Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You might argue for a "mixed" approach in this regard, I don't. The BP oil spill proved that there are weaknesses in a "mixed" approach. BP had to meet all the government "rules and regs" and there was still failure. Using free market principles, I say let those that fail, pay the real price for failure. BP was able to negotiate with the government to limit its liability (and I am betting BP got the best end of the deal), I would suggest we let the free market determine the true liability.
|
This argument falls flat on its face. If rules and regulations can't make the world perfect, then there shouldn't be rules and regulations. Let the market fix things instead. Nice.
Quote:
|
My wife spent time in Toronto and said it was the nicest large city she had ever been to, I have absolutely nothing against Canada. I am sure it is a great place to live.
|
Oh, I'm sure you have nothing against Canada. I just want to point out to you that you're grossly misreading what's going on here.
Quote:
|
O.k., but let's not underestimate the importance of that comparing US oil imports are "only" about 2% of GDP. Having what you need, plus a surplus that can be exported. Very few industrialized nations are in the position Canada is in.
|
Isn't America in the same position in several industries?
Quote:
|
Canadian debt is about $500 million. GDP about $1.3 Trillion. Canada sits on over 1 trillion barrels in oil sand reserves. If we multiply that by $100 per barrel, using round numbers you have $100 trillion in resources. If the prices stay high, Canada can do all the social activities it wants. If the price drops to the point where it is not economically feasible to exploit the resource. Debt will eventually consume GDP.
|
[Correction: Canadian debt is $500 billion.]
If the tar sands were to blow up right now and be consumed in flames, Canada would not be consumed by its debt. Look at the numbers. The tar sands produces about 2% of our overall GDP and consist of less than 1% of our jobs. Even if you look at our entire oil industry, of which the oil sands is the lion's share, we have other energy industries, including a powerful hydroelectric industry. Again, ace, you fail to understand the Canadian economy. The high oil price is icing on the cake for us.
Quote:
|
I don't support anarchy. I think there is a role for government in free markets.
|
I wouldn't suggest you do support anarchy. I merely fail to see how free markets would work in your view that would not include the exploitation of people.
Quote:
|
Labor will always have the value labor. Labor in a free market can be more valuable than natural resources or intellect. It is possible for labor to exploit holders of capital.
|
In a free market, it's possible but not likely. In a free market, it's left to chance. In a free market, even if things go wrong in the view of the people, the market will still view it as "right." Oil spills are good in the eyes of the market, because there is an opportunity for cleanup services. Exploding oil platforms are good in the eyes of the market because there is an opportunity for repairs and rebuilding. Nothing is bad in the eyes of the market. The market only sees opportunity.
Quote:
|
It appears that you place little value to labor in the market and you think my view is radical? It appears that you assume labor has no power in the market and you think my view is radical? Rhetorical questions. I understand our differences and nothing I can present will change your point of view as there is nothing that you can present will change mine.
|
It's not me who places little value on labour. My view is that a free market would seek to minimize the value of labour and restrict the power of labour. The profit motive requires this.