Topic: Making Canada Relevant Again- The Economic Super-Thread

[Redeye]

Let me just say that, having lived in Alberta half my life, I have lived around Fracking a long time. I know people who frack for a living. I have lived on a farm with a producing gas well that was fracked (fwiw, our tap contained natural gas both before and after the gas well went in).

However, Redeye, you have gained your knowledge of Fracking from the New York Times and a bunch of websites (most of which is complete crap and devoid of any independent scientific verification), so I will defer to you from here forward. Clearly, nothing anyone says here will change your mind.

There's pretty much no such thing as "independent scientific verification that would be acceptable to either party, I suspect. I don't know of much "fracking isn't destructive" study work, but it would almost assuredly be easy to trace who paid for it to industry groups - and likely the reverse is true. There is, as I said, enough out there that suggests that there's major problems with the technology, which is enough for me to be opposed until more work on mitigation becomes clear.

[SeaKingTacco]

There is, as I said, enough out there that suggests that there's major problems with the technology,

Says you.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[E.R. Campbell]

Redeye is getting close to what I think is the truth or near truth: not much of the "evidence" available on either side of almost any environmental question is "good." The companies employ skilled PR firms to make their case - emphasizing the benefits and hiding or, at least, camouflaging the risks. But so do the greenies, who are also both "big businesses" in their own right and employers of skilled PR agencies. Worse, from my point of view, the environmentalists get a free ride because we (almost) all agree that they are well intentioned and, by and large, nice people. What we forget is that:

1. There are a lot of reputable scientists in the environmental movement;
2. There are about as many reputable scientists working for the big, bad, dirty oil industry;
3. There are also a lot of self serving scientists charlatans, many with PhDs and their own TV shows in the environmental movement;
4. The media, like most Canadians, are unable to distinguish between the hard working, concerned, reputable scientists and the charlatans; and
5. Given that some of the charlatans are media celebrities their views get pretty uncritical acceptance.

The end result is that most of us are, honestly, concerned because we have been, often dishonestly, misinformed.

[Redeye]

Redeye is getting close to what I think is the truth or near truth: not much of the "evidence" available on either side of almost any environmental question is "good." The companies employ skilled PR firms to make their case - emphasizing the benefits and hiding or, at least, camouflaging the risks. But so do the greenies, who are also both "big businesses" in their own right and employers of skilled PR agencies. Worse, from my point of view, the environmentalists get a free ride because we (almost) all agree that they are well intentioned and, by and large, nice people. What we forget is that:

1. There are a lot of reputable scientists in the environmental movement;
2. There are about as many reputable scientists working for the big, bad, dirty oil industry;
3. There are also a lot of self serving scientists charlatans, many with PhDs and their own TV shows in the environmental movement;
4. The media, like most Canadians, are unable to distinguish between the hard working, concerned, reputable scientists and the charlatans; and
5. Given that some of the charlatans are media celebrities their views get pretty uncritical acceptance.

The end result is that most of us are, honestly, concerned because we have been, often dishonestly, misinformed.

That's basically what I was getting at, yes. There's a lot of science out there to try to pore over and it's not easy to get a clear picture without reading a lot. There are plenty of charlatans, and that way that research is funded is designed very carefully to obscure who is interested in the message of any particular study. Thus I find myself as you say concerned because I know that the clearly broadcast messages are not necessarily being presented fairly or honestly.

Is the oil and gas industry manifestly bad? No, not in my opinion. There's lots of people who work in those industries looking to preserve the environment as best as possible, and of course we have to balance the desire for a completely pristine environment with our need for fuel, and the myriad of other products dependent on petroleum and gas. When you really start to look at everything that ultimately comes from that industry, it becomes clear to me why we have to use those resources wisely. I want to see more innovation to use the products more efficiently and to get them more efficiently, protecting things like drinking water and so on.

[E.R. Campbell]

But what it appears, to me anyway, that you are ignoring, Redeye is that some (many, actually) people in the environmental movement have an intense anti-capitalist, anti-development agenda. Their concern is not a pristine environment, it is the destruction of our capitalist system and the introduction of something else.

I'll also repeat my contention that most of the greenies want to deny a billion plus poor Asians the sort of lower middle class life that we have taken for granted since about 1920 ... they are in the "I'm all right, Jack" mode and they are happy to not share resources with those who need them to move from grinding, human powered poverty to something better ... and motorized.

