Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Talk

[I think not]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

I like the way you analyze economics Toro. Maybe I should take economics 101 again, and get a better grade

 

[Said1]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

I like the way you analyze economics Toro. Maybe I should take economics 101 again, and get a better grade

I'll say, he rocks. :headbang:

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Markets do not drive people into poverty, they lift people out of poverty. That is why countries like China and, to a lesser extent, India, following the examples throughout the rest of Southeast Asia, are throwing off the shackles of government restrictions and instead allowing people to invest and create jobs and turn a profit. Markets do the exact opposite of what you claim.

I didn't say markets though, I said, "your policies." Look at South America and Africa. Look at the parts of Asia that are doing poorly. What do have in common? They had neo-conservative/neo-leberal policies pushed on them and those policies elevated a few at the top while they pushed the masses into poverty.

No, what they say is that if government is going to intervene, there has to be a very good reason. The price system creates the most wealth for the most people most of the time. To assume that we have enough wealth is to assume that there are no more poor people, that there are no more diseases to cure, etc.

See Above.

This is to assume that we are at the end of history. You said earlier that if there was going to be environmentally-friendly technologies, it already would have been invented.

Except that isn't what I said. I said that if your theories worked, we would already have environmentally friendly technologies in place. Quite a different thing.

Most of the technologies have already been invented. Passive solar power, wind power, and micro-hydro power have been around for centuries. Electric cars date back to the early 20th century. Environmentally building techniques have been around forever. So have things like heat pumps and natural water cooling.

These technologies have sat on the shelf though. Nobody did anything with them. They were discouraged. A lot of the building technologies were actually made illegal through zoning laws. If your theories worked, naturual competition would have pushed these things to the forefront. Instead, because of highly subsidized fossil fuels (and if ignoring all of the effects of fossil fuels for the last forty years or so isn't a subsidy, then you better explain what is), we have been sold the bill of goods we are currently stuck with.

Because they don't work.

Your theories don't, DO NOT, work, Toro. The debt between rich and poor is growing, with fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the money while more and more people live in abject poverty.

You refuse to seek other answers though. Your argument that what happened in the sixties and seventies didn't work in no way means that the snake oil you are pushing now works. It is demonstrably failing.

Your supposition that people on the left are demanding a return to past policies is dishonest and shows a very real lack of knowledge of what the proposed policies are. Your claims of being an expert are dubious at best because you ignore all but economics.

You talk about life expectancies. Check out what the life expectancy is if you live in Mexico City where breathing the air is like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. Go to Africa where the life expectancy is dropping every day, then look at the policies that put them there...not just policies about AIDS, but malaria and TB and wars and starvation. Don't even go that far...just walk down to the nearest school and ask how many kids have asthma. Now think how many kids had asthma when you were a kid. That is your economics in action, Toro.

You insist on using a false construct. You keep the real costs off the books, then insist that anybody who mentions them doesn't understand economics. We understand just fine though. You are harming people to keep yourself rich. You make us sick...literally.

Work the real costs into your books and theories, Toro. Then sit there and tell me again that nobody knows anything about economics but you.

 

[Gordon J Torture]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

I don't know, I think China might control a lot of it before the US becomes motivated enought to do something about it. Snooze, ya looze.

I agree, although, wether it's China or the United States, I don't like the idea of superpowers period.

Also, I think Canada should think about building our own refineries and refining our own oil instead of just exporting our crude oil. Any step towards becomming self sufficient is a good one, despite any potential short term detrimental consequences.

 

[Toro]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

I didn't say markets though, I said, "your policies." Look at South America and Africa. Look at the parts of Asia that are doing poorly. What do have in common? They had neo-conservative/neo-leberal policies pushed on them and those policies elevated a few at the top while they pushed the masses into poverty.

