Does Western Alienation exist, and how can we fix it?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So you just ignored what I wrote?

Did you ignore what I wrote? I know it's under construction. Do you realize that's not the same as being fully operational? If the government was dead serious about getting TMX built as quickly as possibly they would be arresting protestors who have been told by the courts that they can no block trucks, etc. The fact that the government isn't asking for the orders to be enforced makes me and a lot of other people skeptical concerning just how serious the feds are when it comes to this project.

[dleung]

I don't think Albertans have much to stand on when it comes to defending the tar sands, unless there is qualitative evidence proving that getting oil from there has less environmental impact than importing from the US.

I do want to hear more about equalization though , and whether it dis-incentivizes low-tax/business-friendly/economy-boosting policies...

[WarrenC12]

Won't somebody think of the poor corporations?!

This one's for misher:

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Did you ignore what I wrote? I know it's under construction. Do you realize that's not the same as being fully operational? If the government was dead serious about getting TMX built as quickly as possibly they would be arresting protestors who have been told by the courts that they can no block trucks, etc. The fact that the government isn't asking for the orders to be enforced makes me and a lot of other people skeptical concerning just how serious the feds are when it comes to this project.

Here, I'll bold for you the bit you ignored so it's easier to see:

Originally Posted by milomilo

Boohoo. You have all the facts, but the narrative you have in your mind is fictional. TMX is under construction right now. Even if the Liberals had done things different and somehow it had not been delayed at all (unlikely, things would have been the same under a Conservative government), it still wouldn't be online right now. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Subsidy schemes? You mean the ability to write down equipment that every industry gets? You also think that if our oil supply is threatened that won't be a limiting factor in our defense? Yikes!

You aren't thinking through the scenario where this would be relevant. We'd have to be at war with the USA, and in that case not having excess oil transportation capacity is not going to be our problem. Needless to say, there is little point continuing this childish line of argument.

You keep saying we should 'build more pipelines'. Well, the only way to do that if there is no market value to them is for the government to subsidise them. For someone ostensibly right wing, this is a very strange thing to be asking for.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dleung

I don't think Albertans have much to stand on when it comes to defending the nasty tar sands and the hellscape associated with it

This is irrelevant mudslinging and does the debate no favour.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Here, I'll bold for you the bit you ignored so it's easier to see:





You aren't thinking through the scenario where this would be relevant. We'd have to be at war with the USA, and in that case not having excess oil transportation capacity is not going to be our problem. Needless to say, there is little point continuing this childish line of argument.

You keep saying we should 'build more pipelines'. Well, the only way to do that if there is no market value to them is for the government to subsidise them. For someone ostensibly right wing, this is a very strange thing to be asking for.

You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the initial topic and making assumptions that are irrelevant. Why are you bringing up the Conservatives? My point is that until TMX is operating at full functionality at it's expanded capacity it doesn't matter what's happening now.

Your war points make no sense. Why would we have to be at war with the U.S.? A lot of this stuff is automated now which means the Russians or Chinese could hack into the systems and shut them down. The U.S. has been worried about their energy grid for decades for that vary reason. Why would we be immune? Canada's not going to be immune if a war breaks out.

Pipelines have no market value? Where are you getting that from? You can't pick and choose what facts you want to believe. Trying to shout down people doesn't make you right either.

[misher]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Won't somebody think of the poor corporations?!

This one's for misher:

So people are making more money and corporations less? You don't see anything wrong with this? Canada lacks high paying corporations and head offices. All I hear on this forum is Sweden Sweden Sweden, well I'm going to Sweden back and point out that Sweden is massively supportive of its businesses/corporations and isn't anti-wealth pro bureaucracy the way Canada is.

[vid]

Originally Posted by misher

So people are making more money and corporations less? You don't see anything wrong with this? Canada lacks high paying corporations and head offices. All I hear on this forum is Sweden Sweden Sweden, well I'm going to Sweden back and point out that Sweden is massively supportive of its businesses/corporations and isn't anti-wealth pro bureaucracy the way Canada is.

