|
flakeloaf posted:This thing that benefits Canada doesn't put a chicken in my pot so you can't have it. It doesn't benefit Canada. Only elites and, to a much lesser extent, a cadre of skilled labourers.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
THC posted:It doesn't benefit Canada. Only elites and, to a much lesser extent, a cadre of skilled labourers. Those people are still very much a part of Canadian society, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The labourers yes. LOL if you think you live in the same society as the rich.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
It primarily benefits energy companies and their shareholders, the revenue it will generate for 'Canadians' is very small in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
jm20 posted:It primarily benefits energy companies and their shareholders, the revenue it will generate for 'Canadians' is very small in comparison. Newsflash, moron: "ordinary Canadians" and shareholders of every Canadian company are one and the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Newsflash, moron: "ordinary Canadians" and shareholders of every Canadian company are one and the same. I had no idea a foreign nationals holding Canadian company stocks were Canadian
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I had no idea a foreign nationals holding Canadian company stocks were Canadian They're not, but Canadians holding shares in Canadian companies are, and there are a lot of Canadians who are very significantly invested in Canadian companies. Stop pretending like shareholders have to be rich, mysterious people from exotic foreign lands. Harming our companies because it also disadvantages foreigners, which is what you seem to advocate, makes so little sense to me it makes me wonder if you're mentally defective.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Googling around for information on it just gets me shrill environmentalists and yee-haw corporate interests who claim that the project is either "cloning hitler terrible" or "the one thing that will save the spirit of christmas forever", so I don't really get it  . I thought it would be good to let the energy sector make a little extra cash by selling our oil abroad, so they could pay taxes on it but then I remembered that this plan hinges on corporations and rich CEOs paying taxes.In other news, the HRT has decided that our foster care system is discriminatory against Aboriginal people, which should surprise basically nobody because not even the Cons thought fighting this case head-on was a good idea so they spent most of their time kicking the can down the road. They're 5% of the population and 50% of the foster care system because of the awful conditions on the rez and grave underfunding of the social services that would ordinarily be there to protect kids in "white" neighbourhoods from being shuffled directly into foster care. Let's see what the media are saying quote:But can we pay for it?  Maybe journalists' articles on that topic should be disabled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:They're not, but Canadians holding shares in Canadian companies are, and there are a lot of Canadians who are very significantly invested in Canadian companies. Stop pretending like shareholders have to be rich, mysterious people from exotic foreign lands. Harming our companies because it also disadvantages foreigners, which is what you seem to advocate, makes so little sense to me it makes me wonder if you're mentally defective. I don't need to advocate against pipelines, Canadians outside of the praries are vastly opposed to new pipelines to begin with. I wish you all the best if you both live in mordor, and have large focus on mordor stocks (or secondary exposure) in your portfolio. A lack of diversity seems to be the Alberta way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
PT6A posted:They're not, but Canadians holding shares in Canadian companies are, and there are a lot of Canadians who are very significantly invested in Canadian companies. Stop pretending like shareholders have to be rich, mysterious people from exotic foreign lands. Harming our companies because it also disadvantages foreigners, which is what you seem to advocate, makes so little sense to me it makes me wonder if you're mentally defective. The mayor is saying that the risks outweigh the rewards for Montreal. It's the same calculus an investor should make before they enter the market. Montreal has no more obligation to get on board than Joe Investor does to buy TransCanada stock. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
"Ordinary Canadians" represent a small proportion of the value held in companies like that. I'd rather we just give the "ordinary Canadians" cash directly and not also funnel a much larger amount of cash to rich people. EvilJoven is spot on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Capitalism is great when people with no financial interest in my project willing give me what I need for free. - Canadian Rockefeller
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Why should the health of the commons be jeopardized for the pocket books of a tiny number of Canadians, especially Canadians who would not be inconvenienced by any environmental impact resulting from this pipeline? Gawrsh, I wonder where the 9.2 billion in equalization payments that Quebec got in 2014-15 came from. I'm with Wynne on this one, it's time for Canada to stop trying to be a first world country and accept no embrace our place as an oily banana republic. quote:Wynne's important voice countered the anti-pipeline sentiments emerging from Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