What are you talking about? My policies are markets. (My policies are also a lot more than that, but I don't think you are interested in hearing about them.) The simple fact is that countries are turning away from state interference in the economy and towards the market pricing system. To say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of what has happened in Asia. Like I posted elsewhere, 440% is the increase in real per capita GDP in China from 1980-2000 occurred because the government started emulating the other Asian Tigers. But not just China, Taiwan, Thailand, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore have all embraced market policies over the past 40 years with tremendous effects. Laggards such as Vietnam are doing the same thing and catching up. Even after the Asian collapse in the 1990s, real GDP per head was back where it was before the collapse two years afterwards.

You've posted about a Bolivaran revolution in South America. But look at what some of the Leftist governments in Latin America have been doing. Countries such as Uruguay, Brazil and Chile have all elected Leftist governments, but they haven't followed Castro or Chavez. They're running centrist governments. Government officials in those countries have said they will not be going back to the 1970s where economic nationalism lead to hyperinflation and economic ruin.

Listen to what Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have been saying the past week or two. Blair, the so-called Leftist PM of the UK, has been lecturing Germany and France, with the so-called conservative President, about adopting a pro-market economy like they do in Britain. Blair gets it. He's the example the Left should be following, not putting stupid buttons on at NDP conventions that say "Third Way, No Way."

I said that if your theories worked, we would already have environmentally friendly technologies in place. Quite a different thing.

Then you don't understand the theories. It can take a long time before new technologies are adopted. The Internet has been around since, what, the late 1960s, but didn't have wide-adoption until the 1990s. HDTV has been around for 20 years and its only now really starting to catch fire. The hottest stocks in the US recently have been alternative energy stocks. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

You mention solar power. Do you know why there aren't many solar power houses? It has nothing to do with some nefarious plot. Rather, most people don't like the aesthetics. But if the price of heating homes continues to rise, more people will adopt them. Same with wind power. Great technology but you simply cannot harvest as much power from wind turbines as you can from a co-generation plant. When hydrocarbons are cheap, there's no incentive to invest in wind power. But if oil goes to $100, there are going to be a lot people investing in it. We're already seeing it.

Your theories don't, DO NOT, work, Toro.

You do not know what my theories are. You only know a bit of what I believe and you don't want to hear the rest.

The debt between rich and poor is growing, with fewer and fewer people controlling more and more of the money while more and more people live in abject poverty.

This is flat-out wrong. More and more people are being lifted out of poverty because of market economies. Its bizarre that anyone would say otherwise considering what has happened in Asia the past 30 years, and China in particular the last decade. Even in North America, the poor live better than they did 20, 30, 50 years ago. But the Left doesn't want to believe that. That's why the Left is marginalized in this debate. The Left just doesn't get it. (Well, some on the Left get. Tony Blair gets it.) They'd rather close their eyes and ears and rely on anecdotes or isolated examples rather than look at the total picture. The fact that you think I'm twisting statistics confirms this.

Your claims of being an expert are dubious at best because you ignore all but economics.

I didn't claim to be an expert in everything. God knows I can't fix anything around the house and I couldn't carry a tune to save my life. But I am an expert on a few things and I can certainly hold my own on this subject. Studying and working in it for a long time somehow does that to a person.

You talk about life expectancies. Check out what the life expectancy is if you live in Mexico City where breathing the air is like smoking two packs of cigarettes a day. Go to Africa where the life expectancy is dropping every day, then look at the policies that put them there...not just policies about AIDS, but malaria and TB and wars and starvation. Don't even go that far...just walk down to the nearest school and ask how many kids have asthma. Now think how many kids had asthma when you were a kid. That is your economics in action, Toro.

That is not my economics in action. To blame market policies for AIDs in Africa is not a serious argument and marginalizes those who make it. Funny you should mention Mexico DF. I've spent several months of my life over the years in Mexico DF. I have friends in Col. del Valle. I started going there in the 1980s when I was a kid. You couldn't see the sky in Mexico DF. But what do you know, Pemex - the state-owned oil concern - had/has a monopoly on energy, just like some on this thread would like to see in Canada. Funny isn't it? That government-controlled energy monopoly was spewing pollution into the sky then and still are now. But, hey, those are my policies, right?

