GT: Federal Election

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I give significantly better odds of the wall becoming a reality than the manifesto. That's how absurd it is. The Provincial NDPs can't flee from this fast enough it seems.

And at the same time, it is going to remain a lead ball strapped to Notley's ankle by a short chain. I am very happy to see how strongly Notley has come out against it, but the simple fact that the NDP, at a major convention, adopted even a motion to study this indicates that the radicals are now in control of the party. Given the lack of real separation between the provincial and federal wings of the party, this is going to stick to Notley regardless of how strongly she argues against it. And thanks to things like hiring anti-oil staffers and having her cabinet ministers actively campaigning for the federal NDP in the last election, one can expect the PCs, Wildrose, Liberals and Alberta Party will all be working hard to ensure people believe that the relationship between the federal crazies and the provincial government is too close to ignore.

[Coach]

Well I just read through the "manifesto", and I agree the choice of title is poor. Not because of the communist connotations (in fact, there are not really a lot of communist ideals present in the text), but because I have high school social studies essays that more closely resemble a "manifesto" than this thing. Just a directionless rant with no real coherent point or support for the few real ideas that are present.

Originally Posted by nik-

No no, read it straight and tell me it doesn't sound like a drum circle of hippies talking about how they can fix the planet. It's shockingly short, it will probably take you like 10 minutes.

I've been a part of hippie music circles that would wipe the floor with this rag without even a need for sources. Referring to it as such is an insult to hippie drummer rants everywhere.

As for the content, the sad thing is there are some points that I very much agree with, but a political party can't just attach itself to something that is so lacking in sources and real content. Agree with the principals, fine. Maybe you guys want to get some peer-reviewed research to support some of those principals. This is like the other side of the coin of climate-change deniers.

"We could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit" - I agree, but the rest of the sentence is...

"in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality" - Uhh what? Explain how. And why these things are even related.

"There is no longer an excuse for building new infrastructure projects that lock us into increased extraction decades into the future." - I actually agree with this. I don't like new research and resources going into getting out more of an out-dated energy source. (Pipelines aren't extraction, they are transportation).

"a universal program to build energy efficient homes, and retrofit existing housing" - Again I agree, but they have listed all these things that would come along with it "redistribute wealth, deepen our democracy, strengthen our economy". Uhh how?

"High-speed rail powered by renewables and affordable public transit can unite every community in this country" - I very much agree with this. Transportation between communities in Canada is absolutely atrocious. Flights are out of control expensive, rail is outdated, roads need more care and better structure (higher speed limits on highways, potential autobaun structure). The greatest challenge is obviously distance. I really do think high-speed rail is the best solution for connecting the major cities.

"Moving to a far more localized and ecologically-based agricultural system." - Agreed, I think local indoor farms are the future of food production.

"expanding the sectors of our economy that are already low carbon: caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media. Following on Quebec’s lead, a national childcare program is long past due. " - I don't necessarily disagree with expanding/helping these areas, but I don't see what it has to do with "low carbon". Just because people don't work in O&G doesn't mean they don't use carbon.

"a universal basic annual income." - Pretty much the only thing in here that closes in on communism. Although I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the idea, just curious about how it would work. I don't think people should be able to "live" off the government in that way (like don't work, but I still get my universal income so I'm all good). If you only take in your universal income, you should still be unable to afford luxuries. Universal income should make sure people have a roof and don't starve, that's about it.

"One thing is clear: public scarcity in times of unprecedented private wealth is a manufactured crisis, designed to extinguish our dreams before they have a chance to be born." - I agree that public scarcity in times of unprecedented private wealth is a crisis. I don't believe it's designed, and not to extinguish our dreams LOL. It's just what happened.

My caveat to all of this. I fully understand that large changes like listed above will have an unforeseen impact on the way our economy works. Not necessarily that it will be bad (although it almost certainly would be in the short term), but I'm not going to sit here and claim that the transition would be even in the realm of smooth. I think some of this stuff is necessary, and I think in order for it to work it has to be global, but I say that with the full understanding that the way we live, and what we consider a job or career, will be completely different. This whole document is "we can have our cake and eat it too!" We can't.