That's what it looks like, but the reality is corporate taxes have been decreased and personal income taxes have gone up, as well as a larger percentage of the population actually working. That graph starts in the 1920s, when most women stayed at home. With lots of women in the workforce during the war, the ratio flips, and then once you start to see a large numbers of women in the workplace by the 1970s, it starts increasing even more.

But what do I know?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by misher

So people are making more money and corporations less? You don't see anything wrong with this? Canada lacks high paying corporations and head offices. All I hear on this forum is Sweden Sweden Sweden, well I'm going to Sweden back and point out that Sweden is massively supportive of its businesses/corporations and isn't anti-wealth pro bureaucracy the way Canada is.

It's the rates of taxation.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

You keep going off on tangents that have nothing to do with the initial topic and making assumptions that are irrelevant. Why are you bringing up the Conservatives? My point is that until TMX is operating at full functionality at it's expanded capacity it doesn't matter what's happening now.

Yes, but even if the Liberals had somehow managed to avoid any delays to TMX, it still wouldn't be complete right now, we'd still be facing the same problems. And yet you and your ilk place all of our current problems on one party, and none on circumstance or the other party.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Your war points make no sense. Why would we have to be at war with the U.S.? A lot of this stuff is automated now which means the Russians or Chinese could hack into the systems and shut them down. The U.S. has been worried about their energy grid for decades for that vary reason. Why would we be immune? Canada's not going to be immune if a war breaks out.

Claims were made that we should use more Canadian oil as a national security strategy, and apparently this means we need more pipelines. But the claim is total nonsense, and needs to be shot down for the nonsense it is. The type of scenario where this would be relevant is extreme and absurd.

Your talk of Russian hacking is more irrelevance. How does the idea they could hack a pipeline justify building a pipeline? If we are worried about that (and we probably shouldn't worry much about it), rail probably is the transport method more immune to hacking.

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Pipelines have no market value? Where are you getting that from? You can't pick and choose what facts you want to believe. Trying to shout down people doesn't make you right either.

If the private sector isn't building them, there is no market value to new pipelines. Therefore your wish for more pipelines (with capacity exceeding production, I assume), would require government subsidy. If you're worried about national defense, we should just spend that money on national defense.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

This is a much bigger discussion than oil. Again, we produce enough oil (and food) to feed the country, but rely on international trade to get a better deal.

But do we?

We can hem and haw over massive east-west pipelines, but they are not required for domestic demand. Eastern Canada can import oil from literally anywhere on earth with a port. The only reason they would have to rely on Alberta oil (which could be supplied via rail in a complete emergency), is if we were cut off not only from the US, but there was a naval blockade of the maritimes.

Totally missed my point. It's not about pipelines, it's about fulfilling Canada's needs with Canada's resources. Do we actually get a better deal on oil by selling ours to other parts of the world and then importing ours from other parts of the world? Seems massively inefficient to me (not to mention pollution from having to be constantly shipping stuff all over), but I'm not in business, so I'm likely missing some business/political bullshit reason for it. And somebody will have some bullshit argument for it I'm sure...

Let's not compare us to WW2-era Germany, that doesn't have a basis in reality, honestly.

In case you didn't read what I wrote, I was not comparing us to WW2-era Germany. Just presenting a case that I was aware of where not having resources had a massive effect. Yes it was war, yes it was 74 years ago, yes it was a war based on oil-consuming technology of the time. Obviously we all know that.

Put differently, what would a domestic-only pipeline cost us, and would your market be willing to pay the premium required to get that supply (including the pipeline construction itself)?

As mentioned, I'm not talking about pipelines, necessarily, but if the best business case was for a pipeline, then that's probably what would be chosen.

Again, the post was about Canada using Canada's resources and that Canadians should be pulling together as a country rather than all this infighting... but then you guys would have nothing to argue about, I suppose...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Exactly. If push comes to shove, we could transport oil by rail anyway. If we in the type of doomsday scenario where we absolutely had to get oil from one side of the country to the other for military purposes, then the railways wouldn't be transporting sea cans of Canadian Tire crap, and the fuel would be being diverted to military vehicles also rather than civilian. We'd have much bigger things to worry about.

