Tories release first attack ad against Mulcair
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You might add that, infact you have a couple of times, but without arguing with the means I set out whereby such an increase can come about. My last post, if you had read it sets out my understanding of intergenerational equity as being non-static. I can only assume you either didn't read it or for idealogical or physical reasons can't read it.
Yeah, sorry about all the "high level" talk..... Ok, so you have taken on the role of a nuts and bolts kind of person. fine. That doesn't make your supposition that I'm not of the same ilk, anything more than another red herring. The point is that with all our demands on the system, oil field wages, medical expenses, plastic doodads that do absolutely nothing, legal fees, and banking charges, and insurance costs, and continual record corporate profits that are bankrupting us, we are dropping monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the works. Our biggest problem and asset is that we have this amazing good fortune to have all these resources . It is a problem because we have had successive governments that think they are doing a good job of governing when all they are doing is buying the next election by selling out our resources, as quickly as we can get it into someone elses hands.
I beg to agree, and that land is a Conservative governed Canada.
So then it would be your understanding that Carbon taxes and Emission taxes, would be eaten by the producers, and would in no way be passed on to the consumers? Interesting, Not my understanding, but interesting.
Oh, I get it alright. You want to believe me to be some kind of radical because that is easier than actually looking at the issues and trying to work out a sane response to the troubles we are facing.
I have done that a couple of times now, but I will try again. Abuse of resources is that use which exceeds our ability to leave the planet in as good a shape as, or better than, what is needed by the ratio of inhabitants to resources which would be sustainable.
So what? Well let's look at some of the implications of peak oil, and our continued efforts to speed up that process through subsidization of corporate profit making. Our incrementally increasing use of fossil fuels means that the downside of the bell of the peak will be much faster than the upside. So, Transportation costs are going to get much more expensive. The costs of all the inputs to farming and forestry and fisheries are going to get more expensive. Needless to say the costs of computers, entertainment, housing, and doing business are going to go up. Look at the implications of those notions and say "so what?"
And yur friggin' clue would be that there is a difference in the bottom line of the person getting the tax write-off?
I'm guessing you get in the morning and have a good laugh at the fact that 40% of children in our "rich" society live below the poverty line.
Never any children below the poverty level in eg, historically socialist Saskatchewan, all has been perfect there, right? Since they rejected development by thinking they could just tax the hell out of petroleum companies. What has changed there lately?
Oh wait, you have a new and improved version......
What the **** are we slaves?
Let the goddamn market decide who works where instead of the cynical pricks who've taken over our government. There is no free market, it's a closed market firmly controlled by a relatively few individuals mostly for their benefit.
Back in 1980 the bottom 90% of the economic ladder had about 65% of the wealth, now it's closer to 50% and decreasing. Carry the trend much further and most of will be defacto slaves.
Government should be there for regulation and to fill in the gaps where private agencies can't, not to dole out vast sums of money to lazy bastards who already have more than most of us ever will.
One reason I support the NDP is they like to encourage small businesses which as they grow create entire new areas of the economy and much greater stability, what's been going on in recent decades is deeply entrenched private and public sector organizations working together for their own interests again ours.
Reform is dead and the Conservatives are even more corrupt than the Liberals they replaced. As ironic as it sounds, we're going to need a "leftist" party in power to return any semblance of a fair economy in this nation.
Oh yes, let's pity the poor petroleum companies, which are nothing more than fronts for some of the richest most cynical people on the planet.
Umm, the sarcasm that was lost on you, aside. I'm glad you agree with me, lol.
As are most of your bias posts. But in this case, even more so. I hope you go back and see how. It's rather funny.
Last edited:
Can you show how please.
Citing document of origin, page, paragraph and lines please.
Buddy the dippers are anything but kind to small business. In fact they detest independence. Big unions love big business because they are easy to unionize and rake in the dues. Small businesses are hard to organize and control because they are independent. For the most part they will only be subjected to union control when a dipper government forces them to in order to bid on government work or they want to sub to a large corp that is under union domination.
Some big businesses like Walmart don't even allow unionization, and while it's harder to organize around smaller business it's usually more local which is something the NDP does support.
all I know is if we keep going in the direction that the Liberals and now the Conservaties have taken us we're going to end up with virtually no control of our future. Both parties are far more concerned about what lobbyists think than the people of this country. and often those lobbyists don't even represent Canadian companies, interests or values.
