|
If there's anyone known for being serious patriots who put country above profit, it's capitalist in resource extraction.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
sund posted:"well, i'd love to buy all that alberta oil at $50 a barrel, but there's no pipeline capacity so we had to go with $30 saudi oil" Right but no the oil industry would feel more "certain" and "secure" and they'd just employ people to pump at a loss because they were swaddled in the warmth of a "business friendly" environment that a pipeline and lack of regulations would bring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Speaking of Alberta, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/bc-throne-speech-alberta-lost-its-focus-1.3442134quote:British Columbia's government has laid out its plan for the future in a throne speech that highlighted how the province must avoid becoming like its neighbour to east. This is especially rich given that Christy's economic policy seems to boil down to pumping out LNG at basement barrel prices.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
welp now that Brad Wall can't rely on coasting on oil prices, now he has to try and divert all the hate to quebec and the east coast. The tried and true western strategy https://www.facebook.com/PremierBradWall/photos/a.293816384266.144639.43232479266/10153934074729267/?type=3&theater Seriously he loving complains that "we only get 2% of the equalization payments though we make up 3% of the total population."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:This is especially rich given that Christy's economic policy seems to boil down to pumping out LNG at basement barrel prices. Maybe she's just diversifying into natural resources in case the twitter cron job market prices crash?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Hey the Québec government is still immeasurably lovely.quote:Quebec may consider a further investment in Bombardier Inc. if a proposed aid package from the federal government doesn’t materialize in the next few weeks, Transport Minister Jacques Daoust said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
As I've mentioned earlier, it's not that Saudi crude is $30/bbl and Alberta crude is $50/bbl. Actually, the Alberta crude is significantly cheaper. It's just far away and hard to refine. I'm going to retread what I said earlier. In Canadian dollars, your bog-standard WTI (West Texas International) crude costs about $38.61 a barrel. By contrast, Western Canadian Select, a grade of oil that has become common in Alberta, costs $19.75 a barrel. Unfortunately, it's basically the cheapest crude in the world. There are two major reasons for this. 1) Western Canadian Select is delivered at Hardisty, Alberta. Hardisty is a little town out in the middle of nowhere, thousands of kilometres from access to tidewater and thus its major markets. Anyone who buys WCS has to deal with the time and expense of shipping it somewhere it might actually be used. 2) Western Canadian Select, due to its origins as bitumen, is a lower-quality grade of oil. The ideal barrel of crude oil is light and sweet (low sulphur). However, compared to WTI crude, Western Canadian Select is thicker (composed of more long-chain hydrocarbons) and has more sulphur. That means that it's harder to refine into the stuff consumers actually want, such as butane, propane, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, heating oil, lubricants, petrochemicals and the like. When you combine the difficulty of moving it and the difficulty of refining it, you get a differential of $18.86 Canadian per barrel. For perspective, oil of a very similar quality to Western Canadian Select is available from Mexico - the so called "Maya" crude. Right now, Maya crude is worth about $8 Canadian more a barrel than Western Canadian Select. That's because it has access to tidewater and therefore to end-users and to higher-quality refineries that are newer and more efficient. The remaining $10.86 from WTI is a quality difference and can’t be remediated without upgraders or refineries. Now, this value of $8 a barrel might go up or down. It is, apparently, at a historical low right now. Just based on some back-of-the-envelope math, a pipeline that could carry 2 million barrels a day could therefore add $16 million dollars, Canadian, of value a day or $5.84 billion dollars of value per year to Canada's exports just by moving an already-extracted resource from one part of the country to another. The remainder of this post gets more into my opinion. To be fair, I don't like the Energy East proposal as it is. The Trans-Canada Pipeline was originally designed for natural gas, and it's very old - its construction led to the Pipeline Debate of the 1950s. Plus, TCPL seems to have a terrible record with leaky pipelines. A new pipeline would be much safer, and could probably deal with larger capacities going forward. What's more, the ownership and investment structure means that a lot of the extra value add will be shipped right out of Canada, and