Jump to content

An Albertan adds up the numbers


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Isn't this really about some kind of p!ssing match between Albertans who want the ROC to thank them for making all that money from high oil prices while the ROC is now going through the schadenfreude moment of low oil prices?

Mmm, more about sanctimonious politicians saying they want nothing to do with dirty oil projects, then scrambling in the dirt fighting over the money that comes from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awwww. Poor poor poor pipeline proponents!

Not getting their way in a democratic system when more than money stakeholders need to be considered!

I mean, how dare other people have opinions when they should just roll over because, CASH!

I would have more respect for those 'other people' if they didn't insist, nay, DEMAND on the CASH, and plenty of it, while at the same time rejecting the means for delivering the oil which is the cause of much of that cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. He's only considering direct benefits, as in jobs for Montreal area workers on the pipeline while ignoring the money they all receive in the form of federal payments

Argus...that is the very point I have made numerous times in this thread alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have more respect for those 'other people' if they didn't insist, nay, DEMAND on the CASH, and plenty of it, while at the same time rejecting the means for delivering the oil which is the cause of much of that cash.

Lots of people are rent seeking free lunchers.

Including an industry that wants to "drill, baby drill" while ignoring the environmental consequences for it.

Balancing interests within a democracy helps to get the balance right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Energy East will happen because even guys like me who hate Northern Gateway think it makes sense.

The thing is this: pipelines get built under Liberal governments.

There were a number of polls floating around that had support for Northern Gateway at 50% with support increasing if conditions were met. I did see one showing large opposition from Dogwood which had obvious bias. Having said this, would you still be ok with democracy if 51% of BC supported the line and it went through?

As for your Liberals build pipeline claim....citation request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another example of the old adage, the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Funny because that's the same problem we're having right now with capitalism. The consumer class is being crippled out of signalling demand because the corporate class is sitting on money while taking a larger and larger share of the economic gains each year. It's completely unsustainable. Why it's almost like there needs to be some compromise between unfettered capitalism and absolute socialism. Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were a number of polls floating around that had support for Northern Gateway at 50% with support increasing if conditions were met. I did see one showing large opposition from Dogwood which had obvious bias. Having said this, would you still be ok with democracy if 51% of BC supported the line and it went through?

As for your Liberals build pipeline claim....citation request.

I doubt you would get more than 40ish % support in BC and that's what counts.

Throw in the First Nations legal issues and it ain't gonna happen.

So I'm not worried over this unless a federal government wants to ram it down our throats for which it would ensure that BC would forever vote NDP at the federal level. Harper has no idea how many votes he lost in BC over this issue.

As for pipelines being built in Canada: with over 800,000 km of pipeline in Canada with many of that built in the 50's, 60's and 70's do you really want me to point out who was in government during most of that time?

Sure, we know at the provincial level Alberta was ruled by Conservatives during this time but Saskatchewan? Manitoba? Ontario?

Etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt you would get more than 40ish % support in BC and that's what counts.

That would depend on which biased poll you are looking at:

The majority-opposition finding is not an unusual for a poll commissioned by environmental groups, which generally highlight in their questions the introduction of super tankers and the possibility of oil spills.

Dogwood Initiative executive director Will Horter said opposition is always stronger in polls when tankers are mentioned as part of the Northern Gateway project.

“People have very strong concerns about oil pipelines, but have deep, deep concerns about the oil tankers,” said Horter.

Business and industry-commissioned polls, which tend to highlight the economic benefits of Northern Gateway, usually find higher support for the project.

A B.C. Chamber of Commerce-commissioned poll released in December found nearly 50 per cent support for Northern Gateway.

The Justason poll also found that 51 per cent distrust the joint review panel process, while 32 per cent trusted it.

If Premier Christy Clark’s five conditions for supporting heavy oil being transported through B.C. are met, 49 per cent said they would be a lot or a little bit more supportive of the project.

The B.C. Chamber poll had found that should the project meet the five conditions, support increased to 63 per cent.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Majority+British+Columbians+oppose+Northern+Gateway+pipeline+poll/9469513/story.html?__lsa=f29c-0054

So I'm not worried over this unless a federal government wants to ram it down our throats for which it would ensure that BC would forever vote NDP at the federal level. Harper has no idea how many votes he lost in BC over this issue.

The election was and always is determined once the vote is done in Ontario. So vote whomever you wish....it doesn't matter!

