Alberta - time to go

It's Me D wrote:

Your only response is TINA... and a little slander towards communists thrown in. Nicely played sir.

My response is to request how this 'works'. Get over your delicate emotional state and address the issue.

I don't consider deflecting my questions on your premise that nationalisation 'works' into your political sensitivities as 'nicely played', rather, i think that you are deflecting into the emotional from the intellectual because,other than a dedicated belief in socialism, you don't have any critical analysis of the issue.

I sincerely beg your pardon for my indelicate mention of Mr. Marx - now, prove your premise.

Ratty: Yes, we've signed agreements saying we are good little capitalists and won't nationalize things, I realize this. What will happen when we reneg on those agreements? That can only be answered with conjecture as it hasn't happened. However we can still do so, regardless, and besides if we don't soon the US will reneg on them first anyway. Capitalization? Surprisingly it hasn't been a problem in third-world countries the world over but I guess your right, Canada could never afford something like that, better not even talk about it. As for the benefits of nationalizing the oil companies that was the subject of my first post. If you were expecting a lesson in socialism you've come to the wrong place, babble is frequented by those who already have a clue; I for one don't have the time to help you get one if you aren't interested in doing anything to that end on your own. As for your sharp distinction between emotion and politics, it is hogwash, ask mister Harper; better you get over it now before your feelings get hurt.

Ratbert wrote:

I'm rather dismayed by your assertion that critical analysis of your own premise is not worthwhile because it "can only be answered with conjecture as it hasn't happened". If you are correct in your assumption, analysts, think tanks and focus groups everywhere, including the socialist ones will be out of work.

They don't work in simple conjecture, they work in manufactured reality, and there will still be plenty of need for that. I too can tell you (like the think tanks) what I think should be true, I just thought that (like with the think tanks) there'd be no value in doing so.

Ratbert wrote:

Thank you for your helpful advice for getting a clue but may I respectfully suggest actually defining my opinion on the issue before opposing it?

Whoa sweet, I have never been asked to define someone else's opinion for them on babble before, usually people ask the opposite! Are you sure you know what your getting into?

It's Me D wrote:

Ratbert wrote:

I'm rather dismayed by your assertion that critical analysis of your own premise is not worthwhile because it "can only be answered with conjecture as it hasn't happened". If you are correct in your assumption, analysts, think tanks and focus groups everywhere, including the socialist ones will be out of work.

They don't work in simple conjecture, they work in manufactured reality, and there will still be plenty of need for that. I too can tell you (like the think tanks) what I think should be true, I just thought that (like with the think tanks) there'd be no value in doing so.

Ratbert wrote:

Thank you for your helpful advice for getting a clue but may I respectfully suggest actually defining my opinion on the issue before opposing it?

Whoa sweet, I have never been asked to define someone else's opinion for them on babble before, usually people ask the opposite! Are you sure you know what your getting into?

Defining my opinion by discussion of the issue rather than assuming opposition to it. Your acrobatics to avoid detailed discussion of the issue that you yourself propose leads me to believe it is mere empty ideological rhetoric rather than any legitimate premise to support nationalisation.

Please present your argument to support your premise that nationalisation 'works'.

 I don't think you 'have a clue' because all you offer is gymnastic semantics and emotional gibberish in order to avoid the issue at hand.

I'll even help you. NWT studies conclude that Arctic exploration and development of NG resources will contribute revenues of ~72 bn to industry and ~79 bn to governments over the life of the project.

Given constitutional impediments to interfering in provincial ownership of resources, how can Canada formulate  national ownership of resource exploitation in territorial and offshore resources under its control within the framework of existing international agreements and law?

Quote IMD:  "I'm telling you it will work"

 

Ahh - that explains everything. You have absolutely no intellectual basis for your premise that nationalisation 'works' except for your boundless faith in socialist dogma. You propose "I'm telling you it will work" in place of critical analysis and expect to be taken seriously? Go back to Donkey Kong - or better yet, clean your room.