You keep the real costs off the books, then insist that anybody who mentions them doesn't understand economics. We understand just fine though. You are harming people to keep yourself rich. You make us sick...literally.

You aren't paying attention. I said earlier that government has a role to play in society. As a society gets richer, societies turn more to quality of life issues, such as controlling polution. I have no problem with that. There are lots of things government should be involved in. But we have to understand the costs and must consider all scenarios. You don't like pollution? Who does? So what's your answer, stop using oil completely? That would be insane.

Then sit there and tell me again that nobody knows anything about economics but you.

No Rev, I know more about economics than you.

Maybe we should have a debate on farming Rev. My family once owned a farm. I could tell you how to run yours. I never did any actual farming, but so what. I've read a few books on it. That means I've got enough information to tell someone who actually makes a living at it what to do. Right?

I certainly don't know everything, and I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong. (In my line of work, I have to.) But I understand the framework of economics fairly well, and I understand what I do for a living extremely well.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Fine, just ignore the facts and substitute your greed. If your theories and policies worked, all there would be in the world is developed nations. Try to twist what the left is all about and say that we are anti-market, anti-trade, and would nationalize all business.

It shows how little you actually understand.

Do not say that your policies are markets though. You have a picture of that iron-crotched bitch as your avatar, you've said that you supported the Devine government in Saskatchewan, the Bush government, the Reagan government, the Mulroney government.

Now tell me that your policies have anything to do with markets. The people you support have caused massive debt, murdered women and children for resources, and just basically f**ked the world over big time.

The truth is that your policies, as instituted by the people you support, are about corporate wealth. They are about monopolies. They are about aid deals being tied to Monsanto's rape of farming. They are about the US government backing coups and installing puppet regimes. They are about geysers of liquified pig shit on factory farms. They are about children dying because you privatised the water supplies. They are about people starvation and disease.

Your policies aren't about markets, Toro. Your policies are about controlling the markets so all wealth flows back to few already wealthy people no matter what the cost to the poor.

You like to point at China and India. You know what China and India did right? They told the IMF and World Bank to take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut. They refused to play the game of your heroes.

Now you claim them as proof of the success of your policies.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

If your theories and policies worked, all there would be in the world is developed nations.

This is not a serious statement. We are not at the end of history. Development is an extraordinarily complex issue, and some on the Left ignore what has been happening around the world and rely on anecdotes and simplistic explanations - like your opinion why India and China are growing below.

Now tell me that your policies have anything to do with markets. The people you support have caused massive debt, murdered women and children for resources, and just basically f**ked the world over big time.

This is just silly.

The truth is that your policies, as instituted by the people you support, are about corporate wealth. They are about monopolies.

The bolded statement is yet another example of the Left not understanding economics.

They are about children dying because you privatised the water supplies. They are about people starvation and disease.

No, they are about lifting people out of poverty, erradicating starvation and creating wealth so people can have clean water.

You like to point at China and India. You know what China and India did right? They told the IMF and World Bank to take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut. They refused to play the game of your heroes.

No Rev, they looked at how the rest of the world got wealthy, and are now throwing off the shackles of statism and turning towards market solutions. Gandhi was a good guy, but self-sufficiency for India - like all autarkies - didn't get the job done.

But, of course, things are much, much more complex than clever one-liners on a message board.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Toro, You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You've already admitted that your constructs are false because they do not take anything but money into account. You are now claiming that the nations that ignored the policies your masters wanted them to put in place are proof that your false constructs work.

You know damned well, at least if you've read anything more informative than a Republican talking points memo, that the privatisation of things like water and the application of your ridiculous theories have caused people to die because they couldn't afford to pay for clean water.

You also know, if you've studied history before the last year or so, that your unfettered capitalism failed in the 19th centery and then again in the 20th (we call that one The Great Depression). You also know that the third world debt crisis was caused by the policies you support, that the environment is screwed beyond belief because of the policies you support, that wars and coups have occurred because of the policies you support, and that the leaders you worship on your knees are nothing but a gang of death merchants who'd do anything for a dollar.

