Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by waves

Can someone please bring this full circle and back on topic. I am totally lost with how any of this has anything to do with the MLine expansion.

Trying to figure out how it will be paid for.

[jollyburger]

Drilling core samples at Broadway and Cambie.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Drilling core samples at Broadway and Cambie.

Not currently in town. Is the drilling east or west of Cambie, along Broadway?

[flipper316]

Drilling today at Broadway and Cambie by Florex Exploration

[djh]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Not currently in town. Is the drilling east or west of Cambie, along Broadway?

The block directly west of Cambie. From the intersection all the way along that block.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by djh

The block directly west of Cambie. From the intersection all the way along that block.

Looks like that is where the box for the station might go, then.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Not currently in town. Is the drilling east or west of Cambie, along Broadway?

Drilling on the east side today.

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Drilling on the east side today.

are they going to drill the whole street

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

are they going to drill the whole street

They can drill all they want but if the NDP/Greens fight the Feds on KM, you can expect the 40% promised funding to disappear. Goodbye extension....

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

They can drill all they want but if the NDP/Greens fight the Feds on KM, you can expect the 40% promised funding to disappear. Goodbye extension....

Says who? You? Fear monger much?

[Hooknose]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Says who? You? Fear monger much?

Actually ... it is a reasonable concern. In the days of Pierre Trudeau, they played very hard and very tough when it came to oil money flowing continuously to the federal government.

Justin Trudeau will play hard ball as well. The 550,000 barrels a day means a couple of billion for the Feds and a couple of billion for the Albertans, both of whose governments turned into money spending machines and debt generators.

With few more taxes possible to levy, increased production is the only way to go. The Feds have no choice and will play hard ball to make sure it goes through.

I can just see such a threat as the first of many to make sure that KM goes through.

Look at the 40 year license just given to the Woodfibre LNG plant. The Feds get income from that and don't want it to stop.

great concern

[Bdawe]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Actually ... it is a reasonable concern. In the days of Pierre Trudeau, they played very hard and very tough when it came to oil money flowing continuously to the federal government.

Justin Trudeau will play hard ball as well. The 550,000 barrels a day means a couple of billion for the Feds and a couple of billion for the Albertans, both of whose governments turned into money spending machines and debt generators.

With few more taxes possible to levy, increased production is the only way to go. The Feds have no choice and will play hard ball to make sure it goes through.

I can just see such a threat as the first of many to make sure that KM goes through.

Look at the 40 year license just given to the Woodfibre LNG plant. The Feds get income from that and don't want it to stop.

great concern

I can think of no greater way for the Liberals to lose all their seats in the lower mainland then by pulling that sort of stunt. Ottawa has the power to make infrastructure projects happen without having to play stupid games and win stupid prizes

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Hooknose

Actually ... it is a reasonable concern. In the days of Pierre Trudeau, they played very hard and very tough when it came to oil money flowing continuously to the federal government.

Justin Trudeau will play hard ball as well. The 550,000 barrels a day means a couple of billion for the Feds and a couple of billion for the Albertans, both of whose governments turned into money spending machines and debt generators.

With few more taxes possible to levy, increased production is the only way to go. The Feds have no choice and will play hard ball to make sure it goes through.

I can just see such a threat as the first of many to make sure that KM goes through.

Look at the 40 year license just given to the Woodfibre LNG plant. The Feds get income from that and don't want it to stop.

great concern

Unfortunately debt -a function of ever growing income inequality- and attendant inflation-as seen in the business construct of the Time Value of Money- are the Achilles Heel of money-based capitalism (whether in the private sector or public sector/communism) towards collapsing any given economy. In private sector capitalism there is a tendency to privatize profits and socialize debt (e.g. when workers get laid off onto the public dole etc.) as a function of rising corporate debt and falling revenues/profits.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I can think of no greater way for the Liberals to lose all their seats in the lower mainland then by pulling that sort of stunt. Ottawa has the power to make infrastructure projects happen without having to play stupid games and win stupid prizes

They probably don't need them... and I don't think they'd lose that many seats. They'd also gain in the rest of BC.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I can think of no greater way for the Liberals to lose all their seats in the lower mainland then by pulling that sort of stunt. Ottawa has the power to make infrastructure projects happen without having to play stupid games and win stupid prizes

If they were so concerned about their Lower Mainland why would they support pipelines in the first place?

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Says who? You? Fear monger much?

Fear Monger?? Get real!! There is nothing to fear over losing transportation funding. We don't have any funding in the pocket now so no big deal. Fear mongering is associated with terrorism. I was just stating the facts of how governments operate. If you go to war with the feds, expect to lose.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

In private sector capitalism there is a tendency to privatize profits and socialize debt (e.g. when workers get laid off onto the public dole etc.) as a function of rising corporate debt and falling revenues/profits.

That's not capitalism, though. That's basically either corporatism or a socialist-lite mixed economy.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by Jebby

That's not capitalism, though. That's basically either corporatism or a socialist-lite mixed economy.

The critical definition of "capitalism" is the application of CAPITAL in production,...the question thus being who owns/controls the capital in question....the private individual or the collective government. When said capital is generally the domain of the private individual we call it (superficially) "capitalism". When it's mostly/all the ownership domain of government we call it either socialism or communism (as in the COMMUNAL/COMMUNITY ownership of the means of production etc. towards what can be called STATE/government directed CAPITALISM). In today's reality just about every country (including Cuba) exhibits a combination/degrees of private and government ownership of the means of production....which economic planners refer to as a "mixed economy".

[AMTDGT]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

I can think of no greater way for the Liberals to lose all their seats in the lower mainland then by pulling that sort of stunt. Ottawa has the power to make infrastructure projects happen without having to play stupid games and win stupid prizes

Frankly, historically, the Federal Liberals (especially under the Trudeau's), couldn't give a flying F..k about BC votes. They are only interested in supporting Quebec and a few misguided folk from Ontario to keep themselves in power.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

The critical definition of "capitalism" is the application of CAPITAL in production,...the question thus being who owns/controls the capital in question....the private individual or the collective government. When said capital is generally the domain of the private individual we call it (superficially) "capitalism". When it's mostly/all the ownership domain of government we call it either socialism or communism (as in the COMMUNAL/COMMUNITY ownership of the means of production etc. towards what can be called STATE/government directed CAPITALISM).

Absolute nonsense. Since the defining characteristic of capitalism is the private ownership and control of capital (i.e., an economy free of government direction), your notion of "government directed capitalism" is an absurd contradiction in terms.

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

In today's reality just about every country (including Cuba) exhibits a combination/degrees of private and government ownership of the means of production....which economic planners refer to as a "mixed economy".

Exactly. We do not have a capitalist economy; we have a mixed economy which consists of a mixture of two elements: individual freedom and government interference. And in a mixed economy, it is the latter element of government interference that makes the "socialization of debt" possible, through government bailouts, government-backed loans, government-backed insurance, etc. It is precisely the latter element that would be forbidden in a laissez-faire (i.e., non-mixed) capitalist economy.

Don't blame the consequences of government controls on individual freedom. Don't pin the guilt of welfare statism on a non-existent capitalism.