I may be a bat-s*** crazy socialist, but at least I know that.

[CaptainCrunch]

At the end of the day Matty, I'm going to argue that extraction is going to happen, whether its for Oil or mineral resources or whatever. Until we create a Star Trek Method of creating objects straight from energy, we're stuck with petroleum by products coming out of the ground and minerals coming out of the earth.

so stating that you don't want research into it to make the extraction of these things more efficient and effective and maybe cleaner, is actually going against what these people are trying to achieve, because as its been stated here unless you can find a way to build replicators and power them with the farts of mythical creatures (And I'd like to see the complaints about the unethical treatment of unicorns at the fart collecting farm) we have to live in a certain reality that there is for at least a term a requirement for carbon based resource extraction.


As stated, and I wish I'd kept that paper, Canada's argricultural sector right now is effective and can feed this country, and not only that creates a strong export product. Whereas the whole indoor microfarms concept isn't capable of doing that and we'd end up becoming more reliant on important food staples.

If these people had sat down and done the math instead of pooping a bunch of stuff on paper, I would believe them.

the whole expand our economy with social workers, and artists and media people is outright stupid, at the end of the day and with all do respect we need to increase our economy with revenue driven people who increase the tax base, not net negatives like for example social workers or artists who are reliant on government funding and are a net negative wage vs tax.

Things like High Speed Rails are perfect, love the idea, however they have limitiation because this country is massive. Are people going to be willing to take 2 or 3 days to travel to Toronto as opposed to flying there in hours. How are the natives for example and environmentalists going to feel when we start building these things and blasting them through reservations and parks and mountains, because we don't have hover trains yet (Get on that scientific community)

I was talking with a buddy about the universal income concept, which in the current form would be a pretty big cost sink, unless you massively cut social programs to support it. I mean you don't need health care if your cutting people checks to live, or UI or anything like that. Because what if you put it in and you suddenly have 7 or 8 million people pulling in $25 or 30 thousand bucks a year because they want to drop out and bag drums for a living. where do we find the $210,000,000,000 to support that program?

Plus the idea for universal income is great for young people, but for the elderly with more stricking needs in terms of medication and long term care, if you go the universal income rule and slash things like healthcare and disability etc, which is what your supposed to do to make UI affordable, you'll actually put the vulnerable in a worse financial position because they're costs skyrocket.

I can't agree with this document because there's no reality or thought of reality in it. We're going to do this man, well hows it work, it just will man






So these people saying cut off all reasearch

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

At the end of the day Matty, I'm going to argue that extraction is going to happen, whether its for Oil or mineral resources or whatever. Until we create a Star Trek Method of creating objects straight from energy, we're stuck with petroleum by products coming out of the ground and minerals coming out of the earth.

so stating that you don't want research into it to make the extraction of these things more efficient and effective and maybe cleaner, is actually going against what these people are trying to achieve.

I don't necessarily disagree, but for me, it's about allocation of resources (including human capital). If you have all the most incredibly innovative and intelligent people working on finding new ways to get to more oil, you take those resources away from working on a solution that can significantly reduce our dependence on it. We need it for many products, yes, which is why it's insane to burn it for fuel when we have other methods that can overtake that part of it. And the only reason they haven't is because of poor resource allocation dating back over 100 years.

As stated, and I wish I'd kept that paper, Canada's argricultural sector right now is effective and can feed this country, and not only that creates a strong export product. Whereas the whole indoor microfarms concept isn't capable of doing that and we'd end up becoming more reliant on important food staples.

I wouldn't mind an expansion on this. It may already effectively feed our nation, but why ignore the possibility of doing that while taking up a fraction of the land? Why would we become more reliant on food staples? Are you saying that exotic fruits and such couldn't be grown, or wouldn't be grown? Your export product, I gather, is beef, yes? I understand that point, but even if you kept beef farms while moving all vegetable production to indoor farms, that would still significantly reduce the land requirement for farming overall.

the whole expand our economy with social workers, and artists and media people is outright stupid, at the end of the day and with all do respect we need to increase our economy with revenue driven people who increase the tax base, not net negatives like for example social workers or artists who are reliant on government funding and are a net negative wage vs tax.

