Federal NDP Leadership Race - What do you want out of Canada's progressive party?

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

To be fair Corsi you do have a corporatist shill vibe to you. I think it’s the colours you chose for your new door and siding. Really screams maximizing shareholder value.

This may be the first thing you have ever said that I completely agree with!!!

Green? The colour of oh, I don't know, MONEY!! Look at Gordon Gecko over here, everybody!!

Corporate shill, or someone who understands how democracy and capitalism work in a complicated society.

(Done tongue-in-cheek portion of this post)

I know we all do it, but dismissing someone's argument with a silly label is not productive. It usually doesn't happen until one party demonstrates they are unwilling or unable to have an everyday conversation and listen to facts. As I was saying, this is a good conversation, but let's keep it on a factual basis to explore ideas, eh, Karl? (Not you PF if I need to make that clear)

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by Titan2

I have heard this before:


The disappointing part is that this is a good conversation and Wolven is helpful in putting up points for discussion. The problem is his inabilitiy to absorb information and apply it to his pre-conceived notions and see how maybe they don't hold up under the new information.

There was lead found in some food so we need to nationalize the entire vertical of the food industry? Wow. What goverments do best is to create and support the structure that allows businesses to start and thrive, while at the same time put in reasonable regulations and enforcement to ensure those businesses don't take advantage of their position to the negative impact on citizens. However, this has to be balanced by maintaining the freedom of choice of the citizens. A very tough job.

Not disagreeing at all, but want to comment on the tough job about creating and supporting structure for business. IMO Where they actually create the most value is by taking on the early risk that private companies won’t. When something is expensive, unproven, and years away from a commercial payoff, the market stays out for perfectly rational reasons. That’s where government steps in.

I remember learning in uni (millennial here so bear with me) that the oil sands are the obvious Canadian example: the province carried the technical and financial uncertainty until the method worked, and then private capital scaled it into a real industry. From there, Alberta exploded economically and we're all reaping the benefits of it.

To me, that's the hard job for government; measuring where taking on that risk is worth it and where it's not. Now it might not be nationalizing grocery stores or what-have-you; but I have really enjoyed the back and forth and mostly respectful discussion y'all have had.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Wolven

But you are just making #### up even as you quoted him. He said that Albertans shouldn't suffer as a part of an energy transition off of fossil fuels. That is a valid sentiment. Most Albertans over the last ... 50 years? Have been talking about the need for industry diversification so that when the oil industry finally ends that our entire province does not turn into one of those ghost towns where the local factory closes and everyone has to leave. That is not a comment about pity, that is a comment about having a strong transition strategy to protect the people.

Which part of this does the Notley "is a new Patron saint of the corporate welfare bums" does this fall under? Was that Lewis talking about industry diversification there, or just being an all around dick to another NDP party member trying to protect Albertan jobs when they should be on the same side. He would rather call her a corporate shill than reason or soften his stance and manifesto that was negatively impacting the Alberta NDP.

He isn't saying what you keep saying he is and trying to make him into a softer version of what he believes in when talking of fossil fuels.

And again (as per his own Leap Manifesto), he wants to fully eliminate fossil fuels and get 100% electricity through renewals (but only ones he deems acceptable) to combat a climate emergency. Not because of oil demand dwindling, peak oil or any of the sort. Does this real stat look like a graph that shows oil demand is stopping anytime soon?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...yPRaYCqS3N9H1X

Quite the opposite in fact. So claiming to wanting to avoid ghost towns is fully self-inflicted and hinges on how much you want to believe cutting own's own economic foot for the purpose of global climate change is prudent or wise. I believe it's foolish, others clearly do as well, especially when there are other priorities like cost of living. That and other poorly constructed policies and priorities is why 94% of voting Canadians voted for someone else than the NDP last election, and Lewis as leader isn't going to suddenly change the pendulum in the NDP's favour.

Heck if anything, oilsands is only getting stronger (in large part to Trans Mountain pipeline, SAGD lower operating cost versus shale active exploration and drilling costs giving the advantage slowly back to oilsands) and we should do everything we can to support it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-checkout=true

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus...ine-delivering

In other words, why do you think Albertans (or other Canadians in general) need the federal NDP or Lewis to protect them or preach on what is best for them? You can be fully aware of climate change, fully supporting of a gradual transition to renewables (frankly a solid clean energy transition cannot happen without nuclear being part of the transition IMO), and agree that Alberta should diversify its economy for its own sake while being against the ideologically led approach to fully eliminate fossil fuels as quickly as possible prematurely.

Again, any true clean energy transition plan requires nuclear as part of it, and Avi Lewis is very outspoken and very against nuclear, which in my eyes makes him purely ideologically driven instead of pragmatic. The hand wavy thing of 'training and we will help them' when discussing fossil fuel workers loss of jobs in the process just isn't a real plan that will ever shape into a true reality (i.e how does a city like Fort McMurray transition if we were to cut fossil fuels 100%? It will simply be close to extinction). No amount of hand wavy promises can save killing the city's main industry outright, the reason of living in Fort McMurray largely disappears and it turns into an East Coulee.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

Not disagreeing at all, but want to comment on the tough job about creating and supporting structure for business. IMO Where they actually create the most value is by taking on the early risk that private companies won’t. When something is expensive, unproven, and years away from a commercial payoff, the market stays out for perfectly rational reasons. That’s where government steps in.

I remember learning in uni (millennial here so bear with me) that the oil sands are the obvious Canadian example: the province carried the technical and financial uncertainty until the method worked, and then private capital scaled it into a real industry. From there, Alberta exploded economically and we're all reaping the benefits of it.

To me, that's the hard job for government; measuring where taking on that risk is worth it and where it's not. Now it might not be nationalizing grocery stores or what-have-you; but I have really enjoyed the back and forth and mostly respectful discussion y'all have had.

I absolutely agree with your point, although I could quibble on the calculation of most value. Ensuring the entire economy is running as it should has way more impact than a given industry or tech. Having said that, I agree that one of the only ways the gov't should be involved in industry is seeding new tech/ideas/industries. But this needs to be done through incentives, seed funding, incubators and possibly even guaranteed funding for proven early-stage ideas. Then let the market do what it does. Gov't employees should not be picking and choosing which is the next big thing. Consult industry, academics, venture capitalists, etc., and create an environment that enables companies to thrive.