Representative of the unwashed masses: change1211:
I'd be happy with a yearly fee and force the pipeline companies to have a couple of spill response teams stationed around the province so if there is a spill the damage can be limited.


Funny thing is response, etc is part of the planning. I would be willing to bet money that response and cleanup (timely) is part of the plan for the pipeline.

Then that's fine with me. I started out in favour of the pipeline but Enbridge doesn't have the best record when it comes to spills.

LordJiro: Yes, if only American businesses were allowed to make children (as well as adults) work in unsafe conditions for pathetic pay! Then those heroic Job Creators™ wouldn't be FORCED to send jobs to China!

As with any other form of trade, the alleged benefit to be gained by such a transaction is efficiency which takes the form of lower prices for affected goods and services. Global trade reduces overall costs to businesses, which, assuming a competitive marketplace, will result in lower prices to consumers and a higher standard of living in the formerly impoverished country. For example, the Pearl River Delta area of China has seen an increase in wages and standard of living over the past twenty years. However, consumers in nations that have lost jobs may also suffer a decrease in wages, income, benefits, and working conditions that is greater than any decrease in consumer prices along with other invisible back-end costs such as increased unemployment and underemployment, a greater need for government social welfare services, crime, and other social problems.

Global labor arbitrage is actually increasing the standard of living in China, overall. It's the US that is losing ground there.

The main point is that it allows businesses to be more efficient, increasing their profits. The economic incentives are there. The profit motive is more important than country, for a business. It's more important than anything, really.

If you want them to put American Workers (tm) before their bottom lines, the only solutions seem to be either punitive measures, protectionism, or perhaps just up and nationalizing the businesses.

... Yay fascism?

FTA: " Now it so happens that only six months ago the Canadians were planning to ship nearly all of this newly developed oil to Texas via the Keystone Pipeline"

Yes, so that the oil could be sold to China. Sorry, Mr. Tucker, but leaving out that detail makes your assertion a lie by omission and perpetuating a lie makes you a liar.

ox45tallboy: so the company(ies) in charge of the pipeline will probably do a pretty good job of stopping leaks and spills - it's profitable to do so.

Are you joking? Enbridge is getting roasted for the number of spills it's had recently. Much cheaper to let a little oil spill than monitor a huge pipeline.

Lunaville: leaving out that detail makes your assertion a lie by omission and perpetuating a lie makes you a liar.

Also, his pants are on fire

ox45tallboy: it gets pretty cost-effective to fix the leaks.

Obviously they will fix a leak after it happens. However, preventing that leak is more expensive than letting it happen, which is what the people who'd rather not see the woods full of oil are worried about.

ox45tallboy: If Canada really did want to sell oil only to the US, then why wouldn't they just sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to transport it where we wanted it?

Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

ox45tallboy: Well, you pretty much have to do some protective tariffs or such. How will a company X stay in business making widgets domestically when company Y is selling the same widgets made overseas for a much lower price?

With the style of Capitalism practiced in America, company X will ship their jobs overseas as well.

Or find a niche.

Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future--Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.

Link

Do most consumers generally want quality over LOW LOW PRICES? Probably not. Because most people can't afford a high-end friggen lawn mower.

I wonder, can it be said our glut of cheap home appliances has actually increased our "quality of living" (at the expense of jobs and actual economic power)? Poor people have refrigerators and AC, after all!

Anyway, I agree, we likely do need protectionism to "level the field." But is leveling the field, at the expense of profits, really a goal that capitalists care to achieve? It goes against the profit motive.

NeedlesslyCanadian: Methadone Girls: ArkAngel: And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

You take that back!! I've had coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and tossed it in the parking lot. How do you drink coffee from there? Bleh.

Timmies coffee is farking disgusting too. It's practically unthinkable, but McDonalds probably has the best fast-food coffee around.

Which is why the sane brew their own.

LordJiro: Chimperror2: ThatGuyGreg: TL;DR

And, it's adorable that you ferriners think we go to Dunkin' for the donuts.

Weaver95: Today we are undergoing a similar dance in our economic relation with China. And wouldn't you know, it's our liberal friends in Congress, so enthusiastic about hamstringing American enterprise, who are the last to realize that they are undercutting our political hegemony as well.

Because all those liberal CEOs are the ones shipping jobs overseas to china every chance they get....

No, it's just the liberal politicians and their enviro-whacko watermelon masters. Get rid of those and jobs will stop leaving.

[desmond.imageshack.us image 178x225]Chuckie
[lh4.ggpht.com image 81x85]"The Joker"Schumer

Yes, if only American businesses were allowed to make children (as well as adults) work in unsafe conditions for pathetic pay! Then those heroic Job Creators™ wouldn't be FORCED to send jobs to China!

It's so cute how progressives in the US defend fat poor US kids while trying to deny jobs to better educated, but starving, people around the world.