On top of what others have said, I would think the "what's good for the oil industry is good for Canada" canard would have long exhausted its rhetorical power given how much havoc the inevitable result of a single-minded focus on resource extraction has been for the Albertan and Canadian economies. What reason, other than, "can't stop this train we're on!" is there to make such a concerted rush to export Canadian oil in a such a depressed worldwide oil market? No poo poo Montreal would rather buy $30 oil from overseas than gamble on a trans-Canadian pipeline to help extract from the oilsands. When oil is like it is, what fool would be in such a rush to sell? Alberta was the first province to balk at the idea of equalization payments and judging things from anything other than a strictly provincial perspective when it was flush with oil wealth, and now it pins its arguments to the idea that a pipeline is good for the "Canadian economy". Get the gently caress out of here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Ban oil imports, nationalize the oil industry, use price fixing and profits to support nuclear and green power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Ban oil imports, nationalize the oil industry, use price fixing and profits to support nuclear and green power, get sued into national bankruptcy under NAFTA ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Total autocracy, communism in one country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Gawrsh, I wonder where the 9.2 billion in equalization payments that Quebec got in 2014-15 came from. I'm with Wynne on this one, it's time for Canada to stop trying to be a first world country and accept no embrace our place as an oily banana republic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
The real irony here being that if Alberta didn't have such a hardon for tough guy rhetoric from it's leaders then maybe the federal Conservatives would have actually reached out to to environmental groups. I'm willing to be bet it would have been pretty easy to entice some business friendly dudes with some limited environmentalist credentials and co-opted them into supporting Canada's "ethical" source of oil. Maybe appoint somebody to a a government commission, promise a future senate appointment, provide government grants, etc. A charm offensive might have also worked wonders on American environmentalists too. But Albertans -- or rather, a majority of the Albertans who both to vote -- really swooned over politicians who pretended that they could force America or the rest of Canada to accept these pipelines through sheer grit and gumption. And now that this has fallen apart plan B is apparently to whine and moan about equalization payments. You know what the reward for equalization payments is? The possibility of receiving them in the future, when you need them. This is like complaining that the government won't pay for you to renovate your house even though you've been paying into Employment Insurance for years dagnabit!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Maybe if pipelines were actually well built and well monitored people wouldn't care about them. Instead you have lovely companies spilling bitumen around the country because they don't want to spend the overhead to actually run the system properly. Canadian companies are like Canadian landlords - slum lords that maximize revenue and extract all money from the business to buy truck equity while letting the infrastructure crumble until the whole business fails at which point they walk away, blame taxes and let someone else clean up their mess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
You know how capitalists and libertarians are always going on about how the market is self regulating and a company that makes a defective product doesn't need regulation, the market will simply put it out of business? Canada being brutally anti-pipeline is a direct example of this situation actually for once working. After so many leaks, so many defective pipes, coverups, and lies, the people don't want to buy this product anymore. The extra ironic thing is that if the oil industry and its pipelines were actually regulated much more by the government they wouldn't have had all their disasters, the public would feel safer about them, and more would probably be being built right now. But capital is mostly made up of idiots with the empathy and long term planning skills of a spoiled 2 year old. They got their way, they got to mostly "self-regulate", and now they're crying about the direct results of their actions. The oil industry made their bed and they can loving lay in it. Get hosed alberta, get hosed oil industry. The market has spoken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The real irony here being that if Alberta didn't have such a hardon for tough guy rhetoric from it's leaders then maybe the federal Conservatives would have actually reached out to to environmental groups. I'm willing to be bet it would have been pretty easy to entice some business friendly dudes with some limited environmentalist credentials and co-opted them into supporting Canada's "ethical" source of oil. Maybe appoint somebody to a a government commission, promise a future senate appointment, provide government grants, etc. A charm offensive might have also worked wonders on American environmentalists too. As you say. And not to trot out the old cliche, but