the remainder will be concentrated into very few hands. So while Energy East might be a bad idea, I still think that a pipeline would be a good idea. My "ideal" pipeline would be a brand-new, state-of-the-art pipeline financed, constructed and owned by the federal government, that charges a reasonable amount for shipping to ensure that the construction costs are recovered and any necessary accruals for environmental protection are made. Once that's taken care of, the profits could then be reinvested into social programs and given to the various provinces through equalization and other federal schemes. This would presumably include investments in things that would allow Canada to develop new industries. Of course, my ideal pipeline would also go to (newer, more efficient, cleaner, Canadian-owned and operated) refineries rather than just have our crude get shipped off unprocessed. But that requires even more complex analysis that I simply don’t have the background to even attempt. The last time I brought this up, I was criticised for not considering the carbon emissions of the oilsands. I believe now, as I believed then, that the extraction and use of petroleum is inevitable until such a time as the planet's energy needs can be met through non-petroleum means. (Oil is not obsolete in the same way asbestos is.) The difference between building a pipeline and not building a pipeline will be that a) oil companies will instead blow an absurd amount of money shipping oil around by rail, and b) any oil that becomes unfeasible to extract in Canada will simply be extracted and used somewhere else. In particular, China has massive reserves of shale gas and plenty of cheap labour. I simply don't believe that hamstringing one of Canada's remaining viable industries is going to succeed in stopping climate change, given that the vast majority of the reductions needed to meet the new climate goals are going to have to be met by other countries (particularly China and the USA, neither of whom have signed on). It's the same idea as with motor vehicles, really. Canada produces 2.1 million motor vehicles a year, and used to make as many as 3 million. Those cars will probably be driven a collective 400 billion kilometres or more before they break down, and in so doing will use perhaps 40 billion litres of gasoline. That’s some serious emissions. Shutting down all of Ontario's auto plants won't stop people from driving, though. They'll just buy cars made somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Turning back to Ghomeshichat for a second: Witness # Wait wait, Sarah Dunsworth also went out with Gomeshi? That sucks, I know her family. DariusLikewise posted:In summary: Yeah. Uber needs to be regulated, but regulated in a way that makes sense. Pay tax? Yeah they should. Something something disabled people? Yeah. Safety? I guess that's a thing. The thing is taxis are massively regulated and their licenses extremely limited because.... I don't know. It doesn't seem to benefit anyone outside the taxi industry. Keeping all these regulations is dumb if they don't do any good. Its a bad idea to just drop taxis- the people who work hard and are left with a worthless license should be taken care of in some way, ideally a way that's paid partly by Uber. Panas posted:People who idolize Russia have a tendency of infantilizing the states around them. It's all about how Russia needs a buffer, it's never about what the democratically elected governments in Ukraine or Georgia aspire to. Russia has role to play in global stability, but this poo poo where you handwave away all the terrible destabilizing stuff they have done under Putin is loving insane. Russia hasn't been forced into anything, everything they have done has been purely self-interested. Trying to blame that on the west is loving stupid. It is indeed self-interested, but that's the point. Plenty of people predicted that if NATO expanded into eastern Europe, Russia would become more aggressive as a result. The US gets aggressive when its interests are threatened too. Ignoring these realities is extremely dangerous; doing poo poo like putting troops in Ukraine has very real consequences that seemingly are not being thought out in the least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Bombardier's trains are p cool, ie. Skytrain, but I'm not sure if their jets are worth a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Can you imagine if the feds bailed out RIM/Blackberry?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
I interact with BlackBerry daily and they have to be the worst corporation I've ever had to deal with. They deserve to die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Can you imagine if the feds bailed out RIM/Blackberry? Lol if you think they won't keep them on life support just to maintain the Blackberry network infrastructure and prevent a sale to a foreign company. CLAM DOWN posted:I interact with BlackBerry daily and they have to be the worst corporation I've ever had to deal with. They deserve to die. 