[Redeye]

But what it appears, to me anyway, that you are ignoring, Redeye is that some (many, actually) people in the environmental movement have an intense anti-capitalist, anti-development agenda. Their concern is not a pristine environment, it is the destruction of our capitalist system and the introduction of something else.

No, I'm well aware of them. While they get to the forefront (often so they can be best positioned as "the opponent" to development or so as to be seen as speaking for all people concerned about the environment or sustainability), they're not the majority of people who have an interest in the issues I don't think. They're basically a form of strawmen. There's plenty of people extremely concerned about environmental issues who want to find a good balance.

I'll also repeat my contention that most of the greenies want to deny a billion plus poor Asians the sort of lower middle class life that we have taken for granted since about 1920 ... they are in the "I'm all right, Jack" mode and they are happy to not share resources with those who need them to move from grinding, human powered poverty to something better ... and motorized.

That's not how I see things - part of the reason I'd love for more innovation to happen here is to make it available to all - to allow those "poor Asians" to skip a few generations of bad technology. They have an advantage in that sense that they don't need to follow the same development track (with its associated mistakes/inefficiencies). To put that in better context, or try to illustrate what I mean, look at telecommunications in the developing world - entire generations of technology like landlines have been skipped because there was no need to waste time, money, and resources when you can go straight to the cutting edge. No reason those "poor Asians" can't be helped to do the same.

A common fallacious argument about trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for example is that China and/or India will simply ignore any demands on them and that'll render any improvements we make moot. There's no reason to believe that if they have the ability to get access (or themselves develop, which I'm certain they'll do a lot of) technologies that efficiently meet the goals we are going for. As I understand it, for example, China is finally starting to acknowledge that air quality is a major problem in certain areas and actually working to improve it - just reporting it is a start, and I read recently about how the reporting of air quality is being improved to more clearly monitor things like particulate matter etc. That may well lead to public interest and then demand to do better.

[E.R. Campbell]

... I'd love for more innovation to happen here is to make it available to all - to allow those "poor Asians" to skip a few generations of bad technology. They have an advantage in that sense that they don't need to follow the same development track (with its associated mistakes/inefficiencies). To put that in better context, or try to illustrate what I mean, look at telecommunications in the developing world - entire generations of technology like landlines have been skipped because there was no need to waste time, money, and resources when you can go straight to the cutting edge. No reason those "poor Asians" can't be helped to do the same.

A common fallacious argument about trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for example is that China and/or India will simply ignore any demands on them and that'll render any improvements we make moot. There's no reason to believe that if they have the ability to get access (or themselves develop, which I'm certain they'll do a lot of) technologies that efficiently meet the goals we are going for. As I understand it, for example, China is finally starting to acknowledge that air quality is a major problem in certain areas and actually working to improve it - just reporting it is a start, and I read recently about how the reporting of air quality is being improved to more clearly monitor things like particulate matter etc. That may well lead to public interest and then demand to do better.

But right now, this year, hundreds of millions of families live off the productivity of the "beast of burden" in the picture below, which I took a little over a year ago. Innovation is great, and it will come ... but he wants to and can increase his productivity right now if, as I said before, he can progress - and it IS progress - from human power to motorized or electrical power. (Bearing in mind that most electrical power in China is generated in coal fired plants.)

China is interested in its environment - the Chinese do want to clean the air and water; but they also want to move from poverty to something better and they are not inclined to wait until a green technology is available. I have lived in some pretty poor places. The wretchedly poor people I have met, Africans, Arabs, Asians and others, are pretty much exactly like us - smart and dumb in the exact same ratios, honest and venal, just like us, brave and cowardly, like all the rest of humanity. And like all the rest of humanity, I cannot recall one one single Chinese person who thought that your environmentalism trumped his right to improve his lot in life ... the fellow in the picture is tired of waiting.

[Thucydides]

Sadly, many of the actual tchnologies that do exist are blocked or severely hamperd in the West. Nuclear power is virtually impossible to install, new generations of oil refining technologies are limited to the opposition to building new oil refineries and so on.

Foe the Chinese, this isn't as much of an issue, they are starting to build nuclear powerplants on a very large scale, but poorer nations either cannot afford nuclear energy, or are limited to older generations of design which are generally less efficient and less safe. (Anyone who is shopping for Russian nuclear reactors is literally playing with fire).

