[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '
')Carver, I found this article very interesting, as it shows how trying to keep an unviable or marginal industry alive can have perverse side effects, I cannot even call them unintended consequences.

[CARVER]

Thanks for the explanation MrBill.

I think short term it might be benefitial to specialise, long term it might be more beneficial to be more diversified due to the uncertainty of how this situation will develop. However by diversifying we would reduce the efficiency/productivity now, and that means that people will 'suffer' from that, and it will probably be the people with limited options.

Also I think it would require investment that would not pay off in the short term. If we want to protect ourselves from the uncertain future we have to pay for it, so we need to make some sacrifices, and thus replace current consumption with investment that will provide improved future consumption. But it seems to me that is not the switch the average european consumer tends to make. I think it is more common to switch from consuming to saving, and then it is up to the banks to make the investments. But who would be willing to take the risks of getting a loan in an environment where people start saving instead of consuming? Or would banks be willing to invest in companies instead of giving them loans? I think this situation can result in a slowdown in the economy, if less money is invested or borrowed that means that less people can get paid, or people will be paid less. That would mean that more people lose their job, which would reduce the spending of money even more, a feedback loop. So we'd basically stop working, and that can't be the proper solution to this problem. We need to keep working, we just need to do different work. But to do that we would have to invest in it. It seems to me we need to pay ourselves with our own money to keep working, otherwise we would just sit on our money and watch how things deteriorate and wonder why we can't get a paying job. Untill the government steps in and borrows all the money and starts investing it so that we will start working again.

MrBill, you mentioned already a bit about what banks can and cannot do with the money. Could banks invest a very large part of the savings into campanies as stockholders? Or are there rules for that and is that considered too risky an investment in general?

[MrBill]

No Carver, you're on the right track. Private Equity. No quarterly goals to watch. Invest where you think there is money to be made or in this case, where you can make a difference in terms of alternative energy technologies and/or other industries where you see a future post peak oil. Not without its risk, but attracting more and more money which is thinking strategically.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')EW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Ethanol producers VeraSun Energy and Aventine Renewable Energy Inc. both filed to raise a total of $200 million as alternative energy makes its way into the market for initial public offerings. Complete Story...

[The_Virginian]

riiiight, exporting jobs (of any kind) is good!

So is over 9 trillion in debt....and growing.

if it looks good on paper....



---------

An "in-efficient" economy that provides some profit, and better jobs may not be the worst goal... of course all of us agree that standards of living are "set" to decline....the question is how far and how fast?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'r')iiiight, exporting jobs (of any kind) is good!

So is over 9 trillion in debt....and growing.

if it looks good on paper....



---------

An "in-efficient" economy that provides some profit, and better jobs may not be the worst goal... of course all of us agree that standards of living are "set" to decline....the question is how far and how fast?

[CARVER]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'P')rivate Equity. No quarterly goals to watch. Invest where you think there is money to be made or in this case, where you can make a difference in terms of alternative energy technologies and/or other industries where you see a future post peak oil. Not without its risk, but attracting more and more money which is thinking strategically.

[Mesuge]

Mr. Bill, your arguments are reasonable and well supported by facts and sources. However, you are missing or unreporting one important point about the whole Euro project. The idea of single market on the continent has not been devised for the benefit of the people or humanity per se but by the euro based capitalists in the first place.

Obviously some concessions in the environment, labor laws department etc. (which is good) were thrown on the public as a part of the contract but that's all.. It's a capitalistic system with some relatively generous social wellfare still in place as opossed to other regions.

The results of widespread deregulation are always as follows. Let's say you have innitially state owned not very for profit oriented utilities like drinking water system which goes private. The new multinational owner gets commercial loan for the purchase then invests some money and improves the infrustructure system sooner than the previous state owner used to go after his business. Customer are happy, all seems to be jolly good. But that's where the fun ends. In order to repay the loan the multinational increases utility prices, demand drops, prices go up, this cycle repeat itself. After some time the investment is not so profitable and the new investment into infrustructure is starting to slow or even deteorate but generally it's still good business because people can't stop using these services/utilities..
And you can always call the government in to help you bail out for this 'strategic part of the economy' - so what's the point of deregulation in any case?