We've seen your policies in action. We've heard the lies before.

 

[Toro]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Rev, I have spent a lot of time studying economic history. You say that "my" policies were a failure in the 19th century. That is false. The 19th century was one of the fastest growing centuries ever.

You are wrong when you say the only thing that matters is money. I have said a number of times on this thread alone that money is not the only thing that matters. You're not listening. You seem to be most interested in arguing with straw men.

This also couldn't be more true when you say that "my" policies are unfettered capitalism. Economic issues are complex, some extraordinarily so. When I said earlier that the big issues have generally been resolved in economics (not all though), what has occurred is the meshing of several schools of political economic thought, one of those being Keynesianism. No economist worth his or her salt would completely dismiss everything Keynes had to say, just like no one serious would dismiss everything Milton Friedman has to say. No serious economist argues that government has no role to play. The debate is how much of a role. And I certainly think that governments have a role. Markets create the most wealth for the most people, most of the time. But not all the time. Then, government has a role, not just because I see the application of economics in what I do for a living, but also because its what I believe as a citizen.

I also know something about the global water industry because I have been involved in it. What you are saying is utterly preposterous. Some governments are poor and cannot afford the capital investment in clean water facilities. That's why governments invite private companies in. (And the two biggest water companies in the world are French BTW).

Its also bizarre to blame "my" policies on wars and coups. Wars happened long before modern capitalism and will happen in the future, no matter what the economic structure.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Rev, I have spent a lot of time studying economic history. You say that "my" policies were a failure in the 19th century. That is false. The 19th century was one of the fastest growing centuries ever.

Poverty, human rights abuses, slavery, robber barons...yeah you guys did a brilliant job there.

You are wrong when you say the only thing that matters is money. I have said a number of times on this thread alone that money is not the only thing that matters. You're not listening. You seem to be most interested in arguing with straw men.

I'm listening just fine. You say that money isn't the only thing that matters then you argue that money will solve problems that are caused by the policies that you support.

This also couldn't be more true when you say that "my" policies are unfettered capitalism. Economic issues are complex, some extraordinarily so. When I said earlier that the big issues have generally been resolved in economics (not all though), what has occurred is the meshing of several schools of political economic thought, one of those being Keynesianism. No economist worth his or her salt would completely dismiss everything Keynes had to say, just like no one serious would dismiss everything Milton Friedman has to say. No serious economist argues that government has no role to play. The debate is how much of a role. And I certainly think that governments have a role. Markets create the most wealth for the most people, most of the time. But not all the time. Then, government has a role, not just because I see the application of economics in what I do for a living, but also because its what I believe as a citizen.

And by your own admission you support the governments who have done the most harm with their policies. You liked Thatcher, you liked Reagan, you liked Mulroney, you like Bush. So which is it? Do you support using economics to make things better, or to f**k people over so that the rich get richer and the poor die horrible deaths?

I also know something about the global water industry because I have been involved in it. What you are saying is utterly preposterous. Some governments are poor and cannot afford the capital investment in clean water facilities. That's why governments invite private companies in. (And the two biggest water companies in the world are French BTW).

One of those French water companies had a CEO go to jail in France. Seems they can't turn a profit without committing criminal acts. They are kind of like the US hog industry, except nobody has yet had the balls to arrest the pig boys.

What I'm saying is not preposterous, what you are saying is preposterous and, worse yet, untruthful. Water privatisation was a result of IMF and World Bank conditions for loans (your boys). While some of the companies were French, Halliburton was in there like a dirty shirt too. They always are. Your boys again...French and American.

The way the contracts were gotten was corrupt. The maintenance wasn't done properly, if at all. They kept raising the rates until people were dying. That's your policies in action, Toro. Little kids dying from dysentry.

