View topic - Neil Young and the Alberta oil sands on CBC radio...

Strictly speaking, it works both ways (and not just one, as you have described). And if it's a chicken or egg question, it might very well be seen to start with basic infrastructure and services (upon which private industry is organized and primarily benefits). This includes everything that pertains to a well run, stable, and orderly society: physical infrastructure, accountable and good governance, health, education, justice and legal system (that protects private property), banking (that is organized around regular and predictable rules), regulatory bodies (that ensure conformity of private industry to general and public interest), etc. Without any of these civil and public interest institutions and protections, you have corruption and graft, an unstable business environment, uncertain property and investment rules, and more importantly a poorly performing and inconsistent labor market.

So once again, regular rules, civil institutions, and orderliness looks to me like a free service to industry (upon which private enterprise and capital receives a clear and very significant benefit). Hence, the fairness of taxes as a means of accounting for these fundamental and broadly received benefits.

You clearly want to make some kind of ideologically derived argument about "job creation" and private industry as being a driver in this. When doing so, I'm not sure why common sense has to be left out of the picture, or some notion of civil society and the social contract (since none of us lives in a Hobbsian State of Nature … nasty, brutish, and short … and modern capital, when predictable and regular, abhors a vacuum).

Idylwyld,



The benefits to industry from a capitalist-based system such as the United States has, have to be balanced off against the benefits being provided to the average American resident. In America, there are more individuals receiving welfare benefits than those that hold full-time jobs. In more than half of American states, staying on welfare generates more income than staying employed.

The money to pay for these government benefits has to come from somewhere... it comes from taxing industry and those who are employed... government gives to industry with one hand and takes with the other.

In addition, more money is brought into the picture by government simply printing more money... by buying bonds from banks and then releasing that borrowed money to the nation. At the moment the national debt exceeds $15 trillion IIRC. In order to pay for all the programs and interest on past debt, the American government prints about $3 billion every day... again IIRC.

So who's going to provide the money to repay all that debt eventually... America is a capitalist-based system and a much-anticipated economic rebound should provide industry with increased sales and profits along with greater worker's earnings. With time, the profits and earnings should be taxed and used to pay back the national debt. If things don't work out that way, what are the other options available... widespread poverty, economic collapse?

_________________
><((((º>

Where do you come up with this (what I would like to call....GARBAGE)?

_________________
"What else could I do? I had no trade so I became a peddler" - Lazarus Greenberg 1915

If you define "welfare" as recieving some kind of means-tested benefit then:


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... umber-full




http://www.cato.org/publications/white- ... fare-trade

You're reading far to much Cato and other ideologically driven misinformation.

http://www.epi.org/blog/cato-study-dist ... fare-work/

You can't seriously think that I find any of your statements have merit, or are based on sound or rational (constructive, reasonable, or stable) social or fiscal policy. The end of capitalism and global economic collapse ... please!

This thread is taking a seriously wrong turn. If we can't agree to some very basic features of the social contract (and that most of us benefit significantly from this), I don't know where else this discussion is likely to go next (besides numerous other ideological driven blind alleys and emotion littered cul de sacs)?

Thank you, Krusty.

Idylwyld,



The "misinfornation" comes from the United States' census numbers... this made the news last year and I'm sure the numbers can be had with some data diving.

The US financial picture becomes worse with each trillion dollars being added to the national debt... earlier you pointed out the need for government spending on education, an orderly society, etc... the overspending and national debt problem is not a blind alley or an emotional cul de sac. Seriously, how can you expect this kind of thing to go on without significant long-term damage to the nation?

_________________
><((((º>

I saw what you did there Idylwyld, countering Cato's "ideologically driven misinformation" with a link to the ideologically driven epi.

Cute.

Ummmm, carry on!!

Ramble on.....

Here in la Belle Province where we prefer to discuss the freedom or not of wearing religious symbols and the like a few people published a "manifesto" calling for the exploitation of petroleum, should there be enough, right here in Quebec.