Meh!  Its your obligation to support your premise, rather than weaseling about  with evasions and empty aspersions. You cannot come up with one idea to support your premise. Thank you for proving the vacousness of socialist nationalisation theory and your time.

 

 

Maybe you haven't been here long Rat but here on babble slicing out a few words of a sentence and trying to base an arguement around said mis-quote is not only bad form but also a laughably ineffective way to make your point. The same can be said for your silly personal attacks. You have no idea of my reasons for believing that nationalization of the oil industry would benefit average Canadians and frankly you don't need to know whether my position is the result of an "intellectual basis" or "boundless faith in socialist dogma" in order to make any counter-arguement (which you've failled to do). You have succeeded in proving one thing though: the only arguement you have against socialism is petty attacks and vascilation. I don't need your respect and other babblers can certainly judge from our respective posts which one of us is clinging to vacuous dogma here.

If you're so shaken up by someone questioning your TINA mantra maybe you should stick with your ilk over at freedominion because trust me, it'll happen a lot if you stay here.

 

ETA: Cross-posted with you kropo but thanks for joinning in... I'm not willing to explain socialism (an awfully monumental task to be sure!) to someone who's obviously made up his mind already but your points are good ones.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

LOL  Lets see your proof for the superiority of capitalism is the current economic crisis?  How about the fact that BC like Alberta has just come out of a period of the highest ever resource prices and potentially the largest government revenues for NON RENEWABLE resources. 

During this boom time in BC we have record numbers of people living in poverty. So explain please who your preferred model has help and exactly when ti is expected to trickle down on the rest of us.

Even the neo-cons in congress south of the border are demanding government ownership when the captains of industry fly in for collective begging.  That is my proof that unbridled capitalism only leads to misery and poverty except for a very small percentage of the population who live like kings of old.

 

The tar sands are now taking on a very bad business model for the economic health of your province as well. Flying in contract workers from other countries and then sending them home will do nothing for your province except suck the life out of it.

 But the oil barons and their minions are doing very very well.

 

 

____________________________________________ Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists [/quote]

Well, kroptkin, you labour mightly under two misconceptions. The first is that I am an Albertan and the second is that I disagree with nationalisation of Canada's natural resources for the betterment of Canadians.

Apparently, no-one bothers to ask my position  on the issue, preferring ideological catscratchings over substance.

I discount any revolutionary rhetoric that doesn't meet the test of international law a la Hugo because Canadians will not tolerate such activities and, if they did, Canada would turn from a respected member of the international community to pariah.

I support the creation of a national crown corporation that would hold and invest proceeds from energy partnerships with other jurisdictions and industry much like Norway.

In all the socialist rhetoric, there is a truth - Canada is doing a very poor job as custodian of immense natural resources that properly utilised, will support the social programs;education and training; and R+D that will allow Canada to transition from a hewer and drawer into a technologically superior nation.

If you can bear with me, while Canada has the capacity to develop its own technology, our friends to the south become very concerned when their number one client state makes feeble motions of unilateral technical developments. The Avro Arrow and the dominance of General Dynamics Land Systems Canada in the supply of CF ground force vehicles springs to mind. I am heartened by the refusal of the government to allow the sale of MacDonald Detweiller to US interests but it is a mere drop in the bucket.

Harnessing the wealth and power of energy resources a la Russia but without the nasty overtones and geopolitical brinksmanship would do much to assure Canadian success in the 21st century.

The wordweasels Canadians elect to represent them don't have the balls or the inclination to risk their political capital pursuing greatness for Canada, they prefer to obsess over partisan bickering and personal prerogatives. Pity.

mcgregok wrote:

Why not national all industries so we could all work for the government. The govermnent could pay us every month. We would'nt have to pay any tax, guaranteed job for life, only require one political party so no more infighting, Since we are all working and making the same wade no poverty no homeless no worry about retirement. Life would be great!

Well that's basically why a cold war was fought. It's an unwritten rule of capitalism that public enterprise shall not compete with private enterprise.

And so here they are in the last bastions of political conservatism, nationalising banks as laissez-faire part two disintegrates before their very eyes.

Laissez-faire kapitalism part one lasted 30 years, from 1900 to 1929.