Its also bizarre to blame "my" policies on wars and coups. Wars happened long before modern capitalism and will happen in the future, no matter what the economic structure.

Come on, you know as well as anybody...at least if you 1/4 as educated as you claim to be...that the US has intervened several times with their military, arms funding, coup backing, and outright invasions like Iraq...to control commodities that US corporations profit from.

Those are your policies. Those are the people that you support. They kill real people so they can turn a profit. You, by everything you've said on here, are one of them. You might want to try cold water next time you wash your hands, Toro...it's better at getting out blood stains.

 

[Toro]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Poverty, human rights abuses, slavery, robber barons...yeah you guys did a brilliant job there.

No understanding of historical context.

I'm listening just fine. You say that money isn't the only thing that matters then you argue that money will solve problems that are caused by the policies that you support.

Wrong. As societies become richer, they can afford to focus on quality of life issues.

And by your own admission you support the governments who have done the most harm with their policies. You liked Thatcher, you liked Reagan, you liked Mulroney, you like Bush. So which is it? Do you support using economics to make things better, or to f**k people over so that the rich get richer and the poor die horrible deaths?

You know what they used to call Britain, Rev - The Sick Man of Europe. So, since we're trafficking in stereotypes, that was "your" Labour buddies, and "your" revolutionaries in the Labour Party that brought Britain to its knees. Those were "your" Labour buddies that had garbage piling up in the streets of Britain. Now, because of Thatcher, you have the so-called left-wing PM of the UK lecturing the conservative President of France about too much government intervention. Its "your" policies which bring unemployment and all the social ills that go with it. Do you remember the term "stagflation"? That came about because of growing government involvement in the economy that "your" policies caused, a dogma that was dominant from World War II until the 1980s, no matter who was in office. It is also "your" policies in the third world that keep people dirt poor.

One of those French water companies had a CEO go to jail in France. Seems they can't turn a profit without committing criminal acts. They are kind of like the US hog industry, except nobody has yet had the balls to arrest the pig boys.

They busted the head of the dockworkers union in New York for corruption. I guess labour can't exist unless its tied to organized crime. Remember when I said earlier that the Left points to isolated incidents rather than looking at the big picture?

The way the contracts were gotten was corrupt. The maintenance wasn't done properly, if at all. They kept raising the rates until people were dying. That's your policies in action, Toro. Little kids dying from dysentry.

Boy, corruption in some countries in the Third World. What a surprise. Well, when the corrupt government corporation couldn't even get the water to the people, who were dying. That's "your" poilicies in action, Rev. Little kids dying from dysentry. Remember when I said earlier that the Left points to isolated incidents rather than looking at the big picture?

Come on, you know as well as anybody...at least if you 1/4 as educated as you claim to be...that the US has intervened several times with their military, arms funding, coup backing, and outright invasions like Iraq...to control commodities that US corporations profit from.

The US has been involved in countries at times when it should not have been. Why? Because at times, American investments were being expropriated. For every time the US has intervened to protect its interests, there have been as many times, if not more, of American investments being expropriated in another country. (And to answer the question that must be coming, have you given your farm back to the natives, whom you must have "stolen" it from.)

Do I agree with every intervention the US has undertaken? No, definitely not. But I also know the world is murky place, and its not as cut and dried as "your" policies would have us believe.

Those are your policies. Those are the people that you support. They kill real people so they can turn a profit. You, by everything you've said on here, are one of them. You might want to try cold water next time you wash your hands, Toro...it's better at getting out blood stains.

Those are your policies. Those are the people that you support. They kill real people so they can be ideologically pure. Best that people die rather than be "exploited". You, by everything you've said on here, are one of them. You might want to try cold water next time you wash your hands, Rev...it's better at getting out blood stains.

The statistics are on my side. Market-based policies make societies richer a helluva lot more than statist policies. The Left resorts to ideology when the numbers run against them.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

No understanding of historical context.

I understand the historical context perfectly. It is a history of the wealthy dominating the poor for their own ends.