This is doubly bad, *we* don't get the benefit of cleaner, more efficient electricity or oil, nor are we developing high tech/high value industries that we can market to nations that need these products (a win/win proposition). As noted, the underlying thrust of the "Green" movement (which I will separate fron the environmental movement) is the opposition to capitalist and technological civilization. (Having been imersed in the field environment for most of my professional life, I do support the preservation and upkeep of the environment, but I do not believe for a moment that the methods advocated by the Greens are the way to do this).

[Kirkhill]

Instead of frakking how do you feel about throwing some bugs down Sidney Mines or some of the old Spring Hill shafts and let them produce Methane - aka Biogas (good) or Natural gas (bad).

http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2011/05/bioconversion-of-in-situ-coal-to-methane-microbes-used-to-convert-coal-to-gaseous-fuel.html

I am sure it would work equally well with Chinese speaking bugs.

New, and old, technologies come in all shapes and sizes.

[Redeye]

Now that is interesting indeed!

Instead of frakking how do you feel about throwing some bugs down Sidney Mines or some of the old Spring Hill shafts and let them produce Methane - aka Biogas (good) or Natural gas (bad).

http://eem.jacksonkelly.com/2011/05/bioconversion-of-in-situ-coal-to-methane-microbes-used-to-convert-coal-to-gaseous-fuel.html

I am sure it would work equally well with Chinese speaking bugs.

New, and old, technologies come in all shapes and sizes.

[Thucydides]

Rex Murphy on the role of "Greens" in the decision making process. The end of their "free ride" in the press now that the Resource Minister Joe Oliver has publicly called them out should create changes (although not all of them may be considered positive)

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/14/rex-murphy-thou-must-not-question-big-environment/

Rex Murphy: Thou must not question Big Environment
Rex Murphy  Jan 14, 2012 – 9:02 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 13, 2012 5:06 PM ET
 
Like the Pope speaking ex cathedra, Greenpeace can never be wrong

The environmental movement has enjoyed smooth, mostly untroubled progress since its beginnings in the 1960s, when its activists romped around the northern sea floes off the coast of Labrador. The enviros migrated with almost the same punctuality as the seals: Every spring, you could treat yourself to the sight of them bobbing up and down on the ice-pans, high-bosomed starlets stroking the pelts of large-eyed newsmen and seals alike, whole platoons of photographers aiming for the perfect cute shot, and a kite tail of various enthusiasts and camp followers to give a sense of noise and drama. Labrador is more or less quiet these days: Those Who Care have decamped to the oil sands and other pastures.


Robert Redford, when he can tear himself away from the general dorkiness of the Sundance Festival, is big on saving the planet these days. James Cameron can generally be found rustling the vines somewhere in the Amazon rain forest. Leonardo DiCaprio is always good for a Vanity Fair cover as long as its backlit and there’s a polar bear somewhere. Mixing it up with the environmental crusaders is good PR for Hollywood one-percenters — takes the heat off their monstrous paydays, their jets and, for that matter, most of their silly movies.

Some enviro groups have grown corporate in size, techniques and attitude. Greenpeace is now to the environmental world what GM used to be to the automobile world. The various Sierra Clubs dot the world like McDonald’s. As the example of Canada’s own Northern Gateway pipeline shows, modern environmental protestors have refined a basic set of skills to near perfection: deploying legal challenges to stall a project, taking advantage of hearings to protract and delay, signing on huge numbers of groups and individuals to take part in such hearings. They are expert at singling out one activity and applying all their focus and energy toward stopping it.

The big-name environmental groups are routinely excellent communicators — faster, clearer and quicker with the message than governments or industry. I credit them for this, incidentally. Good for them that they have tuned themselves so finely, learned the game. Businesses and politicians have always been way behind in the new world of publicity and protest, and it is their own fault — half-laziness and half arrogance — that they are.

The greatest advantage the greens have had is the relative absence of scrutiny from the press. Generally speaking, it’s thought to be bad manners to question self-appointed environmentalists. Their good cause, at least in the early days, was enough of a warrant in itself. And when it was your aunt protesting the incinerator just outside town, well that was enough. But when it’s some vast congregation of 20,000 at an international conference, or thousands lining up to present briefs protesting a pipeline, well, let’s just say this is not your aunt’s protest movement anymore.