As for unions, while they do have their downside, the union movement in this nation has helped bring better working hours, conditions, benefits, and wages. SImple profit is a poor judge of overall health of a nation.
Quebec Wal-Mart workers leave union - Ottawa - CBC News
It's irrelevant what a company will or won't allow. In Canada, you can unionize, or decertify as a group. Protected by the law.
Correction, small bizness.
Oh oh, is it gif time already? Don't be mad Fuzzy.
I did read your pie-in-the-sky nonsense, and I owe you an apology by the way as I forget to thank you for the laughs.
Tell ya what, back-up all of the utopian expectations with some real solutions, until yo do, your diatribe is nothing more than an idealistic rant
So, your solution is to vilify those groups that satisfy a demand for a product/service. Out of curiosity, if this demand is created by 'world citizens', wouldn't you be trampling all over their rights as world citizens in denying access to the resources that they demand?
I guess that leaves you in the minority... Sucks to be you
Yes. I thought that I was pretty clear on that.
... On the 'passing it to the consumer' comment, oil/gas is traded on a global basis so unless the gvt mandates that the 'consumer' buys from Canadian producers at a higher price, then the consumer will (rightfully) purchase from a less expensive supplier.
Would you buy a car for $10,000 more if someone else across the street was selling it for $10,000 less?
No. I believe you to have high expectations, but have no input on how to achieve the goal... You want to leave the next generation with a net increase in oil, gas, iron ore and arable land, great... I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to hear this amazing strategy
Peak oil by today's standards, or twenty years ago or twenty years from now?
Which one?
Any link that details the wholesale program of subsidies to prove this statement?... Notice that I've emboldened the important word in the sentence
No faith in the green economy?
Aren't there viable options through solar, geothermal, wind, etc that will displace the need for oil?
Yes. I understand what a tax write-off really means. You should consider getting a clue on this prior to referencing this as some sort of cash subsidy.
A company can not forbid the forming of a union. That would be illegal under our labour code.
When the Non Democratic Parasites were in control of B.C. in the 90's they went out of their way to destroy small business. Especially in the resource industries. Also made it damm hard to get a job on a government project unless you belonged to the approved union. WHen the Island gas line was being built qualified welders living here couldn't get on because they did not belong to the right union , could not get into the union and yet unionized welders from Sask. were working on the project.
But you are right that there are benefits to unions as long as they stay within their bounds.Trouble is what is good for the union leaders is often not the same aswhat is good for Joe and Jane lunchbucket.
Yah, but that's BC.
And Walmart goes out of it's way to prevent unionization of it's stores, it carries out inhouse surveillance of its employees, has teams of troubleshooters it sends to stores with employees that are trying to organize(at least in the US) and if that isn't enough to stop unionization it simply closes down the affected store.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/30/us-walmart-labor-idUSN3024398620070430
As a former union member I'm aware that abuses do take place with union officials also, the problem I have with this country is things are getting so unbalanced. I'd love to live in a free market society where unions aren't even needed, but in the days before unions appeared people had to live with things like the company store which could control most aspects of life, I 'd prefer to see a lot of the freedom of choice I had growing up transfered down to our kids.
Freedom is a pretty amazing thing, most of my objections to the last several governments is how much freedoms they've removed from us while giving it away to patrons who were funding their success. THe NDP is much more broadbased, with a union even though you've got officials with a lot of power, they also have to answer to their members and can't get too far away from a healthy economic model. People want jobs and they want the good ones to stay at home.
Last edited:
I've belonged to a few different unions over the years and have had more grief from union exec than from the employers.I still belong to union but my current employer is not unionized and none of us have any real desire to do so at this time. Many businesses in B.C. go out of their way to prevent unionization but they still can't openly prevent it. I found the best method was to simply provide better pay and perks than the competing union company. That way I could use the increased productivity and loyalty to offset the slight increase in labour cost. But thats just me.
You still need unions to provide the incentive for employers to want to provide better pay and benefits.
I'm not interested in seeing a Canada run by unions, but I'm also not looking forward to the day when unions are so marginalized that they have no power. You just have to look at some of the abuses of workers in the past to realize that if given a chance some people will treat other people as virtual slaves.
It's all about balance and the balance has shifted to the side of the private sector at the expense of the public, thirty years ago the guy at the top made about 30 times what the guy on the shop floor did, now it more like 200 times or even 1000 in some cases. Is it right that some guy(or woman) makes as much in one day as most people make in a year, and often by eliminating jobs or shipping them somewhere they don't have any modern standards?