Wrong. As societies become richer, they can afford to focus on quality of life issues.

But you don't make societies richer. You make tiny segments at the tops of societies richer and make the rest of those societies poorer. You ship wealth out of poorer societies for the benefit of richer sovieties. If anybody talks back you try to marginalise them and if that doesn't work you just go ahead and send out the death squads.

Boy, corruption in some countries in the Third World.

It takes two to tango, Mr. Profits at all Costs. For every bribe taken by a corrupt government official in the developing world, there was somebody like you standing there paying the bribe. In Maggie Thatcher's England those bribes could be deducted as "commissions". So who was it that institutionalised corruption? Looks to me like your main hero is as corrupt as any leader in the third world.

How many people died so Maggie could claim to know what she was doing? F**k that, how many people have you killed in the course of your job? These aren't isolated incidents, they are the predictable outcome of the policies you think are so great.


Your a murderous little thug, Toro. Just like the bastards you support. Don't try to turn it around on me or anybody else. You are a stone cold killer. You do it for nothing but money. You know it too.

Have you thought why countries were expropriating American interests? Because your corporations were killing people. Your corporations. The ones you work for. The ones you are saying have every right to call in the CIA to train death squads or the air force to drop DU bombs on children.

 

[Toro]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Your a murderous little thug, Toro.

I refuse to dignify this conversation any further. You are not a serious person.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Don't like when the truth comes out? Cold water, Toro. It's best for blood-stained hands.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Your a murderous little thug, Toro.

I refuse to dignify this conversation any further. You are not a serious person.

Toro:

I have read this thread with fascination. Your insights are impeccable and are obviously from an experienced background. They make perfectly logical sense. Unfortunately, that is something that escapes some on here, as noted by the increasingly hysterical responses to your posts. Actually, I printed out your comments, because I think they are worth studying a bit more.

BTW, you don't teach economics at a University, do you?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: Canada's Oil Reserves Attract U.S., As American Media Ta

Toro:

Some other supporting documentation (emphasis added):

The End of the Rainbow

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: June 29, 2005
Dublin

Here's something you probably didn't know: Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg.

Yes, the country that for hundreds of years was best known for emigration, tragic poets, famines, civil wars and leprechauns today has a per capita G.D.P. higher than that of Germany, France and Britain. How Ireland went from the sick man of Europe to the rich man in less than a generation is an amazing story. It tells you a lot about Europe today: all the innovation is happening on the periphery by those countries embracing globalization in their own ways - Ireland, Britain, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe - while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth.

Ireland's turnaround began in the late 1960's when the government made secondary education free, enabling a lot more working-class kids to get a high school or technical degree. As a result, when Ireland joined the E.U. in 1973, it was able to draw on a much more educated work force.

By the mid-1980's, though, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of E.U. membership - subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into. But it still did not have enough competitive products to sell, because of years of protectionism and fiscal mismanagement. The country was going broke, and most college grads were emigrating.
"We went on a borrowing, spending and taxing spree, and that nearly drove us under," said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney. "It was because we nearly went under that we got the courage to change."

And change Ireland did. In a quite unusual development, the government, the main trade unions, farmers and industrialists came together and agreed on a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe, moderating wages and prices, and aggressively courting foreign investment. In 1996, Ireland made college education basically free, creating an even more educated work force.
The results have been phenomenal. Today, 9 out of 10 of the world's top pharmaceutical companies have operations here, as do 16 of the top 20 medical device companies and 7 out of the top 10 software designers. Last year, Ireland got more foreign direct investment from America than from China. And overall government tax receipts are way up.

"We set up in Ireland in 1990," Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computer, explained to me via e-mail. "What attracted us? [A] well-educated work force - and good universities close by. [Also,] Ireland has an industrial and tax policy which is consistently very supportive of businesses, independent of which political party is in power. I believe this is because there are enough people who remember the very bad times to de-politicize economic development. [Ireland also has] very good transportation and logistics and a good location - easy to move products to major markets in Europe quickly."