infernal machines fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Noted without comment. The Toronto Sun posted:Peter Sloly resigns as deputy chief of the Toronto Police
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/powellbetsy/status/697465797959147520
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:The thing is taxis are massively regulated and their licenses extremely limited because.... I don't know. It doesn't seem to benefit anyone outside the taxi industry. Keeping all these regulations is dumb if they don't do any good. Its a bad idea to just drop taxis- the people who work hard and are left with a worthless license should be taken care of in some way, ideally a way that's paid partly by Uber. My assumption has always been that they limited the number to keep prices up, potentially allowing cabbies to actually earn a living doing it. Thought since the licenses seem to be company held commodities now, we should probably scrap that, assuming that was ever the reason in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:37
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:My assumption has always been that they limited the number to keep prices up, potentially allowing cabbies to actually earn a living doing it. Thought since the licenses seem to be company held commodities now, we should probably scrap that, assuming that was ever the reason in the first place. Ah, the model used to keep the fishing fleet manageable. Fleet size / fishing power can be reduced by buying back licenses if the stocks fall too low. Unfortunately the boats that take advantage of the buy-backs are the lowest producers and the least threat to the fish. The remaining licenses become a high value commodity to the holders, often a processing company rather than an actual fisherman. (See: Jimmy Pattison and whoever the gently caress owns Galin Weston's holdings now. Two guys controlling 80% of the fish caught on the West Coast.) Meanwhile, an honest-to-God blood and guts several generation fisherman who has to rent a license before he can fish must harvest better than average just to break even and pay for the license rental. It says a lot about fishermen that they keep doing this, while armchair license holders sit at home and get rich(er). I think things would be healthier if these licenses were only to be held by owner/operators, even if they seem to be terminally optimistic about how badly the deck is stacked against them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
There's also the idea that you can help reduce congestion through supply constraints since it limits the number of cabs on the road. Of course the existence of UberX makes that impossible now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
I can't wait for the johnny cab utopia that robot cars will bring to us. all those cabbies can get jobs serving us coffee. until the robot barristas take over that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:Ah, the model used to keep the fishing fleet manageable. Fleet size / fishing power can be reduced by buying back licenses if the stocks fall too low. Unfortunately the boats that take advantage of the buy-backs are the lowest producers and the least threat to the fish. The remaining licenses become a high value commodity to the holders, often a processing company rather than an actual fisherman. (See: Jimmy Pattison and whoever the gently caress owns Galin Weston's holdings now. Two guys controlling 80% of the fish caught on the West Coast.) Meanwhile, an honest-to-God blood and guts several generation fisherman who has to rent a license before he can fish must harvest better than average just to break even and pay for the license rental. It says a lot about fishermen that they keep doing this, while armchair license holders sit at home and get rich(er). The true path to wealth isn't hard work, it's rent seeking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:The true path to wealth isn't hard work, it's rent seeking. Tru dat. Or a wise choice of parents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
So i was thinking about the outcome of the ghomeshi trial today and one of the thoughts that came to mind was that even if he is found not guilty, isn't justice still served in a sense? From here on out his life is going to be living hell. Everyone he was friends with hate him, he will never have a career in broadcasting, nobody will hire him because if who he is and the claims against him, and he will never be able to go anywhere in Canada without glares or people spitting in his food. Honestly this seems like almost the best outcome possible and that jail time was really just icing on the cake of a scumbag getting his life ruined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Hard to say. From here it looks like the entertainment industry is full of willfully ignorant, amoral people who will cheerfully fellate someone because they're famous. Could be the Trailer Park girls are the ones who end up with career problems. I think the biggest problem with this trial will be its effect on any victim of sexual abuse coming forward. They've just had a full-screen lesson in why they should keep their mouths shut.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Unless your trial gets a ton of media attention and you're a public figure, you probably ok to sexually assault people, legally anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Unless you subscribe to a revisionist view of history, he's only unlikeable because of the allegations. I wasn't a regular viewer and I found his Q persona more than a little pretentious, but he had a very substantial following, was definitely a rising star in Canadian media, and had a lot of fans prior to this blowing up.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Newfie posted:Ghomeshi . Maybe he will partner up with RooshV and take his tale on the road. I think he will find support among the MRA types as a poor persecuted man if he wants it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
The Fruvous fansites were talking about what a creepy dude Ghomeshi was and that was in the friggin nineties, and the guy's been up his own rear end since at least that time, so it's easy to explain why the bargainville crowd has some basis for just disliking him. Not the kind of vilification that comes from believing he goes around choking women and punching the face of course, just a general unease about him being a pretentious creepy dude who, like, "was totally checkin out that 14 year old fan according to what Becky's friend Stacey said to me at the record store". But I'm still allowed to say that he has a really good voice and Ghomeshi-Q was one of CBC's better shows; you can respect what someone's good at even if you don't particularly care for the person doing it. He's Bizarro Adam Sandler. At least he got the benefit of a trial. People were lining up to throw Patrick Kane under the bus and he was never charged with anything. Convicted rapist Mike Tyson is called "convicted rapist Mike Tyson" even though a parade of judges and prosecutors have all agreed that exculpatory evidence that should've been presented never was and that the victim was probably lying. Dragging people down from high places is a really lovely cultural pastime but we just can't help ourselves. Hexigrammus posted:Hard to say. From here it looks like the entertainment industry is full of willfully ignorant, amoral people who will cheerfully fellate someone because they're famous. That's hardly a revelation. Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:Unless you subscribe to a revisionist view of history, he's only unlikeable because of the allegations. I wasn't a regular viewer and I found his Q persona more than a little pretentious, but he had a very substantial following, was definitely a rising star in Canadian media, and had a lot of fans prior to this blowing up. Nah. I loved Q with him as a host but his book was trash and he came off as an arrogant rear end anytime he was interviewed. He was a great radio host but him being a lovely person in normal life isn't all that hard to believe. Also, the CBC fallout was enough to establish that he was at least someone who didn't respect or understand boundaries. There's a pretty big gap between sexual assault and being a lovely person though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Brad Wall is posting things like this on Facebook: What a disingenuous piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
i heard weed wont be legalized what the heck....