See, I think those things could/should be expanded (particularly something like social workers. As it is, there aren't enough), but I don't live in some fantasy world where that somehow expands our economy, or even begins to replace the job loss that would come from something like cutting O&G research and other carbon-sector jobs. Not sure where they are getting that notion from.

Things like High Speed Rails are perfect, love the idea, however they have limitiation because this country is massive. Are people going to be willing to take 2 or 3 days to travel to Toronto as opposed to flying there in hours. How are the natives for example and environmentalists going to feel when we start building these things and blasting them through reservations and parks and mountains, because we don't have hover trains yet (Get on that scientific community)

The actual building of the infrastructure is a big hurdle for sure. Although I think a massive nation-wide project like that would be a huge economic boost. As far as travel times, i think you are pretty off. My vision of something like this would be that the high-speed rails are between major city centers only. VAN-CGY (offshoot between CGY and EDM): CGY - REG : REG - WIN : WIN - TBAY? : TBAY - TO. And then you could have a few lines around the GTA/OTT/MTL/Quebec.

If you were to go CGY - TOR that's about 3400km. Thats 11 hrs going 300 kph (which the euro trains do). With stops and what not you're probably looking at about a 15 hour trip. These times are not unheard of for trains across Europe and Asia. If it's going to be 1/5 the cost of a flight (lets call a train ticket $100-$150), I think you'd see a lot of people use it. The cost and project scope would be enormous, but worth it IMO.

I was talking with a buddy about the universal income concept, which in the current form would be a pretty big cost sink, unless you massively cut social programs to support it. I mean you don't need health care if your cutting people checks to live, or UI or anything like that. Because what if you put it in and you suddenly have 7 or 8 million people pulling in $25 or 30 thousand bucks a year because they want to drop out and bag drums for a living. where do we find the $210,000,000,000 to support that program?

As noted, if there was to be any universal income, I think it should really just cover cost of housing and food. Universal healthcare should still remain, but yeah, you could cut into most other social programs if this is going to be a policy.

I can't agree with this document because there's no reality or thought of reality in it. We're going to do this man, well hows it work, it just will man

Yeah I agree. If you can't find someone like myself to agree with something like this, then IMO, you've failed. Because, while I see eye-to-eye with at least a few things, without any tangible plan for it, or at least acknowledgement that it would have irreversible effects on the economy (irreversible does not necessarily mean bad, just that it's an incredibly long-view outlook) and would require the time and sacrifice to make it work. Our nation would never look the same again. That could be good or bad, but in the short-term, it would be a mess. And getting through that mess would be the hardest part of the battle, and may not actually happen. And if you can;t get through that mess, well it will just continue to be a mess.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I am personally willing to live through that mess. A lot of people aren't and I certainly understand it. Especially for people who are a little older and maybe don't see the personal benefit of going through something so dramatic. People as young as myself may be (and seem) more willing to entertain those notions because there are a lot of years left on our lives that we may actually see end up seeing the benefits of such a process.

Also, as an economics guy, I am very intrigued to see what the potential outcome would be. So it's more of an experiment than anything. A lot of people don't want to be a part of the experiment. No judging on that, just the way it is. People think differently, it's what causes making major changes like the things referenced to be so difficult to implement or even discuss.

[nik-]

How do we pay these smart people we're moving to work on alternatives to Oil?

How do we power the indoor food growing operations? Where do we put them? Who buys the land?

What is the limit that we subsidize HSR through Canada? Since there sure isn't the user base to make it economically viable.