However, a public debate doesn't seem to be getting any traction and the Chart of Quebec Values (or whatever they call it in English) is the hot topic.

I'm naive I guess but I would think that if all the potential financial benefits from domestic petroleum were to be invested in R&D for alternative energy sources and energy efficiency then we'd be way ahead 10-20 years down the road. Much more so in fact than if teachers and nurses were prohibited from wearing religious symbols.

However, members of the ecological/artistic community here published a "reaction" to the pro-exploitation manifest and are against even exploring the geology so as to take inventory. Ie. exploration is the first step in exploiting the resource.

So, here we stick to concrete stuff like debating ad infinitum Quebec's "values" with respect to religion.

Decision is maybe coming in next two weeks.

This is to air prior the President's State of Union tonight in the US. Paid for by Tom Steyer, billionaire green investor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGRETZfTKP4

I really don't know which way it is going to go. Democrats have held sway over more progressive part of electorate for some time now (despite very centrist and status quo candidates who don't give them much in return). Green investment is going strong in places like Iowa, Texas, and North Dakota. Nebraska doesn't want anything to do with the pipeline. And of course, there's always Transcanada who doesn't know what to do with itself, but blunders its way through media releases and DC's back rooms.

Knowing Obama, he's going to figure out how to split the difference (and give a little bit to everyone).

Thats not really fair. When I was in university I received a GST rebate cheque. That is a means tested government benefit. I would NOT call it 'being on welfare'.

_________________
I like canoes

Idylwyld,



Vids are mostly too much for the dial-up service out here in the sticks... it's probably the same vid being shown on the news reports here, about Harper's dirty tactics and China.

Forgetting about the bottle of beer for a moment <always up for a beer>... I listened to the SOTU last night and for me, it didn't seem too favorable for Keystone since Obama repeated the need to reduce GHGs several times and that yes, we will be able tell our children that we did all we could to reduce climate change... something like that.

Tar sands oil is already flowing to Cushing Oklahoma, so it could be rerouted through other pipelines and mixed with other oils if Keystone isn't approved so that may be one way that both the greens and the browns could feel that they've accomplished something.

_________________
><((((º>

Canadians (or anybody else) should realize that Obama (and most politicians) want the Keystone XL pipeline. They just need a good reason (that isn't primarily based on a lie) for building the thing.

Transcanada blundered by failing to come up with one. Harper did a little better.

You'll receive some $75 million/day, or $28 billion/year more in revenue by building the thing (at current production levels). You don't think $14 billion in compliance costs for modest carbon mitigation alternatives, a throw away amount with larger production, is too much to ask?

When is enough enough. When does digging a really large hole in the ground (or injecting large amounts of steam into it) mean all of us (Canadians in particular) have to give up our scruples.

Investment and finance community seems to agree that Keystone XL is a bad idea, and low gas prices (and boosted refinery jobs in N. America) should be the best focus of policy going forward.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-2 ... nergy.html


The long and short of it ... build Keystone XL, and pay much higher prices for gasoline at the pump, and realize fewer job benefits by exporting refinery jobs overseas. Good for Exxon and China, but bad for consumers and the economy in North America.

Why do such a thing ... your guess is as good as mine?

Neil's wishy-washy support for indigenous peoples.......

http://cjpme.nationbuilder.com/neil_young

_________________
"What else could I do? I had no trade so I became a peddler" - Lazarus Greenberg 1915

Ugh! What doesn't the Premier of Alberta and TransCanada understand about getting out of the way, and letting the "local" politics of this stuff in the US run it's course.

Just can't keep their mouth shut … had to stir the pot one last time, needle Obama to score political points, and get everybody in a tizzy over the same old issues that aren't going away (and aren't getting solved). They are a bunch of attention seeking children (by the sounds of it).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-0 ... stone.html


If she thinks she can get the US Congress to approve a carbon trading bill with her approach and statement, more power to her.