it wasn't so long ago that tough-guy Western politician went hand-in-hand with principled conservationism. There's nothing contradictory about conservatives promoting environmentalism except that it clashes with the modern Conservative desire to extract the maximum amount of revenue per quarter as quickly as possible. Helsing posted:You know what the reward for equalization payments is? The possibility of receiving them in the future, when you need them. This is like complaining that the government won't pay for you to renovate your house even though you've been paying into Employment Insurance for years dagnabit! After the oil is gone, and Alberta's (and Saskatchewan's) GDP per capita falls to match that of Manitoba, will Albertans still drat the equalization payments scheme? Who am I kidding? Profitable oil exports will last forever!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
A decade ago Preston Manning and Mike Harris authored a series of position papers released by the Fraser Institute that laid out a blueprint for a future conservative policy agenda. It's mostly boilerplate stuff like shrinking the size of government relative to GDP and restoring democratic fairness (this was back at the tail end of when people thought the federal Liberals would be in charge forever) but one thing that stood out -- and I admit I'm going by memory here because I don't want to dig through those papers right now -- was a call for a new NAFTA style internal Federal government agency that would demolish internal barriers to trade. In other words the principle architects behind the politicization of western resentment was now calling for a new government agencies dedicated solely to over riding provincial economic independence. It pretty much sums up Canadian conservatism to me, at least as an organized political movement. "The federal government has no place preventing the private delivery of healthcare, but they really should be doing more to over ride provincial objections to oil pipelines."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
It's almost like there isn't a consistent core set of genuine ideology or ethics guiding conservatives, it's almost, dare I say, as if it was entirely self serving business interests willing to say or do anything to enrich them selves and their friends in the short term at the cost of the country and it's people as a whole. (note this mostly applies to all other parties as well, specially the liberals)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Actually I found it pretty quickly with google: We must restore democratic accountability by allowing privatized healthcare! quote:We believe that the solution to providing better health care in But we also need the Supreme Court to tell us exactly how quickly we can ram development projects down the throats of local government. quote:recommendations The guy who lead the freak out over the constitution in the 1990s is now calling for conservatives to investigate an amendment to make it easier to over ride local government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Hey look, the CPC leader is willing to have the party dragged kicking and screaming into giving up on one of their horrible policies: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-same-sex-marriage-ban-1.3420219 I'm sure in a few years they will congratulate themselves for being so progressive on this (while holding their noses when nobody is looking). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
jm20 posted:and have large focus on mordor stocks (or secondary exposure) in your portfolio. A lack of diversity seems to be the Alberta way. A diversified portfolio, according to your average Albertan investor: "I own stocks in senior oil companies, junior oil companies, midstreamers, service companies and pipelines!"  Helsing posted:The real irony here being that if Alberta didn't have such a hardon for tough guy rhetoric from it's leaders then maybe the federal Conservatives would have actually reached out to to environmental groups. I'm willing to be bet it would have been pretty easy to entice some business friendly dudes with some limited environmentalist credentials and co-opted them into supporting Canada's "ethical" source of oil. Maybe appoint somebody to a a government commission, promise a future senate appointment, provide government grants, etc. A charm offensive might have also worked wonders on American environmentalists too. Jesus, this is, like always, pretty much spot on. It really shouldn't come as a surprise to Albertans, the province of "let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" that when we come asking for a pipeline, hat in hand, that we're told, "good, let those Albertan fucks starve on the streets!" Perhaps if the NEP was still around, things might have gone differently...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Ban oil imports, nationalize the oil industry, use price fixing and profits to support nuclear and green power. Baronjutter posted:Total autocracy, communism in one country. this is what i'm talkin about
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
We need to restore
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Apparently Rick Mercer has a little too much of his portfolio invested in energy stocks. https://www.facebook.com/rickmercerreport/videos/10153335293597196/
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
 Sure thing Rick. Shipping a million barrels of oil a day through Quebec via pipelines that have a history of spills has "nothing to do with Quebec".