There is no such thing as investigative environmental reporting — or rather very precious little of it in the established media. Environmental reporters rarely question the big environmental outfits with anything like the fury they will bring to questioning politicians or businesspeople. Advocacy and reportage are sometimes close as twins.

And so the great thing I see about Resource Minister Joe Oliver’s little rant against Northern Gateway pipeline opponents a few days ago — asking whether some groups are receiving “outside money” or if they are proxies for other interests — is not so much the rant itself, but rather the fact that at last some scrutiny, some questions are being asked of these major players. Big environment, however feebly, is being asked to present its bona fides. And that’s a good thing: The same rigor we bring to industry and government, in looking to their motives, their swift dealing, must also apply to crusading greens.

Where does their money come from? What are their interests in such and such a hearing? What other associations do they have? Are they a cat’s paw for other interests? Do they have political affiliations that would impugn their testimony? In hearings as important as the ones over the Northern Gateway pipeline, with the jobs and industry that are potentially at stake, the call to monitor who is participating in those hearings is a sound and rational one.

No one should be excluded from those hearings — at least, no one who has a solid and honest objection to the project. But some amount of transparency from all those environmental groups that demand “transparency” from everyone else is a reasonable ambition as well. Let us have some vetting of the vetters. To that degree, I applaud the Minister.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

[Thucydides]

And the Prime Minister sums it up nicely:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/16/pol-harper-mansbridge-interview.html

Harper says pipeline debate should be left to Canadians
Canada not 'giant national park' for U.S., prime minister says
CBC News
Posted: Jan 16, 2012 9:01 PM ET
Last Updated: Jan 17, 2012 7:16 AM ET
       
Any decision on developments such as the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline should be left to Canadians, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

"It's one thing in terms of whether Canadians, you know, want jobs, to what degree Canadians want environmental protection. These are all valid questions," Harper said in an exclusive interview Monday with CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge.

"But just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don't think that's part of what our review process is all about."

The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project is a proposal by Canadian oil and gas company Enbridge to build two pipelines stretching 1,177 kilometres between the Alberta oilsands and the West Coast. The Northern Gateway would have the capacity to transport 525,000 barrels of oil per day.
P.O.V.

Just before hearings on the project began, Harper and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver raised the issue of foreign money going to environmental groups earlier this month. The groups say they get a small amount of funding from outside of Canada and that the government is trying to refocus the debate when much of the investment in the oilsands comes from outside of Canada.

"I don’t object to foreigners expressing their opinion," Harper told CBC News. "But I don’t want them to be able to hijack the process so that we don’t make a decision that's timely or in the interests of Canadians."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the task of finding a balance between jobs and environmental protection is one that should be left to Canadians. Prime Minister Stephen Harper says the task of finding a balance between jobs and environmental protection is one that should be left to Canadians. (CBC)

Harper said news the Obama administration would delay a decision on whether to approve extending TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline was a wakeup call about the degree to which Canada is "held hostage" to U.S. decisions. He has since pressed for Canada to seek out new markets in Asia.

But while the government has made a case for Canadian oil as being more ethical than fuel produced in countries with poor human rights records, Central and Eastern Canada tend to buy oil from outside the country rather than from the oilsands.

Harper said that is odd, but there's nothing the government can do about it.

"We're really the only supplier that is secure and is increasing its production. So I think [being market-driven has] served the country well. It's served government revenues well. It's served creation of jobs well. But it is fundamentally a market-based decision. We don't dictate pipelines go here or there."

The wide-ranging interview covered a number of issues, including:
   
* Public sector pension plans: Harper says the government is looking at ways to bring them closer to private sector norms. "As an employer, we have to have a pension plan that is reasonable and attractive to get people into the public sector, but it should not be significantly more generous than what would be available in the private sector." The government also has to look at the pensions of parliamentarians, he said.
   
 * Iran: Harper says it's "beyond dispute" that the country is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that Iran frightens him. "These are people who have a particular, you know, fanatically religious world view, and their statements imply to me no hesitation of using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes."
   
 * Aboriginal Canadians: Harper says significant change needs to happen, but it will be gradual. "My own experience is that it will not be grand visions and declarations that achieve these things. It will be moving forward one step at a time, as we've been trying to do on things like water, investments in education, obviously building of trust, you know, as we've done through the residential school apology, and endorsement of the Declaration of Indigenous Rights."