The Leap Manifesto is hilariously naive. We've already discussed it more than it deserves.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I wouldn't mind an expansion on this. It may already effectively feed our nation, but why ignore the possibility of doing that while taking up a fraction of the land? Why would we become more reliant on food staples? Are you saying that exotic fruits and such couldn't be grown, or wouldn't be grown? Your export product, I gather, is beef, yes? I understand that point, but even if you kept beef farms while moving all vegetable production to indoor farms, that would still significantly reduce the land requirement for farming overall.

I think what CC is saying is that the current industrial nature of agriculture in our country is capable of not only feeding our population, but producing enough that we can export excess. The "small organic farm" model, apparently is not capable of even meeting our needs, meaning we would have to import.

The actual building of the infrastructure is a big hurdle for sure. Although I think a massive nation-wide project like that would be a huge economic boost. As far as travel times, i think you are pretty off. My vision of something like this would be that the high-speed rails are between major city centers only. VAN-CGY (offshoot between CGY and EDM): CGY - REG : REG - WIN : WIN - TBAY? : TBAY - TO. And then you could have a few lines around the GTA/OTT/MTL/Quebec.

If you were to go CGY - TOR that's about 3400km. Thats 11 hrs going 300 kph (which the euro trains do). With stops and what not you're probably looking at about a 15 hour trip. These times are not unheard of for trains across Europe and Asia. If it's going to be 1/5 the cost of a flight (lets call a train ticket $100-$150), I think you'd see a lot of people use it. The cost and project scope would be enormous, but worth it IMO.

Given the cost to build such a high speed rail network would easily more than double our current deficit (Calgary to Edmonton alone was estimated at just under $3 billion - on flat straight land, plus a $100 million in annual operating costs), you would need to charge a lot more than 1/5 the cost of a flight to make such a network economically viable. And if you're charging more, I'll pay more to get to Toronto in 5 hours instead of 15, thanks.

You'd be better off throwing those billions of dollars into massive subsidies for airline tickets for Canadian citizens travelling within Canada.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

How do we pay these smart people we're moving to work on alternatives to Oil?

How do we power the indoor food growing operations? Where do we put them? Who buys the land?

What is the limit that we subsidize HSR through Canada? Since there sure isn't the user base to make it economically viable.

These are all good questions. I'd like to look into them when I have more time. But you're acting like the mere asking of the questions negates the idea. The questions are tough, and a lot of people might not like the answers, and maybe they don't even work. But the fact that there are important questions that come along with the ideas doesn't mean it's not worth at least entertaining some of them.

It is hilariously naive, but only because it doesn't ask or answer any of these questions of itself. It's frustrating from the perspective of someone who agrees with some of the ideas behind what they are talking about, but the execution is what makes it look amateur and naive. I also think it's just as naive to ignore ideas just because you don't think they would work, or because you personally might end up drawing the short straw and see your livelyhood suffer. The point of these types of ideals is that, while some people may see their livelyhoods change or 'decrease' for lack of a better term, the idea is that what will remain would have everyone living a relatively stable life at the expense of extravagance for a few.

[nik-]

They're not asking questions at all, they're making demands.

[Swift]

Not sure why people are automatically equating the word 'manifesto' to Communism.

Here's David Cameron's Conservative Party manifesto of 2015 - https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think what CC is saying is that the current industrial nature of agriculture in our country is capable of not only feeding our population, but producing enough that we can export excess. The "small organic farm" model, apparently is not capable of even meeting our needs, meaning we would have to import.



Given the cost to build such a high speed rail network would easily more than double our current deficit (Calgary to Edmonton alone was estimated at just under $3 billion - on flat straight land, plus a $100 million in annual operating costs), you would need to charge a lot more than 1/5 the cost of a flight to make such a network economically viable. And if you're charging more, I'll pay more to get to Toronto in 5 hours instead of 15, thanks.

You'd be better off throwing those billions of dollars into massive subsidies for airline tickets for Canadian citizens travelling within Canada.

