U.S. Self-sufficient Oil Production would be a Threat to both the Tarsands and the Keystone Pipeline XL

U.S. Oil Production a Threat to Canadian Oil Industry So let's say the U.S. becomes relatively oil self-sufficient by 2017, as some argue, and let's say that self-sufficiency does not fully offset imported oil from Mexico and Venezuela, as the Tarsands organizations would hope. What happens to the main if not the only market for Alberta Oil? I think there is a compelling argument for the U.S. to keep the imports taps from Mexico and Venezuela as supplements when necessary, for this would not only  mitigate potential shortages but, more importantly,  solve one gigantic political and environment issue raging right now: namely, with relative self-sufficiency and supplementary backup sources, why allow the contentious Keystone XL pipeline to be built? Several downside factors would remain, however: the U.S. may still want to built the pipeline to create jobs and stimulate the economy, the U.S. would continue to deepen its dependency on oil instead of aggressively pursuing alternate green forms of energy, and the tarsands group would begin no doubt to seek Asian markets through our West Coast much more aggressively.

Bernake Would Seem to Get It. Does Flaherty?

http://goo.gl/CXd0Y Bernake would seem to get it: laying off government employees creates more unemployment. He also knows that any budget deficit should be constricted over a longer term, that cutting spending in the interests of deficit reduction too quickly will not help, and that the emphasis should be on fiscally stimulating the economy now to increase employment and thereby generate the economy and tax revenue in the process. Why doesn't Flaherty appear to get it with his steady as she goes stance instead of trying to get ahead of the curve?  He's calling for leadership in Europe. How about a little serious, smart leadership right here in Canada?  If commodities, which are the real engine of our economy,  go sideways and if the European crisis spills over to North America, as it is inevitably will, it may be more than a slowdown that will occur.  http://goo.gl/QcygU  Fiscal Austerity: Does it Work?: 

Smart Polling from EKOS: No Sign of Ontario Shifting to Tories

HIGHLIGHTS

Click to Enlarge

•  37.8% LPO
• 30.6% PC
• 22.7% NDP
• 7.3% Green
• 1.6% other

Direction of province (Ontario):

• 59% right direction
• 41% wrong direction

Direction of provincial government (Ontario):

• 53% right direction
• 47% wrong direction

Impact of majority Conservative federal government on provincial vote intention:

• 42% less likely to vote Ontario PC
  

  Click to Enlarge
• 34% neither more or less likely
• 16% more likely to vote Ontario PC
• 8% DK/NR

Emotions towards McGuinty government:

• 27% Discouraged
• 26% Angry
• 24% Hopeful
• 11% Happy
• 11% DK/NR

--------------------------------------------------------
What surprises me here in particular are the results on the impact of a majority federal government - 42% less likely to vote PC and only 16% likely  to vote PC as a result of that fact - and the demographic breakdown on  the direction of  both the government and the province. I also find the demographic  analysis of emotion fascinating. See the entire piece at Ipolitics.ca  to examine those intriguing breakdown analyses. Here's a teaser:

"The Ontario Liberals have an insignificant lead with seniors (which may be growing) and they are also leading with the crucial boomer segment. The Progressive Conservatives do well with seniors and men but they also do well with lower-educated voters who are less likely to vote. The Ontario Liberal Party has a massive lead with the university educated who are very likely to vote and may be emotionally engaged by the Liberals as well. The NDP does well with all of the groups that are softer voters (younger and lower socioeconomic status groups) and there is some evidence that they are not emotionally engaged enough to actually show up in the same proportions that they are found in our surveys."

Fiscal Austerity: Does it Work?

The Harper Regime is in the process of implementing some severe fiscal austerity measures. But does slashing spending and reducing deficits, as the advocates of such a policy claim,  really restore confidence and drive economic renewal?  It would seem not if we take both the Euro Zone countries - especially Greece where public servants are rioting in the streets of Athens - and the U.S. as examples. In fact, as Paul Krugman argues persuasively,  "budget austerity may well be counterproductive even from a purely fiscal point of view, because lower future growth means lower tax receipts."  


Get that: lower future growth means lower tax receipts, and there can be no growth, in the current world economic situation, without government stimulus funded by tax receipts. Not to mention that slashing government departments in the interest of so-called "efficiencies" requires firing people, who then cease to be tax payers providing government revenues since they are unemployed. Does axing employees ever inspire confidence except in some amoral/immoral investors who think cost cutting improves the bottom line and right wing economic pundits who think it inspires business investment? Not at this moment.


So what should be done?  Klugman says "the answer is that we need a major push to get the economy moving, not at some future date, but right now. For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the [in this case the Bank of Canada] and its counterparts abroad."


What this also means, I think, is that Mark Carney's stand-up push to get European banks more substantially capitalized is not necessarily the right move at this moment either, especially now that Greece wll probably default.   The theory is that further capitalization will mitigate risk and  forestall a potential banking collapse and resulting bailout.  But from where does that new capital come in these already struggling countries? Beats me, but my guess is European taxpayers.  Isn't this sharp stance just adding more pressure to an already absurd situation, which - let's face it - is going to migrate here to some extent no matter how much the Harper Regime tinkers with boutique tax credits while slashing, burning, and killing.