Letting people who's only real interest is self-interest run things is self-destructive. Even Adam Smith the father of modern free market economics realized this after witnessing what was going on in Scotland of his day. His love of free market over social control turned into deep suspicion and he started talking about how whenever bankers and businessmen got together it inevitably turned into a conspiracy against the public.
Like I said, I think it's all about balance and it's about time we gave the other side of the spectrum a chance.
I'm not interested in seeing a Canada run by unions, but I'm also not looking forward to the day when unions are so marginalized that they have no power. You just have to look at some of the abuses of workers in the past to realize that if given a chance some people will treat other people as virtual slaves.
It's all about balance and the balance has shifted to the side of the private sector at the expense of the public, thirty years ago the guy at the top made about 30 times what the guy on the shop floor did, now it more like 200 times or even 1000 in some cases. Is it right that some guy(or woman) makes as much in one day as most people make in a year, and often by eliminating jobs or shipping them somewhere they don't have any modern standards?
Letting people who's only real interest is self-interest run things is self-destructive. Even Adam Smith the father of modern free market economics realized this after witnessing what was going on in Scotland of his day. His love of free market over social control turned into deep suspicion and he started talking about how whenever bankers and businessmen got together it inevitably turned into a conspiracy against the public.
Like I said, I think it's all about balance and it's about time we gave the other side of the spectrum a chance.
I'm glad you are getting your kicks out of this. It must be very satisfying to you. And I'm glad to hear you actually read it, which only means that you didn't understand it, otherwaise you wouldn't have labelled it as static.
Or at least so you believe. Tell ya what, Approach my "diatribe" from this reference post, find one that is Utopian, and point it out. If you can't deal with the ideals, and you can't deal with the nuts and bolts, where does that leave you?
Sorry but when you make stuff up, and then attribute it to me in order to be able to attack my position which you can't be bothered to read or understand, do you expect to be taken seriously? WHO did I vilifiy, and when?
This "demand" is created by world citizens. As I pointed out earlier in this thread we have companies flying the flags of many different nations trying to rip us off as fast as they can. And they are trying their damndest to meet those demands. And no, I would not be denying the rights of world citizens.. Demands are not rights. There is an important and I would have thought obvious difference.
Yes, and any other residents present or future of this amazing land. The Liberals and Conservatives have sat smugly in their little power bases and ignorantly impoverished us. I'm hopeful that the next election will turn things around.
it would be a coincidence that countries around the world are struggling with the need to counter the effects of too much carbon in our atmosphere with carbon taxes, cap and trade, etc.
A better example than cars, would be a price difference on cigarettes. Would you rush out and buy Chinese cigarettes because they are considerably cheaper than Canadian ones? And what benefit do you hope to gain by doing that? Once again you have decided to make up something, attribute it to me and then show how silly it is. Congratulations, you know how to use strawmen!!! Terrific accomplishment. But it doesn't further your position one bit and really only makes you, ironically I suppose, look silly.
Peak oil is peak oil, the absolute numbers might change with technology, economics, or social pressure, but the ennd result is the same. The faster we use it the faster we run out, and the faster all the economic impacts of crossing that peak arrive.
So then subsidies would be the word you think is important? gotcha. Well try these two.
The subsidies the nuclear and fossil-fuel industry receive — and have received for many years — make their product “affordable.” Those subsidies take many forms, but the most significant are their “externalities.” Externalities are real costs, but they are foisted off on the community instead of being paid by the companies that caused them.
Paul Epstein, director of Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, has examined the health and environmental impacts of coal, including: mining, transportation, combustion in power plants and the impact of coal’s waste stream. He found that the "life cycle effects of coal and its waste cost the American public $333 billion to over $500 billion dollars annually". These are costs the coal industry is not paying and which fall to the community in general. Eliminating that subsidy would dramatically increase the price of coal-fired electricity.
from: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf
and this,
In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions
from:
Renewable Energy Being Held Back by Fossil Fuel Subsidies - IEA
And I think that answers the following comment as well. If five times the subsidies are going to fosil fuels,it is difficult for anything to compete.
Yes. I understand what a tax write-off really means. You should consider getting a clue on this prior to referencing this as some sort of cash subsidy.
See And I was hoping, asking, that you would tell me the difference in the companies bottom line. And just for your reference it was you who referenced a write off as a cash subsidy, not me, which either makes this another strawman or it makes you very confused.