Finally, added Mr. Dell, "they're competitive, want to succeed, hungry and know how to win. ... Our factory is in Limerick, but we also have several thousand sales and technical people outside of Dublin. The talent in Ireland has proven to be a wonderful resource for us. ... Fun fact: We are Ireland's largest exporter."

Intel opened its first chip factory in Ireland in 1993. James Jarrett, an Intel vice president, said Intel was attracted by Ireland's large pool of young educated men and women, low corporate taxes and other incentives that saved Intel roughly a billion dollars over 10 years. National health care didn't hurt, either. "We have 4,700 employees there now in four factories, and we are even doing some high-end chip designing in Shannon with Irish engineers," he said.

In 1990, Ireland's total work force was 1.1 million. This year it will hit two million, with no unemployment and 200,000 foreign workers (including 50,000 Chinese). Others are taking notes. Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said: "I've met the premier of China five times in the last two years."

Ireland's advice is very simple: Make high school and college education free; make your corporate taxes low, simple and transparent; actively seek out global companies; open your economy to competition; speak English; keep your fiscal house in order; and build a consensus around the whole package with labor and management - then hang in there, because there will be bumps in the road - and you, too, can become one of the richest countries in Europe.
"It wasn't a miracle, we didn't find gold," said Mary Harney. "It was the right domestic policies and embracing globalization."

Interesting blend of some left policies and some right policies. WE have the left policies, now lets get the right policies.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Actually his points are the same old babble that got us into the mess we're in today. If it actually worked, the people of Africa would all have non-polluting flying cars by now. The poorest campesino in South America would be lighting cigars with $100 bills.

It has failed miserably.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Actually his points are the same old babble that got us into the mess we're in today. If it actually worked, the people of Africa would all have non-polluting flying cars by now. The poorest campesino in South America would be lighting cigars with $100 bills.

It has failed miserably.

Ignoring your illogic, another post to support TORO, even from the Globe and Mail:

You say prosperity, I say productivity

By JEFFREY SIMPSON

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 Updated at 4:01 AM EDT

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

One word should figure in every major political speech, whether from the left or the right.

The word scares people. It is poorly understood, or at least capable of multiple definitions. It isn't sexy. Nobody ever got elected talking about it -- at least not yet. But on this word, and on the ideas that lie behind it, depends our future prosperity and our ability to pay for social programs and to make our way in an increasingly tough, competitive world.

The word is productivity. Yesterday, for example, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper gave his end-of-session speech, chastising the Liberals, of course, and hinting at policy directions for his party. Not a word about productivity.

Mr. Harper is not alone. On the Liberal benches, only a couple of ministers such as Ralph Goodale or David Emerson dare mention productivity. As for the Bloc Québécois, forget it. Ditto for the NDP.

This week, the Council of Chief Executives correctly warned that "we have had essentially zero productivity growth over the past two years." That's not ideology talking, that's fact. And zero productivity means zero growth in real incomes, jobs, prosperity.

Don't pay attention to the business bullhorns' warnings if you think them biased. Listen, instead, to Andrew Sharpe and Jeremy Smith, of the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, who, with Someshwar Rao of Industry Canada, published a highly detailed, balanced study of Canada's prosperity.

Their warning: "Current productivity developments are troubling, and if they continue, Canada's future prosperity is threatened, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries." Their blunt finding, based on Statistics Canada data: output per hour (a measurement of productivity) "virtually disappeared" in 2003 and 2004. Since 2000, productivity has grown a "very weak" 0.9 per cent yearly, compared to 3.8 per cent in the United States.

This kind of "very weak" productivity is like the rate from 1973 to 1996 -- the "nightmare years" of huge deficits, growing national indebtedness, widening tax gaps with the U.S., slower growth. We know, or ought to know, what those years produced and didn't produce.

A politician who wanted to talk straight to the Canadian people (would such a person be rewarded?) would discuss productivity morning, noon and night. He or she would use the bully pulpit of politics to explain the challenge, mobilize understanding, and propose remedies.