See you're just dismissing these ideas with little information about what the actual impacts would be. Cost would huge, no doubt. What about the jobs created by a now nation-wide transportation system that didn't exist before. $100 m to maintain, well there have to be people paid to maintain it. It could be a mix of private and national funding. Maybe the government loans the funds to a private corp so any of the jobs created don't just end up being government jobs. There are a lot of questions surrounding it, absolutely. I'm not saying any of this is necessarily feasible. All I'm looking for is serious consideration for the ideas. This "manifesto" isn't a serious anything.

As for the bold, not everyone can afford that. You can, and good for you. Airplanes will still exist. Just because you can say, "well I'd rather pay $600 to get to Toronto in 5 hours than train for 15 hours, or drive for 30+" doesn't mean the majority can and it's not a sentiment to base these types of projects around.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're not asking questions at all, they're making demands.

Yeah.... that's what I said...

It is hilariously naive, but only because it doesn't ask or answer any of these questions of itself.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyC

See you're just dismissing these ideas with little information about what the actual impacts would be.

I am dismissing it because the information I have available tells me it is impractical. It is up to this idea's advocates to convince me I am wrong.

Cost would huge, no doubt. What about the jobs created by a now nation-wide transportation system that didn't exist before. $100 m to maintain, well there have to be people paid to maintain it. It could be a mix of private and national funding. Maybe the government loans the funds to a private corp so any of the jobs created don't just end up being government jobs. There are a lot of questions surrounding it, absolutely. I'm not saying any of this is necessarily feasible. All I'm looking for is serious consideration for the ideas. This "manifesto" isn't a serious anything.

You are right that the manifesto is not serious in any way. But to repeat myself on the rest, I would need to see some serious examination of how such an HSR would work in a massive country with a very low population density before I seriously considered it further.

As for the bold, not everyone can afford that. You can, and good for you. Airplanes will still exist. Just because you can say, "well I'd rather pay $600 to get to Toronto in 5 hours than train for 15 hours, or drive for 30+" doesn't mean the majority can and it's not a sentiment to base these types of projects around.

Except it is. It is, because air travel is the competition. So the price for HSR needs to be low enough to justify the extra time, otherwise you still lose to other methods. Also... The cheapest flight from Calgary to Toronto next month, according to Google, is $230, one way. So if we're looking at a 1/5 cost on the HSR, that is $46. And that is for a long distance trip. When considering a shorter trip, consider that VIA Rail between Montreal and Ottawa is $33. Edmonton to Toronto is $305. So, despite the massive infrastructure cost to build, you are essentially proposing to sell tickets from the prairies to Toronto for 1/2 the current cost of rail (using your $150 figure) or 1/6th the cost (basing off the idea of rail costing 20% of airfare).

To pay for operations alone, you're looking at requiring 3-5 million people travelling between Calgary and Toronto annually using this route. That's not realistic. Which means you are asking taxpayers to heavily subsidize a transit option that will not be used enough to justify its existence.

And that doesn't even touch the political shenanigans that would impact a project such as this. To wit: When VIA had to axe one of its cross country routes, it chose to eliminate the route that goes through Calgary in favour of the one that goes through Edmonton - despite Calgary's route having much higher ridership and much better revenue per passenger - because the Edmonton route happened to pass through the ridings of three Cabinet ministers.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What about the jobs created by a now nation-wide transportation system that didn't exist before. $100 m to maintain, well there have to be people paid to maintain it.

What jobs will be created when there is no demand for this rail system?

Not only are you being relentlessly naive, you're actually proposing to implement one of the root failures of communism: a command economy paying people to work unnecessary jobs that are financially unsustainable.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I see what you're saying, rube, but it could also be argued that if the NDP really do drive themselves off the left cliff that we'll be left with a less pluralistic democracy. Layton really shaped them into a realistic electable champion of the left and there's a good chance that might have been destroyed in a few short days.

I think that misses the point of what the NDP has traditionally attempted to be, which is more of the mass-membership style of political than the sort of cadre/brokerage parties that the Liberals and Conservatives have tried to be. Mass-membership parties aren't designed to win elections, they're designed to serve the interests of their membership. If you look at the tradition of the NDP, that's exactly what they've done when given the opportunities in minority government situations. Unfortunately (in my opinion), Layton took them in the direction of populism because the dude was a career politician with a insatiable ego.