So in the end you get only average quality service for higher price than in originally state/local owned scenario. That's how it works all around the world, deregulation of UK railroads and energy sector under Thatcher, eurowater deregulation on the continent in the 1990s etc..

[Kingcoal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') know, I know, I am so dumb and you all are so smart. I just do not understand anything do I? I cannot even come up with any oversimplified, but easy to understand models of the real world. Just kidding, without you to bait me, what would I do for fun? ; - )

[jaws]

East Germany and the USSR had very strong manufacturing bases. The problem is they didn't manufacture anything useful.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o in the end you get only average quality service for higher price than in originally state/local owned scenario. That's how it works all around the world, deregulation of UK railroads and energy sector under Thatcher, eurowater deregulation on the continent in the 1990s etc..

[drew]

I've got to jump in guys, this is too fun. Mr Bill, being you're a canuck, you surely heard of the 407 etr? (Ontario's toll hiway, built by tax dollars in the '90's, and leased to private concerns for 99 years, for those not in the know.) Mr. Bill you can't say this has been good for the citizenry of Ontario. First it is funded by taxpayers, and now no one, not even the gov. has a say in how high the tolls will go. The provincial gov. took the corp. to the courts several times and lost. The company running the show isn't the original owner either; they sold it to a cpmpany with almost no capital of their own, instead they borrowed very heavily, and have no choice but to charge exorbirant rates to make the payments, and turn a profit of course! Of course the M. Harris conservatives sold the lease to the hiway for pennies on the dollar, and why a 99 year lease?? I beleive that public infrastructure should be entirely the government's realm, otherwise abuse seems to abound, just like your antagonist states. As for gov. inefficiency and corruption, so what? Lots of companies are too. As you know, I like Keynes' ideas, the practice of which is the issue, not the principle.

Drew

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'I')'ve got to jump in guys, this is too fun. Mr Bill, being you're a canuck, you surely heard of the 407 etr? (Ontario's toll hiway, built by tax dollars in the '90's, and leased to private concerns for 99 years, for those not in the know.) Mr. Bill you can't say this has been good for the citizenry of Ontario. First it is funded by taxpayers, and now no one, not even the gov. has a say in how high the tolls will go. The provincial gov. took the corp. to the courts several times and lost. The company running the show isn't the original owner either; they sold it to a cpmpany with almost no capital of their own, instead they borrowed very heavily, and have no choice but to charge exorbirant rates to make the payments, and turn a profit of course! Of course the M. Harris conservatives sold the lease to the hiway for pennies on the dollar, and why a 99 year lease?? I beleive that public infrastructure should be entirely the government's realm, otherwise abuse seems to abound, just like your antagonist states. As for gov. inefficiency and corruption, so what? Lots of companies are too. As you know, I like Keynes' ideas, the practice of which is the issue, not the principle.

Drew

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s you know, I like Keynes' ideas, the practice of which is the issue, not the principle.

[drew]

You're right on the money about Keynes. I like the idea, it is the practice that is the problem. This is a similar issue to what is wrong with unfetterred capitalism btw; the behaviour of the actors.

In gov, the elected will do pretty much anything to get re-elected; ie: waste money like crazy when times are good, thus defeating the wisdom of Keynes.

In business, some of the actors choose to act unethically for whatever reason, usually profit of course; this forces the honest/ethical players into a less competitive situation, and they are forced to follow suit.

Take car repair for instance; I do all my own work 'cause the industry is filled with idiots or theives; somewhere in the order of 70% (W5 does a series on this every few years, by screwing up a good car in a minor way and then going under cover coast to coast asking for repairs at various garages) How is an honest garage supposed to remain competitive in this situation-the biggest thieves often run national ad campaigns about their 'honesty', and 'integrity'?

As for 'good' public sector deeds, (begun a long time ago of course) OHIP, Ontario Hydro, 400 series hiways, Toronto Subway, Welland Canal, Bell Canada, Canada Post, Petro Canada.