The new liberal capitalism failed spectacularly in Chile in 1985 after just 16 years under near perfect laboratory conditions.

And the new liberal capitalism is failing in North America after 28 laps around the sun. They've resorted to socialism in propping it up again. I don't think socialism for the rich as usual will work for very much longer. Nicolas Sarkozy said recently: "Le laissez-faire, c'est fini"

This has become boring. bye...

Thing about economics is that any economic model can be said to "work".  Socialism works.  Lacey Fair capitalism "works".   And combinations of those models "work".

The real question is for whom does each model "work". 

 

These days, if I was the kind of guy who drove my hummer to a job on Bay Street wearing my three piece suit gang colours and sporting "product" in my hair, sitting around comparing fonts and textures of business cards with my homies, I'd be all for nationalization.   Because when we've nationalized things before, the rubes that funnel tax dollars through the government to me and my homies pay big over priced bucks for said companies.  And, fifteen or twenty years later it's privatized at fire sale prices. 

Laxer's wet dreams make for good profits.

 

 

It's Me D wrote:

TP: I take your point and agree, I never meant to suggest that the Harper government should nationalize our oil industry, I was (and am) suggesting nationalization as a part of a socialist program. I agree that nationalization of an industry, in itself, won't necessarily be positve for working-class Canadians, the key is who is doing the nationalization.

It always helps to ask "cui bono"?

 

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Canada, Outer Albertistan included, is a very socialist country. The argument is over extending that socialism from the wealthy to everyone else.

I can't stand this new trend of calling all government intervention "socialism." You're right of course that Canada has always supported a significant amount of government support for the well-to-do but thats not the same thing as socialism. Socialism is specifically what you mention in the second sentence of the quotation above, ensuring that government control over the economy is used to benefit the working class, rather than the bosses. These days, with everyone calling Bush and Wall Street "socialists", I'm wondering if I have to call myself a capitalist, afterall I disagree with these aforementioned "socialists" so what does that make me? I get it when those on the right call others on the right socialists, to them its just a bad word; why this trend is gaining popularity on the left I just don't know.

It's Me D wrote:

Rat: If what you said in your last two posts is true you could have saved us all about 15 posts by just saying "I agree" after my first comment then. One does have to question your remarkable turnaround in just 8 short hours though.

Ratbert wrote:

I am a Canadian nationalist

Which Canada is that?

Ratbert wrote:

but realistic enough to realise that projects of this magnitude cannot be developed unilaterally.

So you are suggesting we join ALBA then? Now thats an idea!

 

Here's your first comment genius:

"Taxation smaxation, nationalized oil companies provide all revenue with no extraction by corporate parasites. Yeah, thats socialist. And it works."

[end quote]

When I asked you to expand on this premise, you come back with empty socialist boilerplate and zero substance.

Agree with what? you don't bother to ask my position,you just assume, with the usual leftist insecurities, that I am opposed to your premise and start spouting empty socialist gibberish that I doubt you understand yourself.

Meh! You've proven yourself an idiot not worth wasting time on.

mcgregok wrote:

So with all this talk about socialism do you think a free enterprising province like Alberta belongs in Canada?

Alberta is not a free enterprise province... for a generation now the economic philosophy has been to transfer public wealth to corporate hands. Think of it as one never ending Halloween celebration... corporations playing the role of kiddies with their loot bags and the provincial government as the indulgent distributors of candy. It's not even a kleptocracy -- it just looks like one.

Ratbert wrote:

When I asked you to expand on this premise, you come back with empty socialist boilerplate and zero substance.

Well you're right I didn't come back with empty capitalist rhetoric, sorry, there are other boards for that you know... 

Ratbert wrote:

Agree with what?

Um, the post you quoted... I don't think I could make any simpler for you.

Ratbert wrote:

You don't bother to ask my position,you just assume, with the usual leftist insecurities, that I am opposed to your premise and start spouting empty socialist gibberish that I doubt you understand yourself.

You seem have me confused with someone who cares what you think. I don't need to ask your position to state mine, which is what I did and will continue to do. Whether it agrees with your unstated positions or not. 