As for pipelines being built in Canada: with over 800,000 km of pipeline in Canada with many of that built in the 50's, 60's and 70's do you really want me to point out who was in government during most of that time?

LMAO!!! You seriously want to go back to the 50s, 60s, and 70s to compare? That is hilarious. I was sincerely hoping you would show me something from Cretien/Martin days but no...you go to the 50s?

So the Liberals of the past are the same as today then...that is your thought? Then I guess we should prepare ourselves for the massive debts of Trudeau Sr. or the sponsorship scandals of Cretien. Since they are all the same...right? It was my understanding that Trudeau Jr was 'different'.

Has it also ever occurred to you that the political climate or environmental laws in the 50s, 60s and 70s just may have been the tiniest bit different then they were today. Global warming in the 70s was actually Global cooling. Wow...this 'proof' that you provided is probably one of the worst arguments I have ever seen on this forum. But hey...keep trying.

So far, two major pipelines under Trudeau's short time have gone to the wayside. The first was Keystone XL which largely had to do with Obama but at the same time, Trudeau just grinned and accepted it. The other was Northern Gateway which was single handedly squashed by him. Even if Energy East goes through, it will only be due to the pushing of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick governments with the help of Quebec City. Trudeau is on the sidelines waiting for everyone to tell him what to do. He will not nor should not be credited as championing this pipeline when he has done nothing but cheerlead from the sidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny because that's the same problem we're having right now with capitalism. The consumer class is being crippled out of signalling demand because the corporate class is sitting on money while taking a larger and larger share of the economic gains each year. It's completely unsustainable. Why it's almost like there needs to be some compromise between unfettered capitalism and absolute socialism.

There is no such thing as unfettered capitalism. Not in this country. Not even in America. Aside from that, the rest of what you say makes no sense. What is signalling demand? What and who's money is being sat upon? The money that people choose to spend on a good or service? Nobody takes a share of anything. Income is earned. Money goes where people spend it. Seriously, a grasp of even basic economics seems to have been lost in our society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's still inconclusive evidence. Maybe he was looking for reassurances of environmental protection. You don't know.

You are correct. He is not representative of the opinions of all people. The Quebec City mayor came out in favour of the pipeline and more pointedly a recent survey in Montreal showed overwhelming support for this pipeline and for Alberta oil.

So what are you going on about? He's one man with no power in this.

Again....Coderre is grandstanding in order to gain whatever benefits he can. Its what politicians do but it does get a little cumbersome when one part of the country squawks all the time especially when they are a net recipient of federal funds.

I doubt that Montreal is a net recipient of anything, even if Quebec as a whole is.

Where have you used the 'same' example to prove your point? That point being money is not the main factor in the end?

The point is that people have varied reasons, concerns, and agendas. You're trying to pigeonhole them all as a way to disparage them.

I have provided two solid examples involving two major projects where our politicians have outright said there just isn't enough money involved to make it worthwhile. I have yet to see you provide an example of a politician turning down these projects solely on factors not related to money.

Elizabeth May

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) how many pipelines got built under Harper?

2) watch how many will get built under liberal governments with modern environmental assessments.

3) bring on solar and wind energy to ensure energy competition keeps Alberta from becoming the Saudi Arabia of Canada.

As in, I know you think the ROC should bow down before vast sums of money being produced from oil but our economy is more than just the ROC paying too much money for a commodity thanks to a private cartel that's been screwing everyone for decades.

The thing about low oil prices is that it serves as a reminder that we do not have to be beholden to the oil interests if we are willing to diversify and invest otherwise.

The thing about high oil prices is that Albertans forget where the source of their money is coming from to pay those high incomes ( and therefore high taxes) in the first place.

Edited by msj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as unfettered capitalism. Not in this country. Not even in America. Aside from that, the rest of what you say makes no sense. What is signalling demand? What and who's money is being sat upon? The money that people choose to spend on a good or service? Nobody takes a share of anything. Income is earned. Money goes where people spend it. Seriously, a grasp of even basic economics seems to have been lost in our society.

"Not even in America"? LOL. Ever check how much corp. profit is stashed tax free offshore, or where Trump has his clothing line manufactured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's still inconclusive evidence. Maybe he was looking for reassurances of environmental protection. You don't know.

Your point was that he wouldn't change his mind. Obviously one meeting with Trudeau was enough to do that.