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
How fast could a legalization bill be tabled if they really wanted to push it through? Because I just see them dawdling about and maybe doing a commission or two and humming and hawing about global treaties preventing them from acting. I know it actually takes time to draft up a bill and define the new laws and business regulations; but surely this is something that could be pushed through sooner rather than later if there was any commitment to it, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Ha-ha we got libbed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
I just pretend we've been under prohibition for the last hundred years and imagine what would need to happen for booze to become legal. As bad as the status quo is, there are really good ways to gently caress this up, or worse, legalize it in a way that doesn't get the right people contracts and exclusivity. Anyone planning the grand opening for a few hundred Hazy Daze locations that were going to pop up across the country like Starbucks in juuuust under ten weeks now may want to start cancelling orders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Brad Wall is posting things like this on Facebook: im confused, are these numbers wrong?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Hexigrammus posted:Hard to say. From here it looks like the entertainment industry is full of willfully ignorant, amoral people who will cheerfully fellate someone because they're famous. Could be the Trailer Park girls are the ones who end up with career problems. Yeah, I was for definitely focused too heavily on Ghomeshi getting punished than I was on the overall cooling effect that this case may have for individuals who may come forward and try to have their sexual assaulter brought to justice. That for sure is always a worry that we have to be cognoscente of for sure, but I some times there are cases that we can kind of poo poo away from this due to the facts. Here it is mostly that Ghomeshi fessed up to the acts on social media before his trial that has me feeling like justice is served against him. Somebody fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:im confused, are these numbers wrong? Equalization is a single line item in terms of Federal Assistance. Quebec gets about 2x the per capita assistance as Alberta, but you can construe it to show that Alberta gets no support whatsoever. Federal Support to Quebec In 2016-17, the Government of Quebec will receive $21.4 billion through major transfers. Federal Support to Ontario In 2016-17, the Government of Ontario will receive $21.3 billion through major transfers. Federal Support to Alberta In 2016-17, the Government of Alberta will receive $5.8 billion through major transfers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Equalization is a single line item in terms of Federal Assistance. Quebec gets about 2x the per capita assistance as Alberta, but you can construe it to show that Alberta gets no support whatsoever. That's a very tortured reading, and I think you're reaching just so you can be upset with something Brad Wall did. It's clearly talking exclusively about equalization payments, as made quite clear by the title: "Total Lifetime Equalization Payments," instead of something like "Total Lifetime Federal Support Received."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:im confused, are these numbers wrong? They don't factor populations which are a big component
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
PT6A posted:That's a very tortured reading, and I think you're reaching just so you can be upset with something Brad Wall did. It's clearly talking exclusively about equalization payments, as made quite clear by the title: "Total Lifetime Equalization Payments," instead of something like "Total Lifetime Federal Support Received." There are three big problems I see with this map. 1) It is not inflation-adjusted, which means have-not provinces right now come off looking far worse than provinces that were have-nots in 1957 but haves today. 2) It singles out one portion of federal transfer payments without recognizing that all provinces receive billions of dollars in transfer payments besides equalization. But for the less financially literate people who are sharing this on facebook, it seems like certain provinces are paying and paying and paying and never getting anything back, which while technically true under equalization alone is not actually representative of the larger financial picture. I would hazard a guess that a large number of Canadians don't realize that the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer are separate things from Equalization payments, and so simply don't realize that even though Alberta is not receiving any equalization payments, they are still receiving $5.8B in transfer payments that are paid for through Canada-wide taxation. 3) Equalization as the name of a specific transfer payment program only came into being in 1957, but the federal government has been making equalization-like transfers since Confederation. So when this image says "lifetime" amounts, what it means is "amounts since 1957" which, while technically true, is again misleading because if you don't know the history of the equalization program it's easy to fall into easy mental traps like thinking this means since the beginning of time and implies that, for example, Alberta has been being exploited forever when actually Alberta was a huge recipient of federal transfers in the mould of equalization, it just happened before 1957 so isn't recognized here. Again, everything about the map is technically accurate. As far as I can tell it is indeed an accurate map of lifetime provincial equalization payments. But it's very disingenuous because it leads the reader to conclusions that aren't actually true unless that reader already knows a lot about the history and inner workings of transfer payments, the equalization program in specific, and the way money changes over time. e: and population/per capita which slipped my mind when I was writing this but Ikantski brought up, that too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 16:18
|
|