Here's a clue: if China's has lower labor costs, economic and political stability, and capital market rules for investors, - money jobs and wealth will flow to it, Labor costs will balance out eventually (or stability will collapse - remember Obama sendin all thos warships to the region?). Don't worry though, the U.S. is way ahead of Greece and Spain. Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

The social justice question is easy when you realize how poor the rural chinese and indian populations are and what these opportunities mean to them. Let's see: job for overweight american high school dropout who had too many "poor food choices" to make or college educated Chinese citizen who is undersized due to malnutrition an "no food choices." He's fluent in Chinese and English and will work for half the U.S. minimum wage and be the highest earner in his family (think Mexican illegal immigrant who doesn't actually leave his country if you still have trouble thinking who should be hired). Oh, and if your Union contract stuck it to the poor Chinese workers, know that other companies with a conscience have no problem lifting poor Chinese workers out of poverty.

Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey.

OK. Well then.

Mrtraveler01: beta_plus: Liberal butt hurt tears over the unintended consequences of blocking the Keystone Pipeline.

Awwww, you thought that Canada wasn't going to sell oil to China even if we did approve of the Pipeline huh?

That's sooooo adorable!

*pinches your cheeks*

CRY MOAR!!!

Chimperror2: Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

What's interesting is that China's stability really is a pragmatic one, on the part of the people. People may not like the government, or social inequalities, etc., but they tolerate these things because, overall, life is getting better for them.

The government made a tacit agreement with the people: You give us our legitimacy, we'll give you your jobs. 'Course, I guess you can say this about any government. Social contract and all.

Anyway, if economic factors shift drastically, stability goes out the window. No one really wants to see that.

ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?

Because even considering the cost of the pipeline, they get more for the oil when it's delivered to Nebraska than they would if they just loaded it in trucks. It's simple economics.

ArkAngel: Markey followed with a letter demanding that Geithner insist that CNOOC pay royalties on tracts that Nexen recently won in the Gulf of Mexico where the government offered them royalty-free.

I believe this is banned by the legal principle of "No Backsies"

And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

Yes and yes.

ox45tallboy: sendtodave: Anyway, I agree, we likely do need protectionism to "level the field." But is leveling the field, at the expense of profits, really a goal that capitalists care to achieve? It goes against the profit motive.

But greed is good and capitalism is best and anything else would be communism.

Not saying that. I'm saying that capitalists are the ones in power. They have all the capital :)

And, even in our great democracy, well, we continue to elect them. We like capitalists.

So, that being the case, do you think anything will come from the "Chinese are taking our jobs, we should level the playing field" rhetoric? Or, is it just that? Populist BS?

The Life Of Brian: ox45tallboy: whatshisname: Because delivering it as inexpensively as possible to a seaport full of refineries makes a whole of economic sense?

So why not sell it to us at the border and leave it to us to move it where we want it? Why wait to sell it until it has been transported all the way across the country?

Again big business.. Canadian pipeline companies want to expand..WHY drop it at the boarder and let some other company handle it.... Its all about profit.

Doesn't matter if Trans-Canada pipeline drops it to Trans-USA pipeline at the boarder - Its still going to be sold to WHOEVER will pay the most for it..and right now, that's China.

I don't agree with wasting our precious natural resources this way... Hey, lets share with our neighbors to the south, AS LONG as the reciprocate - we are each other's largest trading partners. But why rape the land to send it to China? Lets keep our stuff for (sort of) 'domestic use'. And keep the rest in reserve. That's how I look at it. (Hey, we send cheap oil and gas, don't try to block our softwood lumber!)

I don't think the US will ever budge on the illegal softwood lumber tariffs. If the US wants Canada to keep on selling our oil to them then perhaps they could support our claim to the Arctic.

Canadians seem to have an inferiority complex about Americans. This headline is a prime example, as I presume subby is Canadian.

tenpoundsofcheese: You mean like the CEO of GE? One of the largest companies. one of the largest outsourcers and the head of 0bama's job council (which hasn't met for over 6 months)?


So anyone who dares work with 0bama is a "liberal?"

Lets take a look and actually fact check this...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-21/obama-taps-ge-s-immelt-for-e c onomy-panel-replace-volcker.html

Immelt, a self-described Republican, has emerged as one of Obama's most visible outside economic advisers.

so it's settled, Republicans in business are really secret liberals who have been outsourcing jobs to China!

Brilliant!

sendtodave: Global labor arbitrage is actually increasing the standard of living in China, overall. It's the US that is losing ground there.

The main point is that it allows businesses to be more efficient, increasing their profits. The economic incentives are there. The profit motive is more important than country, for a business. It's more important than anything, really.

If you want them to put American Workers (tm) before their bottom lines, the only solutions seem to be either punitive measures, protectionism, or perhaps just up and nationalizing the businesses.

... Yay fascism?


Labor costs are less than 5% of a products price, so tell me all about this need to outsource jobs to China

Just admit it, it's because the business lobby made sure generous tax breaks were in place for outsourcing, and the stock market loved news of moving jobs offshore. It never made sense number wise.

ComicBookGuy: Canadians seem to have an inferiority complex about Americans. This headline is a prime example, as I presume subby is Canadian.