So what are you going on about? He's one man with no power in this

If he has no power then why the press? Why the attention? Why a meeting with our Prime Minster on this very topic?

I doubt that Montreal is a net recipient of anything, even if Quebec as a whole is.

Really? Does Montreal not reside in Quebec. You don't think that provincial health care, child care, roads or any other jurisdiction within Quebec would end up in Quebec's largest city. I can tell you're stretching the argument now.

Elizabeth May

Lol. The stretching continues. Easy for Elizabeth May to oppose it from the cheap seats. Her 1 seat in the House will never allow her to make tough decisions that involve economy, jobs, or other important topics that encompass Mayors, Premiers, or PMs. She gets to rock the boat from the peanut gallery with zero ramifications. Hardly what I call taking a stand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point was that he wouldn't change his mind. Obviously one meeting with Trudeau was enough to do that.

My point was that not everything is about money.

If he has no power then why the press? Why the attention? Why a meeting with our Prime Minster on this very topic?

Because buy in is important.

Really? Does Montreal not reside in Quebec. You don't think that provincial health care, child care, roads or any other jurisdiction within Quebec would end up in Quebec's largest city. I can tell you're stretching the argument now.

Quebec is a net recipient. It's unlikely that Montreal is a net recipient within Quebec, and even within Canada.

Lol. The stretching continues.

A politician that won't be bought. I'm sure there are more, especially among the ranks of the NDP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) how many pipelines got built under Harper?

Keystone, Alberta Clipper, Kinder Morgan Anchor Loop and Line 9 reversal. Energy East was officially applied in October 2014 giving less than a year to actually do anything. TransMountain was filed at the end of 2013...also giving little time. Northern Gateway was approved during Harpers time...and we know who squashed that.

2) watch how many will get built under liberal governments with modern environmental assessments.

Sorry...I disregard any argument that's solely based on predictions especially when said predictions have zero basis

3) bring on solar and wind energy to ensure energy competition keeps Alberta from becoming the Saudi Arabia of Canada.

Sure...go for it. It won't stop the need for oil.

As in, I know you think the ROC should bow down before vast sums of money being produced from oil but our economy is more than just the ROC paying too much money for a commodity thanks to a private cartel that's been screwing everyone for decades.

Why is that you scream from the hilltops about democracy and about peoples ability to speak their minds yet you jump all over me for doing just that. I have never said that people, whether it Coderre or any other anti-pipeline person, not be able to say their peace. I have however stated that these same people need to be cognizant of all the factors involved and should realize consequences for the choices they make. I also want to know why you feel an argument should be one sided? Why am I not allowed to criticize what anti-pipeline people would say? Is that not my right? Or is it a matter of convenient rights for you?

The thing about high oil prices is that Albertans forget where the source of their money is coming from to pay those high incomes ( and therefore high taxes) in the first place.

You mean the 99% that goes to the US? Is that a problem for you that we export to them?

Do you want to know where BC has its exports going to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quebec is a net recipient. It's unlikely that Montreal is a net recipient within Quebec, and even within Canada.

Prove it.

My point was that not everything is about money.

A politician that won't be bought. I'm sure there are more, especially among the ranks of the NDP.

This isn't about buying politicians. Its about politicians that have to make all encompassing decisions. Like I said, its easy for Elizabeth May to chirp from the cheap seat because she doesn't have to make such decisions. Mulcair certainly showed his flip flop when such decisions were presented to him.

In the end its not all about money but money is almost always involved in the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny because that's the same problem we're having right now with capitalism. The consumer class is being crippled out of signalling demand because the corporate class is sitting on money while taking a larger and larger share of the economic gains each year. It's completely unsustainable. Why it's almost like there needs to be some compromise between unfettered capitalism and absolute socialism.

True. This article 'Canada's corporate tax cuts didn't create jobs, they created corporate cash hoarding'.

A study from 'The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives' indicates that billions in tax giveaways to corporations did little to stimulate the economy or create jobs.

"Significantly (and ironically), not only has investment failed to increase in recent decades in tandem with CIT rate reductions, the pattern that investment takes mirrors the CIT rate. In other words, after climbing in the 1940s and early 1950s, business investment trended downward from the 1960s onward. It was sharply reduced in the 1980s and has remained at a postwar low for three decades."

Canada's federal corporate income tax rate was once as high as 42% in the 1950s, believe it or not (actually, a combined 52% when you include provincial corporate taxes too).

