So what you are saying is I should be OK with polluting the planet with my non-ecco-friendly car because the money I save makes up for the pollution I make? Ok, when did become OK to do wrong things if you have the money to pay for it. OK, so lets come up with a speeding credit that allows people to drive above speed limit. How does that one work with you? Or are you gonna say it's not the same cause speeding kills people? But then pollution is killing the planet which will in turn kill people. Are you getting all this?

Doesn't it make more sense to not pollute then to pollute but pay a fee for it?



Ahh, hello? Ever wonder why ecco-friendly cars are not exactly cheap? ever wonder why there are so few of them on the road? Ever wonder how long it will be before ecco-friendly cars become used ecco-friendly cars that people like me may be able to afford someday? Ever wonder how much it would cost to maintain a car that the average mechanic now a days may not know how to fix and really I would not want touching?



You say that as if you are 100% sure of that and can back this statement up with proof that does not exist yet. Do you have a time machine or something?



Really? Then I wonder how come some of my coworkers were surprised to know that I tend to lean right on most of my opinions while being considered poor. I don't think I'm poor, thought I do struggle day in and day out to stay afloat.



I thought the economy was doing bad? At least thats what some here say. Did I miss something that made it improve?

well, no income disparity will be pretty stupid in any economy.. - for the exact reason you state -.

However, it is not what most liberal wants.



which is far from being a third-world country output, as you called it earlier.



Actually, I would rather say that's it's the USA's GDP per capita that is somewhat abnormal compared to the rest of the world. You have a lot of luck of having a new country, low civil problem, low population density and plenty of ressource for highly-mechanized industry during the 20th century.

Canada's excuse is.. well, not an "excuse" rather than a reason. Lower market base, and strange financial policies - until recently - kinda explained.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?



Well, yhea. For the exact reason I put earlier: such "tax" would not actually be collected by the governement, but by eco-friendly industry, who will have an incentive to develop more eco-friendly patents and technology.

There is a company in Quebec that created a device that catch CO2 in the atmosphere to produce carbon-based nutriment for the fields. Before the carbon-market, such technology would have costed too much for the income generated, but the company now also sells carbon credit generated by it's carbon-catching, which improves it's income and make the project economicly viable.

Such device will, over time, improve. The more the market will ask for carbon credit, the more patents and technology will be invented, improved or put to use (because before they were too expensive), and the more efficient toward eco-friendliness we will be as an industry overall. Economical Engineering.

It's the exact thing that happened in the oil field of Alberta. before, the mean to extract the oil was way too costly. But now that the oil is a sky-high price, it became profitable to extract it. The procedure was known for quite some time, but not profitable. After some time, the oilers are becoming more and more experienced, and develop more efficient way of doing their work.

If they had an economical insentive to catch their carbon emmission (as opposed to right now, where they pollute - and that's it -) and sell-them for carbon credits, they would do it. - except if there is a more efficient way of compensating for their pollution -.



Basic micro-economic theory, as Draginol put it. If you apply a tax to something, the price will usually be increased for the consumers (actually, sometime it's shared between producers and consumers, but I always had trouble explaining why to people wihtout a graph). On the other hand, if car producers gain an extra income if they produce fuel-efficient car, they will probably use the opportunity to lower their price and sell more - at more profit -.

But Draginol, as you put it, prices will probably increase for eco-unfriendly cars, on the short run only. Since they will probably see their profit fall a little, the producers will have a good economic incentive to actually try to create the best eco-friendly car available. Over time, they will build a good expertise around such technology, and the price will gradually drop.

Right now, there is only some norms for the industry to respect (I don't now what it is actually, but let's use an invented example). Example, if the norm is: no car should have a CO2 output of more than 1 ton/1000 km, you will see more car produced having a CO2 output of 0.99 tons/km. There is not insentive to become AS GOOD AS POSSIBLE, except trying to sell smugness to your customer with hybrid cars.

Okay, now that we can take carbon out of the air, that should be the only way to get carbon credits. No more freebies. You get whatever you take out, that's it. Then you'll be living a carbon-neutral life for real. Businesses like the one described can sell their carbon credits to polluters, while neutralizing the pollution. I don't have a problem with that at all.

maybe we should adapt the air scrubbers they use on subs and space craft.

well.. that would be economical disaster to many companies. It is more realist to apply a simple cap on emmission in order to weed out the most eco-inneficient (hell, if a company that has "average" efficiency decide to change it's equipment to be much more eco-friendly in order to get an extra income, that would be even better, but let's not force those at first). Then, when the general cap is getting reached (or the carbon credit is getting too low), gradually lower the cap to continue weeding out these companies. In about 40 years, we can make HUGE progress, and create a whole NEW industry.