Central to the discourse would be three facts.

First, the population is aging. In a decade, fewer people will be working relative to those retired. Unless tomorrow's workers are more productive than today's, overall standards of living will decline.

Second, Chinese, Indians, Mexicans, Brazilians and others aren't going away. They want a better standard of living for themselves. They cannot be competed with on wages, but only on value-added strategies -- meaning innovation, research, flexibility, capital investment, worker training. If we don't focus on productivity, we can be certain they will. And we will lose.

Third, productivity is not Charlie Chaplin chained to a wheel in Modern Times -- workers slaving for less. The point of improved productivity is that people and companies produce more with less, thereby raising living standards -- with which governments can then expand foreign aid and social programs.

Productivity, therefore, is an urgent issue for the political left, provided it is properly framed and understood. Alas, too many people on the left think of productivity as the workers' enemy, whereas, in the long term, it can be their friend.

The core of better productivity is human capital development. Of course, it's also using materials more wisely, upgrading technology, working more collaboratively, restructuring work, ensuring competitive tax levels. But it's mostly about winning the battle of minds and skills in the global world.

Government policy should be measured against two questions: How does this improve our country's human capital development? Does this policy improve our connectedness and competitiveness with the global reality of tomorrow? To ask these questions is to throw out the window most of what the Martin government has done and what the opposition Conservatives propose.

No political party asks these questions. The parties are redistributing wealth rather than creating it, cutting deals, avoiding substantive debates, scrabbling for temporary gain, failing to ask the fundamental questions about productivity -- What does it mean? How do we recover it? How do we invest more and work smarter? How do we go global? -- on which Canada's prosperity depends.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Toro's theories, and your own too, do nothing to create real productivity though, Blue.

As Toro has already admitted, those theories do not take into account the real costs of what they are doing. Productivity is actually a perfect example of that. Sickness due to air pollution cost Ontario something like $9 billion last year. I'll bet that unsafe workplaces cost another couple of billion.

Climate change will cost billions more, and most indications are that it is playing at least a minor role in our recent wacky weather.

You want productivity? Pay the workers more, make their workplaces better, quit making people sick.

You want people to do the minimum? Pay the CEO millions, then force them out on strike over a couple of bucks. Lobby for lower wages and laxer labour laws. Make them work unpaid overtime.

When the workers started taking abandoned factories in Argentina, productivity went up in most of those factories. You know why? Because the workers were working for themselves instead of some millionaire who screwed them over every chance he got.

That doesn't fit into the capitalist model though, so the IMF and World Bank don't like it happening.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Canada's Oil Reserves

Toro's theories, and your own too, do nothing to create real productivity though, Blue.

As Toro has already admitted, those theories do not take into account the real costs of what they are doing. Productivity is actually a perfect example of that. Sickness due to air pollution cost Ontario something like $9 billion last year. I'll bet that unsafe workplaces cost another couple of billion.

Climate change will cost billions more, and most indications are that it is playing at least a minor role in our recent wacky weather.

You want productivity? Pay the workers more, make their workplaces better, quit making people sick.

You want people to do the minimum? Pay the CEO millions, then force them out on strike over a couple of bucks. Lobby for lower wages and laxer labour laws. Make them work unpaid overtime.

When the workers started taking abandoned factories in Argentina, productivity went up in most of those factories. You know why? Because the workers were working for themselves instead of some millionaire who screwed them over every chance he got.

That doesn't fit into the capitalist model though, so the IMF and World Bank don't like it happening.

I was wondering when the weather would come into your arguments about climate change. Answer me this. What caused the record rainfalls in Southern Alberta 100 years ago? The record that was broken was set back then, and I am fairly sure that climate change was not much of an issue.

And after reading your posts, and reading TORO's posts, too bad, so sad, you came in a distant second in believability. Toros post positively reeked of facts, believabilty, and logic. Yours reek of something else.