But since 1988, federal corporate tax rates nose dived, slashed repeatedly by Conservative and Liberal governments. Today it's at the lowest rate in over half a century.

"Between 2000 and 2010, the statutory CIT rate was nearly halved and the average rate of growth of employment among the top 60 firms was -0.7%. The pattern is similar for the private sector as a whole, which saw rapid employment growth in the decades when CIT rates were high (1960s and 1970s) and weaker employment growth in the decades when CIT rates were low and falling (1980s to 2000s)."

"Rather than investing their enlarged earnings into growth-expanding industrial projects, Canada's corporate sector has increasingly stockpiled cash on its balance sheet," Brennan says.

Between 1990 and 2012, Corporate Canada tripled its stockpile of 'dead money' from 4% to 11% of assets, with most of that money being held by Canada's 60 biggest companies."

"Far from spawning higher levels of investment and growth, the government fixation with corporate tax cuts has indirectly fostered slower growth," Brennan says, speculating corporate tax cuts could "go down as one of the great public policy blunders of the past generation."

A poll released in the fall showed 85% of Canadians want to raise taxes on corporations.

Increased revenue from corporate taxes could help stimulate economic growth by putting unused dead money to work through investments in infrastructure and social programs that create jobs and lower living costs for Canadians.

There are some nice graphs on this site but I don't know how to copy and paste them here.

http://www.pressprogress.ca/canada_corporate_tax_cuts_didnt_create_jobs_it_created_corporate_cash_hoarding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also not true. Alberta doesn't have a sovereign wealth fund because its lazy, short sighted politicians, and lazy, short-sighted electorate preferred to have very low taxes while having some of, if not the best government social services in Canada. Alberta started a sovereign wealth fund, but then the politicians who got elected afterward preferred to raid it rather than raise taxes as they added more and more services and gave their public services big fat raises to keep them happy and quiet. How much money could Alberta have put into a wealth fund if it had been collected 8% sales taxes like Ontario the last twenty years and depositing them in the bank? The Alberta PCs, like their federal counterpart, have been conservative in name only since Lougheed stepped down.

Point of order: it is harder to be lazy in Alberta than just about anywhere in Canada.

Since the mid 90s uou basically cannot get welfare at all if you are single and employable. You can get welfare and other [programs if you have dependents or are not employable because you are disabled in some way. Unl;ike BC and other provinces, smoking too much weed for example is not considered a disability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this really about some kind of p!ssing match between Albertans who want the ROC to thank them for making all that money from high oil prices while the ROC is now going through the schadenfreude moment of low oil prices?

Let's hope for a compromise: oil at $65 and a carbon tax of 15 cents.

P!ss on both your houses....

The effects of the energy 'policy' of the current federal govt haven't been felt yet in the ROC. They will soon, as the gusher of cash diminishes it will be felt by everybody.

Albertas knows there is little possibility of actual cooperation or reasonableness from Trudeau, Quebec or several other provinces. It is not about thanking anybody, it is a matter of preservation of an important part of our economy. With the active discouragement of Trudeau at least twice in recent months, sorry three times, companies like Enbridge have already noted they are looking elsewhere to invest, and there is no lack of opportunity to make serious money in many parts of the world. Their announcement last week mentioned US and Europe specifically. They aren't the only ones who are starting to see that the hostility of Candas poltical class to the energy ndustry is making investment here pointless and risky., Tansalta announced it won't be investing in any major electrical production in AB until the current AB regime decides what will be done about abandoned capital. That means electricity costs will follow Ontarios model of simply being too costly for industry to bother with. Too risky.... And that spreads like wildfire, and will, it is already well underway. Nationally, none of the Big Three auto makers are bothering to spend much in Canada, too expensive and now also too risky.

And if they continue to pack up, they won't be back soon. Our market is not big enough to roll the dice on, not for big mponey..

And we are doing it to ourselves.

I'll explain what Alberta wants from the rest of Canada, and it isn't money, an apology, or any kind of respect.

They want Canada, all of it, to recognize the situation and allow the industry, not the public purse, build infrastructure to get energy products to market worldwide. Pipelines, ports, LNG plants. Not 20 years from now. But now. Not for Alberta, for the country. It matters to all of us.

The US did it, Australia did it, many countries have labour, business, government, everybody work together in their own interests. Not us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

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