The whole idea that "companies should decrease their CO2 output on volountary basis" is stupid. I mean, what company would actually do this if they don'T see an advantage (either concrete or not concrete) to do it?

Let's give them a reason. That's all I ask, and let the market solve our problem.

Ask for reasonnable carbon-emmission cap on all industries, and a Carbon Stock Market in America.

I think the technology was based on this, but until recently, it was un-profitable to do it.

I mean, who should pay to clean the air? The governement?! Certainly not! Let the polluters pay, in the form of carbon credit to buy!

Economical disaster is nothing if you think carbon is causing an ecological disaster. If there's no good place to live, what's the point of all this money?

"Potentiel Ecological Disaster" would be a better way of putting it. One that is building up if we just sit and do nothing. But simply putting a tax for every single carbon emmited by the industries will make many people like you react quite too-harshly and in an antagonist way.

this should read

one that might be building up if we just sit and do nothing.


according to your opening line.

you can fix anything if you throw enough money at it.

I dunno, it's pretty bad. (Quebec's GDP). It's heading towards being half ours.

Sounds like you're describing Canada. Oh, no wait, that's the USA you're describing. So explain why Canada's GDP is so sucky then?

Canada and the USA make a nice experiment on economics. Both had roughly equal advantages starting out. But one has fallen far far behind.  Which one is the more "liberal" of the two?

Which puts the truth to the statement that got this going: Liberalism creates poverty.

what country had people standing in line for days to buy a loaf of bread.

what way did that country lean.

Higher population, which means higher market, which means better business opportunities for U.S. companies.

Also, your country's national ressource were located in roughly warm climate, which makes the extraction cost much lower, which explain why business were naturally more attacted there during the last two centuries.

You want to know other natural advantage your country has? Or I made my point?

Quebec's GDP per capita is slowly, but surely increasing at a respectable rate. It is true that we should lean more toward conservatism, but not because of economical reasons, but sociological.

Since you don't want to refute my points about Carbon Credit, I take it you accept them all, Draginol, and you just want to criticize my homeland?

i heard a different point of view about the polar bear population today. it isn't going down.


and according to what you said. in 1960 there was up to 25000 bears and today there are 30000 bears. looks to me like an increase.


as for the prey, predator dance. prey start going down or up while the predator is still going in the other direction.

Wait, according to the international code of liberalism, we should be paying welfare to Canada.

what you talking about?

to whom are you talking?

And where did you took the numbers? The population is actually estimated between 20k and 24k

LOL.  Do you even know where the wealth of the US (or Canada) comes from?

It ain't from mining or farming.

What has stopped Canada from being a leader in the technology industry?

Canada is poorer than the United States for the same reasons as Western Europe - there is less motivation to take risks because those who are successful are parasited on by the welfare state.

if it is not from primary and secondary industries that built up during the 19th and 20th century, then no, enlighten me.

Every financial business is simply a by-product of the above.

Probably not luck -- he bought the ranch as a campaign prop before his first run for Texas governor Please post where we can read on this. This sounds like more liberal bs. --Karma Girl

I was just posting on hearsay, not an article I read, but I think it checks out. Except that it was for running for President, not governor. He purchased it in 1999. Of course he may have just needed somewhere to stay after the governor's mansion. The ranch was definitely used as a campaign prop -- photo ops in front of the old barn, TV crews invited to film Bush "clearing brush." It would be hard to prove that's the only reason he bought it. But why else would you want to live in Crawford, Texas? It's like 400 people. Why not go live in Houston where you can live by your friends and mom Barbara? Go live in River Oaks with other rich people like Ken Lay. But saying you hail from "Crawford" does a lot more for your Texas brand identity than saying you're from "River Oaks." Few people know you've only been from Crawford for twelve months.

I just have to say, though, as a campaign prop, it's an ideal one. It's only 4,000 square feet and it's so eco-friendly Link, it just says, "This guy really cares about the environment in his personal life." Al Gore's house says, "This guy only cares about the environment on TV."