Not any more, but for all the wrong reasons.

Chimperror2: It's so cute how progressives in the US defend fat poor US kids while trying to deny jobs to better educated, but starving, people around the world.

Here's a clue: if China's has lower labor costs, economic and political stability, and capital market rules for investors, - money jobs and wealth will flow to it, Labor costs will balance out eventually (or stability will collapse - remember Obama sendin all thos warships to the region?). Don't worry though, the U.S. is way ahead of Greece and Spain. Those countries are less stable than China with a higher labor cost.

The social justice question is easy when you realize how poor the rural chinese and indian populations are and what these opportunities mean to them. Let's see: job for overweight american high school dropout who had too many "poor food choices" to make or college educated Chinese citizen who is undersized due to malnutrition an "no food choices." He's fluent in Chinese and English and will work for half the U.S. minimum wage and be the highest earner in his family (think Mexican illegal immigrant who doesn't actually leave his country if you still have trouble thinking who should be hired). Oh, and if your Union contract stuck it to the poor Chinese workers, know that other companies with a conscience have no problem lifting poor Chinese workers out of poverty.

Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.


Ah yes, of course, you're for shipping jobs to slave labor havens because you are all about social justice and humanity!

Now they can afford CAKE!

HAHAHAHAHA

Jobs aren't leaving the U.S. because of evil CEO's, they are leaving because a communist country decided the best way to lift their largely agrarian society out of poverty is by allowing and supporting industrialization. Their poverty is decreasing. No one with a conscience can deny this.

Allowing and supporting industrialization:





Being lifted out of poverty:

NEDM: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

But that makes no sense. You'd have to go halfway around the world to ship oil from Houston to China. I find it hard to believe that it was cheaper to build a pipeline across the country than it was to build a Canadian oil port on their west coast.

If only there were some sort of canal, perhaps near Panama, that the oil could be shipped through.

intelligent comment below: Labor costs are less than 5% of a products price, so tell me all about this need to outsource jobs to China

Just admit it, it's because the business lobby made sure generous tax breaks were in place for outsourcing, and the stock market loved news of moving jobs offshore. It never made sense number wise.

Global labor arbitrage is an economic phenomenon where, as a result of the removal of or disintegration of barriers to international trade, jobs move to nations where labor and the cost of doing business (such as environmental regulations) is inexpensive and/or impoverished labor moves to nations with higher paying jobs.[1] The "global labor arbitrage" phenomenon has been described by economist Stephen S. Roach.[2]

So, this really doesn't happen? My mistake, then.

IronTom: bobbette: No, you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about.

apparently not what 'you're' talking about.

There's more than one Enbridge pipeline. I was talking about Northern Gateway, the one more directly relevant to the topic of Canada-Chinese oil trading.

Methadone Girls: ArkAngel: And Dunkin' Donuts is far superior to Tim Horton's

You take that back!! I've had coffee from Dunkin' Donuts and tossed it in the parking lot. How do you drink coffee from there? Bleh.

Whoa now. Anyone who chooses Tim Horton's for coffee forfeits their right to criticize any coffee, anywhere else, for eternity. Robusta coffee beans? Bleh.

/unless they've changed it since I was last in Canada a couple years back, in which case I'm the dick

Mrbogey: mr intrepid: The oil was always going to China. That's why the pipeline went to Houston, not so much for the refineries, but for the port.

And America lost it's chance to make money off of it.

I'm not so sure Canada will end up making much money off of it either. Fuel and construction material demand in China has fallen off right now. Analysts who travel there are reporting ports filled with goods no one wants to buy, cement factories cutting production, petroleum and petroleum products sitting unused in holding tanks. If China has reached a glut in its resource purchases, or if its vastly inflated construction boom has finally gone bust, then it isn't going to be buy much if any of the production from all these resource projects set up to supply its demand, and certainly not at the prices its resource tear of the last decade has created. They still may be willing to purchase a stake in the drilling company as part of their general "strategic acquisitions" plan to buy up exploitation rights to as much of the world's resources as they can, but they'll be holding it at low production for the purposes of denying access to State competitors; not maintaining a profitable rate of exploitation.

clkeagle: Allowing and supporting industrialization

At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868.[12] The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats and a riverfront office building.[13] Fires erupted on the river several more times before June 22, 1969, when a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays."[14]

The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA).

It took over a hundred years for us to start to clean things up. And we still bullshiat, mostly.

Exploitative labor? Again, over 100 years (and a Great Depression) to "end" child labor.

In 1910, over 2 million children in the same age group were employed in the United States.[24] This included children who rolled cigarettes[25], engaged in factory work, worked as bobbin doffers in textile mills, worked in coal mines and were employed in canneries.[26] Lewis Hine's photographs of child laborers in the 1910s powerfully evoked the plight of working children in the American south. Hines took these photographs between 1908 and 1917 as staff photographer for the National Child Labor Committee.

So, anyway, give them time! Unless you think China would be better off not industrializing?



Much better off.