The fact that writing this out sounds so ridiculous shows how stupid the argument for pipelines on the grounds of national defense is.

Missed the point, but why bother... whatever, yeah stupid argument, it's all about war, blah blah blah...

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Won't somebody think of the poor corporations?!

This one's for misher:

This is actually a good thing. It means corporations are using their money to pay people instead of just keeping it.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But do we?

Yes. And that's all there is to it really. We could implement policies to prioritize national production and consumption, but it would make us vastly poorer, which is why developed countries have moved away from those policies. Unfortunately, Trump is moving the USA in the opposite direction and this faulty economic thinking is gaining popularity. But while the US economy is large, diverse and strong enough to withstand some economic nationalism, Canada's really isn't. I'll take the slight hit on my 'national pride' and eat Chinese oranges rather than Canadian ones if it means I can afford to eat.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Missed the point, but why bother... whatever, yeah stupid argument, it's all about war, blah blah blah...

I respect that's not where you were coming from, but Corndogger probably was.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

But do we?

One would assume so in a free trade market. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Totally missed my point. It's not about pipelines, it's about fulfilling Canada's needs with Canada's resources. Do we actually get a better deal on oil by selling ours to other parts of the world and then importing ours from other parts of the world? Seems massively inefficient to me (not to mention pollution from having to be constantly shipping stuff all over), but I'm not in business, so I'm likely missing some business/political bullshit reason for it. And somebody will have some bullshit argument for it I'm sure...

The argument of "fulfilling Canada's needs with Canada's resources" is nationalist and backwards. See: Trump's America.

By all means, if it makes financial sense, it should and would be proposed by governments and private industry alike.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CityTech

This is actually a good thing. It means corporations are using their money to pay people instead of just keeping it.

Really? Is that why wages have been stagnant since about the 1980s?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by CityTech

This is actually a good thing. It means corporations are using their money to pay people instead of just keeping it.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Really? Is that why wages have been stagnant since about the 1980s?

I'd say the graph is not necessarily a bad thing. Corporation taxes have been shown to be a pretty poor way of getting a fair amount of tax from corporations. So if you shift the tax burden onto the individuals getting paid by the corporations and the shareholders also gaining income, that could very well be a good thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Yes. And that's all there is to it really. We could implement policies to prioritize national production and consumption, but it would make us vastly poorer, which is why developed countries have moved away from those policies. Unfortunately, Trump is moving the USA in the opposite direction and this faulty economic thinking is gaining popularity. But while the US economy is large, diverse and strong enough to withstand some economic nationalism, Canada's really isn't. I'll take the slight hit on my 'national pride' and eat Chinese oranges rather than Canadian ones if it means I can afford to eat.

I understand the concept, and why it makes economic sense to do so. It would be interesting to see data comparing both situations, but I'm sure such data doesn't exist.

However there has been a price to pay with the global economy with much manufacturing being moved to countries with low pay rates, and little to no regulations for worker health and safety or environmental controls.

So, now we don't manufacture much of anything anymore so that our stuff can be made in places where the workers and the environment are treated like crap... all so that we can get cheaper stuff to support our relatively cushy lifestyles.

And, relying on other nations with less-stringent standards for food production to supply our food does not seem like a good idea, nor does it seem good to economically depend on nations that have questionable ethics (i.e. China) to export our products to. It's not about national pride, per se, but more about supporting our local producers and hopefully eating food with less crap in it. Presumably this would also pay off in decreased healthcare costs (if such chemicals were be linked to specific illnesses - if anybody cares to do the research), which would help offset some of the negative economic effects.

I'm not talking about going Trump here (I despise the man and the state of US politics of the past few years), but there has to be a better balance than having our farmers lose their shirts over political struggles, increasing pollution (or to be more current - affecting climate change) by shipping stuff continually all over the planet), etc. etc.

But basically, I'm saying that almost all of our priorities go towards the economy, whereas it would perhaps be better if we considered other priorities over economics in some (perhaps many) cases.

I realize I'm getting off the topic of the west hating the east, so I'll leave it off here.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I respect that's not where you were coming from, but Corndogger probably was.

Got it. Thanks!