Ratbert wrote:

Meh! You've proven yourself an idiot not worth wasting time on.

Yeah its being a socialist that proves someone's an "idiot" not resorting to childish namecalling when your (generally unstated but quite obvious) right-wing positions are questioned. Do yourself a favor and find somewhere else to post okay Rat, cause if talking to leftists is a waste of your time, its not well spent here on babble.

Ratbert, I've had several complaints about you.  It's one thing to be a right-winger and come here for respectful debate.  It's another thing to be a red-baiting, insulting jerk.

You've crossed the line, and so, you're outta here.

He was doing pretty well at first but reading this thread from top to bottom shows a serious decline in his intelligence and respectfulness as the conversation progressed and he failled to get his way. Michelle made the right call.

Michelle wrote:

Ratbert, I've had several complaints about you.  It's one thing to be a right-winger and come here for respectful debate.  It's another thing to be a red-baiting, insulting jerk.

You've crossed the line, and so, you're outta here.

 Hmmm... what about Ratbert's respectful posts that were dismissed by right-wing baiting, insulting jerks?

I was under the impression from babble's policy that labeling is frowned upon. You have crossed the line yourself, labeling the dearly departed Ratbert a right-winger without even any effort to ascertaine the appropriateness of such frowned upon label.

I sentence you to 3 hours of listening to IMD's version of political philosophy consisting of " It works! Here, drink this." repeated endlessly.

My sarcasm re: Karl Marx is obviously underapprecitated  by his humourless disciples.

I humbly apologise - to Karl Marx. For the inappropriateness of the association with certain babblites.

Ratbert's continued respectfulness would have enjoyed the attentions of the babble gatekeepers in enforcing an evenhanded policy rather than shaodw-supporting the brown-shirts of the B team.

Ratbert did not come here as either a right-winger or a troll but obviously, the insecurities of the B team and the shadow support they enjoy from management ensures that anyone who doesn't drink the babble Kool-Aid will be labeled and rejected in short order.

Ratbert leaves with no ill feelings and wishes all the babble participants joy in obsessing how many moral compasses will fit on the head of a pin and stridently suppressing dissent to the reigning socialist ideology in order to continue denying the reality that 88% of Canadians do not support you.

Don't bother to show us out, we know the way.

Your disillusioned friends, ratbert and Ratberta.

Michelle wrote:

Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

 Um, was that for Ratbert/a, or Alberta?

eh, eitherway, good way to sum up the thread.

 

yep i sure know i'am listening to a canadian alright.  whine about this, complain about that.  i'am living in northwestern ontario (thunder bay) and i am canadian first and last.  oh yeah, remember the mad cow dust-up mr. mcgregok?  my whole family went out of our way to find ALBERTA BEEF to show our support for the alberta rancher for no other reason than you're part of the country and deserved support.  so stop all this weeping and start paddling, there's no room in this canoe for lilly-dippers! 

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Is Alberta still here?

Before anyone writes off Alberta, take a look at their provincial election results earier this year.

Did not vote: 59.4%

Voted Progressive Conservative: 21.4%

Voted for opposition candidates: 19.2% 

As Elections Alberta stated "In an election where there appears to be a clear front runner, electors may be less motivated to vote since the outcome is perceived to be predetermined and their vote may not be needed or may not make a difference."

So don't generalize about Albertans, eh?

 

Confederation was the 4 original provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario. BC, which was an existing British colony, joined Confederation somewhat later. The other territories were Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories, and these were ceded to the Confederation by Britain.

Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories are thus Confederation property, and in the spirit of some degree of decentralization the provinces of Manitoba, Sasktachewan, Alberta, and the territories of Yukon, Nunavut, and the modern NWT were carved out of Rupert's Land and the old NWT by the Dominion of Canada.

Apart from BC and the original 4, these provinces and territories are property of Canada. If people want Alberta to 'Leave Confederation', we could probably disestablish Alberta and return it to Rupert's Land and the NWT, as it was before.

It is not the same case as Quebec.