Once again, it's not about ordinary people, the 99%.  It's about the 1% - banks and their investors -  euphemistically called, as Jim Stanford says, "the market."  As always, finance trumps both industry and people.

The Liberals, NDP, and Greens Should Unite to Form a New Party

On the basis of this week alone, progressives are in for either four or, some have said, twenty years of soulful weeping. It's downright despairing.  I mean what's the use of following the House of Commons' deliberations when the outcomes will always be forgone conclusions arrived at by the Harper Regime's autocratic, mean, and twisted thinking?

What's to be done? Well there is always grassroots organization and massive protests about particular issues - letter writing, tweeting, blogging, marching, etc - but such a strategy while it is cathartic and may attract the media and therefore public attention will not sway this fascistic government one bit. Get real, eh? Besides, the conventional rhetoric of protest as a strategy has in general lost its edge because it has become so predictable and so commonplace.  It no longer startles.  Protest smotest says the general public and the government says even less.

There is always genuine guerrilla revolution - and it may actually come to that if the effects of global warming become  increasingly manifest  here in Canada - but for the moment that would seem a very drastic albeit not necessarily a totally undo-able choice under extreme circumstances.

So what could be done that is practicable and practical?  Well, this may sound a bit crazy, but the Liberals, NDP, and Green Party could get together to form a new party of progressives.  True, there is a significant conservative element in each of these parties and that's a good thing as a check - some conservative principles in and of themselves have value - but the progressive elements in all three parties far outweigh that conservative component. Of course each party would like to preserve its respective brand, and of course there would be hard negotiation and unpalatable compromises. But if things continue as they are this week, all three of these parties, I predict,  will feel themselves becoming increasingly frustrated and trapped, as will the 60% or so that did not vote for the Harper Regime.  This possibility may very well present itself in such a strained context.

In the meantime, perhaps we in the grassroots ought to begin lobbying each party in an effort to bring them together to initiate at least discussions of the possibility. It may be, under our current institutional system of government, the only way to get our country back.

New copyright Legislation is a Cave-In to US Studios to Prevent Lost Revenue Streams

Michael Geist is right on the new copyright bill: one part seeks a fairly good balance; the other, punishing digital lock breakers, is a cave-in to US Studios. People will find ways to copy a digitally locked DVD to mobile platforms and computers despite the deterrent. The question is shouldn't they be allowed to if they own the DVD? Public screening rights - in which, as a former film producer, I believe - should not apply to personal playback devices. What's the essential difference between playing back a movie on a DVD player and a mobile device? I suppose you could argue that a mobile device provides a disposition to share, but that's a weak and cynical argument assuming the worst of people: we'll legislate against fair use on these devices just in case they do decide to share. True, one can copy a DVD that doesn't have digital locks, but what commercial distributor is ever going to market a digital-lock free DVD?

This legislation is not about protecting creators' rights, as James Moore claims; it's about coercing us into buying either the DVD/Blu-ray with a digital copy or a downloadable digital copy for playback on a mobile or portable device. In other words, this is all about lost revenue streams not for creators, but distributors, who have a very powerful lobby in Washington - nothing more.

Leeds Grenville All Candidates

Only Charlie Taylor of the Green Party of Ontario offered a consistently progressive perspective at last night's safe and cozy Chamber affair. (I have yet to see a serious disagreement at any of these North Grenville Chamber of Commerce nights let alone a debate.) Both Dave Lundy (NDP) and Ray Heffernan (OLP) speechified us all night long in a desperate bid to gain support in what they know in their heart of hearts is a losing cause, and of course Steve Clark offered his usual slick talking gloss in addition to an enumeration of how many babies, figuratively speaking, he has kissed throughout Leeds Grenville since winning the seat from mad dog in a bi-election.

But Charlie came off as a real person, admitting at one point that he knew he hadn't a real chance of winning the seat and, on another, that he was no politician but was in it because he cared about the issues. This was no act: his sincerity was palpable and, most significantly, persuasive. Vote for the values to which you subscribe despite the political odds against you was one of Charlie's main messages. In other words, don't play politics with your vote.

The problem is that heroic effort was wasted even if it was cathartic, as all such pitches to our intelligence are in Leeds Grenville. Last night's attendance was sparse - but apparently larger than all the other all candidates meetings so far in the riding - but of those in attendance, not counting the wives and kids of candidates, at least 85% were over 65 while the other 15% were perhaps in their 40s or 50s. Of these, I counted 6 potential progressives, 3 of whom were Charlie's parents and partner. What's that tell you? You could run an orangutan in Leeds Grenville for the PCPO, and s/he win, and this has been going on for 92 years at the provincial level. Steve Clark could stay home and watch the whole thing on Cogeco and he'd still win. He wouldn't even have to send an avatar. The only question is by how much.