I agree that driving them completely off the cliff is bad, but I'd rather see them move back into their traditional role then attempting to play the centre with the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Originally Posted by Delgar

Even if actual communism is not their goal, and I agree it is not, your characterization is equally off base. The Leap Manifesto is not being "directed back to its socialist roots". Its a whole new kind of socialism, which the NDP to date has not even themselves adopted. It is acknowledged by many to be anti-capitalism, even its authors and many highly placed in the federal NDP. Its not communism but its far more to the left than the NDP has ever been. It is suggesting a directed economy in relation to energy production, by creating fake demand and taking away the actual competitive advantage Canada has in the name of a new goal.

Its not a 5 year plan, but its getting awfully close to that.

Sorry, I wasn't commenting so much about the manifesto as I was the general direction of the NDP in removing Mulcair. I don't think there's any chance that manifesto gets passed at the next convention

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Sorry.

No objective analysis can come to any other conclusion that the NDP has been derailed by radicals. There is no legitimate possibility that they can be described as a national party after the weekend's events.

You lose credibility stating otherwise.

I'll come to that conclusion if I see them actually adopt the manifesto. There are religious wingnuts and climate-science denialists in the CPC and WRP as well, but it's probably unfair to say that the party has been hijacked by them based on whatever proposals they put forward at the convention.

[Coach]

Ahhh see now Resolute, we're having a discussion about possibilities and real impacts, not just throwing out words like naive and communist and unsustainable, with nothing behind them.

I take your points for sure. I was using ballpark two-way fares for the thought on costs, but your point is still valid. I wonder if a system that maybe just connects the really MAJOR centres may be a better thought. Like a VAN-EDM-CGY line and a ONT-QC line?

I do think there is an element to "if you build it, they will come" here, and that is that, as it stands, drive or air are our only options. Don't you think that if it was possible to get to Vancouver in 4 hours by train from Calgary, that people wouldn't use it just because it's there? Was there a huge demand for planes when they first started to pop up? Could everyone afford to use them? Did plenty of airlines rise and fail? Yes. And yet, it is now our most preferred method of travel. I think there's a big market of people that would use a HSR and would create high mobility between our major cities that doesn't exist now. Just because private industry hasn't deemed it profitable enough to venture into yet, doesn't mean it can't be. I need to dig through some comparables for cities that are similar distances apart that have HSR and see what the costs are like. But yes, in this instance, I do think that creating the supply (the trains) will open up more demand than some people seem to think for travel between cities. What holds up the travel between cities now is airline cost and distance. I think HSR could be a happy medium between these things.

[Resolute 14]

You might get away with Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, but nowhere else in Canada has the population density to support it.

The cost to build such a line from Vancouver to Calgary would be astronomical. I can't in any way see enough demand to justify it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You might get away with Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, but nowhere else in Canada has the population density to support it.

The cost to build such a line from Vancouver to Calgary would be astronomical. I can't in any way see enough demand to justify it.

We won't even build a ####ing bridge from Vancouver to Vancouver Island. The clowns out here would never go for a rail connecting Vancouver to Calgary.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You might get away with Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, but nowhere else in Canada has the population density to support it.

The cost to build such a line from Vancouver to Calgary would be astronomical. I can't in any way see enough demand to justify it.

But where are you getting your "not enough demand" issue from?

The air travel between the cities IMO is not a good measurement, as part of the reason I think HSR should exist is that it's too expensive for a lot of people as it is.

The car travel can't be used either, as there is a whole section of people that won't drive because it's too far, or too dangerous (esp in the winter), costs too much (gas) etc...

I just think the demand for this type of system is unseen because the people that would use it may not be using either other method right now.

[btimbit]

Say the money for all these high speed rail lines just falls out of the sky. How are we powering these things if we aren't doing any sort of extraction from the earth?

[peter12]

Lots of foreign workers riding stationary bikes hooked up to Tesla batteries in warehouses set in rural Manitoba.