Cikomyr, I went to the trouble of looking up each industry's contribution to GDP at this Link on page 8, Table 1. But when I tried to imagine whether it would add anything to the discussion I realized this argument could never possibly go anywhere. But the table was hard to find so I'm giving you the link anyway.

Just as George and Laura Bush chose Crawford as a place to get away from the hustle and bustle of Austin and now Washington D.C., many of the town residents are professionals working in Waco who make Crawford their own getaway. However, this quiet country town will never be the same now that the "The Southwest Wing" of the White House has arrived.

Good link, danielost. How'd you find that? I didn't see it with the search terms I used. Still, "professionals working in Waco" is a different economic class than Bush. I'd be surprised if Gore or Teresa Kerry had any of those kind of people in their chosen neighborhoods.

Why should I spend my time to educate you when you will simply find excuses to ignore what's staring at you in the face:

Canada and the US have similar backgrounds and advantages. Even states that border Canada have a higher GDP.

Heck, even Montana, one of the poorest, most desolate states in the US has a higher per capita GDP than Quebec.

Economic systems have a lot more to do with the success of a nation state than natural resources.  Otherwise, Japan would be dirt poor and Russia would be incredibly rich.

 

Draginol,

Yes, our GDP is lower than that of the U.S, but still ranks pretty high in the overall picture in comparison to the rest of the globe. As an aside, the GDP numbers are debatable depending on your source, and how the numbers get crunched. The other day I was reading one report saying that Canada's GDP was closer to 38 K not 35 K. But anyway, if you say 35 that's fine. A few reasons why our overall GDP is lower... and yes, I am going to pull the population card!

Our nation is geographically larger than the U.S, but we have approximately 10% of the population the U.S does. This means we have to spend a LOT of money just to keep infrastructure, roads, communications links operational over great distances, serving a relatively small populus. This requires a massive infusion of capital from the government just to make the country run. If we were to privatize a lot of these industries and try to run them "for profit" there would be no viable business case, and the country would literally fall apart into a bunch of small nation states.

For example, let's examine offering phone service to communities in northern canada-say you have a community of 1000 people in a remote area, there are no terestrial facilities over which communications can be run (no buried cable or radio relays) so if that community wants phone and internet it's going to have to be done over satellite. So that means that the community needs an earth station facility, RF equipment and sat modems installed, plus some transponder space on the satellite itself. Then the town needs to get a switch to take the traffic that comes off the satellite, which is a pretty penny too. All of that is very expensive, and for a community of 1000 people the cost of the equipment, plus the recurring costs of paying for transponder space and maintaining the equipment far outstrips the revenue that will ever be collected from the town. The only way that the cost of putting in that communication infrastructure could ever be recovered is if the people in that town were charged 300 or 400 dollars a month for basic phone service, which most people can not pay.

So, the government steps in, negotiates with industry, and works out a subsidized solution. That's not socialism by the way, but keynesianism which is what's called a mixed economy. It means that instead of the business making a big profit it might make a smaller profit, or absolute worst case scenario all operational costs are covered and the business breaks even- but in the end, the average joe can afford these things. Both Canada and the U.S are mixed economies, but currently the U.S is drifting away from that more toward a Milton Friedman-ized vision of a pure free market with no price controls. But that's another topic entirely. The point is we have to subsidize a lot of our industries because if we didn't, the country as is simply wouldn't exist.

Also, the GDP is not the be-all and end all indicator of economic health. For example the Canadian dollar has recently surpassed the American dollar in value- today the exchange rate is 1.02 I think, on Friday we almost hit 1.04.

Also of note, we have a modest trade surplus, which is a prime indicator of economic health. What this means is that more money enters our borders through trade than leaves- the U.S on the other hand, has a massive trade deficit, making your nation dependent on other countries buying your debt just so that you can continue to buy cheap junk from Asia. If it weren't for China and Japan (and the UK) buying up all those U.S treasuries you'd be in a world of hurt right now, and now that the U.S dollar is sinking like the titanic in comparison to the Euro and other world currencies, foreign creditors have been quietly dumping their reserves of U.S currency over the past few months... if you'll recall China's finance minister was making noise a few months back about the country engaging in "financial diversification" which really meant they were going to start dumping their glut of U.S dollars in favour of other currencies. This has consequently added to the speed with which the US greenback is falling in value, which could cause the dreaded cascade failure and a recession, or worst case depression!