(yes, I know some are corps, but were given monopoly power, and a national mandate-phone service, for instance)

As for Petro Can, and the NEP, great idea, really really bad timing. (I liked Trudeau's nationalism BTW)

Drew

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for Petro Can, and the NEP, great idea, really really bad timing. (I liked Trudeau's nationalism BTW)

[drew]

Mr. Bill, don't be upset, it is entirely out of character. You are right about the centralization of power, but then that is absolutely nothing new. It predates confederation, as do the problems with PQ. Personally, I think the PQ problem is unresolvable. It is a different culture-it is not going away, or changing. The dissolution of the country is not a solution either.

As for Chretien, or Trudeau, you may not like them but at least they had the balls to stand up to our neighbours to the south. The present admin, and Mulroney before would sell us down the river for a quarter. My hatred for Mulroney certainly equals yours for Chretien. We would have been in Iraq if the timing of Mulroney or Harper was in power in 2003.

Foreigners owning Canada is also a huge problem, one which has worsened over the centuries. I am first and formost a nationalist, and wish our founding fathers had addressed this issue decades ago like they should have. This is not a new issue, at least the NEP was a step in that direction. I hate the fact we are a branch plant country primarly involved in selling our resources as fast as we can and manufacturing stupid cars for the yanks.

It's too nice a day to be upset, talk to you later

Drew

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('drew', 'M')r. Bill, don't be upset, it is entirely out of character. You are right about the centralization of power, but then that is absolutely nothing new. It predates confederation, as do the problems with PQ. Personally, I think the PQ problem is unresolvable. It is a different culture-it is not going away, or changing. The dissolution of the country is not a solution either.

As for Chretien, or Trudeau, you may not like them but at least they had the balls to stand up to our neighbours to the south. The present admin, and Mulroney before would sell us down the river for a quarter. My hatred for Mulroney certainly equals yours for Chretien. We would have been in Iraq if the timing of Mulroney or Harper was in power in 2003.

Foreigners owning Canada is also a huge problem, one which has worsened over the centuries. I am first and formost a nationalist, and wish our founding fathers had addressed this issue decades ago like they should have. This is not a new issue, at least the NEP was a step in that direction. I hate the fact we are a branch plant country primarly involved in selling our resources as fast as we can and manufacturing stupid cars for the yanks.

It's too nice a day to be upset, talk to you later

Drew

[The_Virginian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Virginian', 'r')iiiight, exporting jobs (of any kind) is good!

So is over 9 trillion in debt....and growing.

if it looks good on paper....



---------

An "in-efficient" economy that provides some profit, and better jobs may not be the worst goal... of course all of us agree that standards of living are "set" to decline....the question is how far and how fast?

[MrBill]

Ah, to be 1963 again. A fine year. Good wines, good cars, the US dollar went a long way in Europe back then. Good times.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t stake, in the view of many European experts, is the ability of countries like the big three — Germany, France and Italy — to adapt to a globalized world in which Europe's high labor costs and low population growth could portend a long-term decline, not just of economic power but of political influence as well.

There is an official set of goals, known as the Lisbon Agenda, that European Union members, fully aware of the long-term danger of decline, pledged to meet in March 2000. These include sustaining an average growth rate of 3 percent and creating 20 million jobs, in large part by encouraging innovation through investments in education and technology.

But the big three countries have not even come close. Their failure stems from a mutually reinforcing combination of timid, uncertain leadership, deep political divisions and large European populations ready to explode in furious opposition when changes are presented to them.

"The political leaders of all these countries know what needs to be done, and it's not rocket science," Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, in London, said in a telephone interview. "The Lisbon Agenda lays out objectives. But as Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg has said, everybody knows what reforms we need to implement but nobody knows how to implement them and win an election afterwards."

[CARVER]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')investments in education
... large European populations ready to explode in furious opposition when changes are presented to them
... "The political leaders of all these countries know what needs to be done, and it's not rocket science
... everybody knows what reforms we need to implement but nobody knows how to implement them and win an election afterwards."