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
MrChips posted:A diversified portfolio, according to your average Albertan investor: "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" was godawful policy and no way to run or be part of a country. Unsurprisingly, it's just as stupid and arbitrary when the shoe is on the other foot. Western Canadian Select presently trades at a $20/bbl (Canadian) discount relative to West Texas International. This is because 1) it requires more refining, due to its denser nature and higher sulphur levels and 2) it's in Hardisty, Alberta, not the Gulf of Mexico. With about 2.3 million bbl/day production out of the oil sands, we're talking about nearly $17 billion a year in value lost, every year, because we lack the refining capacity and transportation capacity to deal with it. That extra value is presently being captured by transportation companies and by American refineries, neither of which contribute much to the Canadian economy and both of which just funnel money to rich shareholders. (Some of it is also reflected in higher demand for shipping by CP Rail, which would come at the expense of anyone else who needs to ship anything.) Creating pipelines to the West and East coasts makes perfect sense to me. Access to tidewater would greatly increase the value of the product, and one presumes that cheap hydroelectricity and large labour forces in Quebec and BC would be advantageous for the creation of refining infrastructure: Frankly I think that there are two serious issues to overcome: 1) making sure that the aforementioned $17bn/year actually finds its way back into the Canadian economy equitably (because I do think that the other provinces should get something, one way or another), and 2) ensuring that the pipelines don't leak. Of course we seem to have had an unwise preference for exportation of unimproved product of late. The Tyee informs me that raw timber exports from BC increased by a factor of more than 30 from 1997 to 2013 (with most of this since 2009), apparently because Canadians can't do anything right. E: I should add that, back in the 1950s, we had the greatest refining capacity of any country not named the USA or USSR. Helsing posted:We were actually part way there before the late 1990s / early 2000s double whammy of NAFTA coming into effect and the commodity / housing booms sucking up all the investment capital. I've added emphasis to Helsing's statement. As far as I'm concerned, this is the biggest issue facing Canada today. Without a functioning economy, social progress on any number of issues is all but impossible. David Corbett fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Frankly I think that there are two serious issues to overcome: I would think that the most serious issue to overcome is that of carbon emissions. Canada has now kind of sort of committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Under 2 degree scenarios it was already estimated that roughly 80% of the tar sands oil would have to stay in the ground. Building more pipelines allows for faster extraction. Any climate activist worth their salt is going to oppose any new pipeline. That's not stupid and arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
This is all your fault, loving stingy millennials and wage slaves!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:I would think that the most serious issue to overcome is that of carbon emissions. Canada has now kind of sort of committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. Under 2 degree scenarios it was already estimated that roughly 80% of the tar sands oil would have to stay in the ground. Building more pipelines allows for faster extraction. Any climate activist worth their salt is going to oppose any new pipeline. That's not stupid and arbitrary. Global warming is driven by the world's demand for energy, not its supply. A barrel of crude not extracted in Canada is simply going to get extracted and burned up somewhere else. The vast majority of oil's carbon emissions are produced at end use, not at extraction. Trying to end global warming by cancelling domestic pipeline construction feels to me like trying to end the drug trade by bombing a handful of cocaine fields in South America. Besides, if priced properly, the extra money extracted from a domestic infrastructure will end up mostly outside of the upstream sector and so shouldn't boost production too much. If anything, shipping oil by pipeline rather than by rail and refining it in new plants might even cut carbon emissions. Canada has less than 0.5% of the world's population. As standards of living increase, our contribution to global carbon emissions should eventually regress towards that amount. The story on anthropogenic global warming isn't going to be written here, no matter how hard we try.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo you dumb assholes think that there is literally nothing wrong with interprovincial trade barriers. Now I know who voted against the BC hst.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:
I especially liked his "have not province" bash in his video with the stupid camera style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
I don't particularly care if the shareholders are Canadian or foreign or how much they pay in tax. I don't care if the pipes leak or not, if the tankers have 2 hulls or 20. That carbon has to stay in the ground, and Canada needs to stop hinging its national ambitions upon an unburnable fuel source. That outweighs whatever monetary benefit might trickle down to me someday if the projects go ahead. (And let's be real, that benefit would amount to jack poo poo.) It would be better in the long run to just put all the labourers on welfare until they can find other work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Haha holy poo poo you dumb assholes think that there is literally nothing wrong with interprovincial trade barriers. It's way too early on a Tuesday evening for you to already be this drunk CI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
David Corbett posted:Global warming is driven by the world's demand for energy, not its supply. A barrel of crude not extracted in Canada is simply going to get extracted and burned up somewhere else. The vast majority of oil's carbon emissions are produced at end use, not at extraction. Trying to end global warming by cancelling domestic pipeline construction feels to me like trying to end the drug trade by bombing a handful of cocaine fields in South America. Why would climate activists limit their tactics to the demand side only, especially when Oil companies have been some of the largest opponents to meaningful climate policy? Anything that hurts the bottom line of oil companies is a good thing, if only because they'll have less money to spend on lobbying. Plus climate change activism is multifaceted, it targets demand and supply. I don't really know what the point of the bolded is. We should just sit back and relax because our relative contribution to climate emissions will eventually be a small part of the total? Climate change (and environmental problems in general) is a production and consumption problem first and foremost, not a population problem. Canadians use a huge amount of resources right now, and historically. We should fix that. e: https://ricochet.media/en/893/court-solidarity-for-activists-who-took-direct-action-against-enbridges-line-9 Duck Rodgers fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2016 00:00
|
|