access to 40% of what's left after the dust settles. What's impossible to fathom is imagining these simultaneous events can occur and being ok with it.

You haven't correctly represented a single position that I hold, thus far. I can't respond based on your imagination. I can only respond based on my actual position.

I want to explain why the economy sucks, in a nutshell. Fishing villages do that wonderfully. The politics of fishing are utterly venal and brutal and have only gotten more so in the face of dwindling catches. Have you seen what the price of fish is these days? The catches may be dwindling but the prices are going through the roof. Instead of too many boats chasing too few fish we now have too many dollars chasing them...huge dollars and yet the income gap is soaring in fisheries. If I go fishing this year I'll have to pay $8 - $9 a lb so I can go make a $1 a lb. I'll pay this to a "fisherman" who will "earn" up to $80,000 for the pleasure of receiving his share of a public resource. You okay with that too? Don't you think you should be getting that $8 - $9 instead. It's your resource after all.

You are so invested in the fisheries issue, you are not really reading anything that is being said.

Edited February 2, 2016 by hitops

[eyeball]

Except it isn't. Our fisheries have no relation to global welfare. The whole can do well, while one part does poorly. This is incredibly difficult for you to grasp, for reasons unknown.

You haven't correctly represented a single position that I hold, thus far. I can't respond based on your imagination. I can only respond based on my actual position.

You are so invested in the fisheries issue, you are not really reading anything that is being said.

Yes, it's quite obvious we're from different worlds talking different languages about different things isn't it?

That's another reason our economy sucks - it's built on the same foundation as the Tower of Babel.

[hitops]

Yes, it's quite obvious we're from different worlds talking different languages about different things isn't it?

No, it's that you are talking about only fisheries, and I'm talking about fisheries and global quality of life indicators. You don't want to talk about the global stuff, except you brought it up claiming that somehow our fisheries mean life is worse everywhere. It isn't.

Yes, we should have open competition and not monopolies.

No, the world is not worse off today than decades ago, overall.

Edited February 2, 2016 by hitops

[eyeball]

No, it's that you are talking about only fisheries, and I'm talking about fisheries and global quality of life indicators.

I'm saying the state of fisheries here and around the world are an indicator of the state oh the world. You think the world is a better place according to other indicators. I attribute that to an inertia that is now running out of steam and fisheries remain a very accurate indicator of what happens when scarcity really starts to bite.

Governments tilt the playing field towards the wealthiest more powerful players.

[hitops]

I'm saying the state of fisheries here and around the world are an indicator of the state oh the world.

Which it is not. It just an indicator of our own problems.

You think the world is a better place according to other indicators.

I don't think that. Those are the findings of various US, WHO and OECD reports over the last decades.

I attribute that to an inertia that is now running out of steam and fisheries remain a very accurate indicator of what happens when scarcity really starts to bite.

For our fisheries. Not for the world. Inertia is the wrong word - it implies that things are good due to previously being good. The exact opposite is true - things were previously much worse, and are now much better than before for your average human on this planet. Also, a little worse for your average Canadian.

Governments tilt the playing field towards the wealthiest more powerful players.

Which is why we need less of it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by hitops

[Big Guy]

There is no problem with the economy. There may be a problem with Canadians believing that they are owed a job.

During my generation, Canadians average two careers either because of personal choice or because of economic conditions. If there are no jobs in your field then you retrain. If there are no jobs in your area then you move where they are. If you are under educated then you go back to school.

The new generation can expect to change careers an average of three times because of demography and especially because of technological innovation.

Every Canadian is in charge of their own futures and economic well being.

[hitops]

There is no problem with the economy. There may be a problem with Canadians believing that they are owed a job.

During my generation, Canadians average two careers either because of personal choice or because of economic conditions. If there are no jobs in your field then you retrain. If there are no jobs in your area then you move where they are. If you are under educated then you go back to school.

The new generation can expect to change careers an average of three times because of demography and especially because of technological innovation.

Every Canadian is in charge of their own futures and economic well being.

No you just don't understand. I live up north and it's expensive! I won't move....because......because this is where I am! You owe me.

[eyeball]

.

Edited February 2, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

There is no problem with the economy.

Thank you, Mister Economics. Where did you get your degree again?

It's odd how every OTHER economist in Canada thinks differently.

[Hal 9000]

Some fishermen do own quota but its all eventually being gobbled up by wealthy individuals and big companies with deep pockets.

A real neat trick is to decide to make a derby fishery into a quota fishery then assign so little quota to participants it's impossible to make a living at it. This causes fishermen to sell their quota to someone else and before you know it it's all owned by a handful of people - a delightful process we call fleet-cannibalization. The cannibals of course now have to recoup their investment, hence the new phrase too many dollars chasing too few fish. This means lobbyists for heavily vested interests badgering government officials to increase their quotas.

Indications a derby fishery was going to be turned into an individual transferable quota fishery often triggered a spate of what's termed fear-fishing. Fishermen are fearful they'll be left out because they don't have enough landings to qualify for a quota. A few pushed it to hard and were killed trying to fish to the deadline. Ironically quotas were touted as a way to make fishing safer.

Why is all this happening? Ease of management and a market-based solution to the problem of assigning opportunity according to DFO. By co-incidence it also just happens to make a handful of individuals so fabulously wealthy and entitled it's ridiculous.

Fishermen overfished for years and stocks dwindled. They were offered too much money for their licences (from generally chinese business men), they took the quick payout because the new owners would give them cash upfront and also allow them to fish the quota. Problem is; as more and more licences were bought up, the new owners now controlled the market and how much the fishermen would pay to use said quota and also controlled just who they could sell the product to - generally, it was right back to the owner - who incidentally is also the broker. How nice for the chinese business man.

Fishermen insisted, against better judgement that the government allow this to happen. If you're fishing 9$lb. product for $1 or $2 dollars, you can blame the last generation of fishermen.