[GAP]

Not sure if this belongs here or in Global economy thread.....

U.S. economy unlikely to fully recover: Carney
Postmedia News  Jan 22, 2012
 Article Link
 
By Robert Hiltz
OTTAWA — Canada needs to look beyond its southern neighbour for markets because the United States economy is unlikely to ever fully recover, Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said Sunday.
In an interview with CTV’s Question Period, Carney said that it is vital for Canada to look for new trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere to prevent the economy from being dragged down by the U.S.
“It’s going to take a number of years before they get back to the U.S. that we used to know — in fact, they are not, in our opinion, ultimately going to get back to the U.S. that we used to know,” he said.
Carney pointed to China as a market with great potential and as a place where Canada is currently under-represented, but cautioned it would take time to enhance trade between the two countries.
“It’s going to take multiple visits, multiple initiatives. Not, obviously, from the public sector alone, but clearly a focus from the private sector,” Carney said. “That is absolutely essential for developing our future and it’s a key element of our medium-term growth.”
More on link

[E.R. Campbell]

Not sure if this belongs here or in Global economy thread.....

U.S. economy unlikely to fully recover: Carney
Postmedia News  Jan 22, 2012
 Article Link
 
By Robert Hiltz
OTTAWA — Canada needs to look beyond its southern neighbour for markets because the United States economy is unlikely to ever fully recover, Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said Sunday.
In an interview with CTV’s Question Period, Carney said that it is vital for Canada to look for new trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere to prevent the economy from being dragged down by the U.S.
“It’s going to take a number of years before they get back to the U.S. that we used to know — in fact, they are not, in our opinion, ultimately going to get back to the U.S. that we used to know,” he said.
Carney pointed to China as a market with great potential and as a place where Canada is currently under-represented, but cautioned it would take time to enhance trade between the two countries.
“It’s going to take multiple visits, multiple initiatives. Not, obviously, from the public sector alone, but clearly a focus from the private sector,” Carney said. “That is absolutely essential for developing our future and it’s a key element of our medium-term growth.”
More on link

I put the story (different source) on the US/World Economics' effect on Canada thread yesterday, and I was wondering, given my comments, if it didn't belong in the Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy thread. Mark Carney has a habit of saying interesting things that have ramifications across many areas.

[ridgecrest]

The U.S. is Canada's true ally. The markets aren't looking too great for China and they could collapse from within. 

[Thucydides]

Canada has been looking farther afield for years. We have free trade deals with nations like Chile, signed expanded trade treatys with the EU (although given their current economic issues that might not have been such a great move) and are looking to expand our presence in the Pacific rim as well.

Still, as Edward has said, geography alone makes the US our closest neighbour and biggest market. (Just look at the difference between a straight pipeline to Texas and the current plan to ship oil to China involving a pipeline over the Rocky mountains, expanded port facilities on the West Coast and sheparding a tanker fleet through Canadian waters to and from the terminal). Spreading the reach of Canadian trade will be a very long term project, and Canadian business will need to be far more agressive in looking for overseas opportunities as well.

[E.R. Campbell]

At last!

A new, Conservative, social policy framework is taking shape, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-use-of-europes-debt-crisis-as-backdrop-for-speech-no-coincidence/article2318288/

Harper's use of Europe’s debt crisis as backdrop for speech no coincidence

STEVEN CHASE AND BILL CURRY

OTTAWA— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 27, 2012


The alpine city of Davos, Switzerland, may seem an odd venue for alerting Canadians that Ottawa might make some wait longer for social-security entitlements, but Stephen Harper chose the location with careful purpose.

Europe is where many governments are struggling with debt – exacerbated by the 2008-09 financial crisis, but in significant part caused by exceptionally generous social programs.

They face the prospect of dramatic spending cuts and social upheaval as they try to extricate themselves from the mess. Complicating the challenge is an aging population, with the massive boomer generation retiring and expecting long-promised government support.

“Europe is facing stark choices. Canada doesn’t want those stark choices,” one federal government official said, explaining Mr. Harper’s decision to discuss the matter during the annual Davos World Economic Forum.

“So the time to act is now.”

In a wide-ranging speech, the Prime Minister strongly hinted that he plans changes to old-age security payments – reforms that experts believe could ultimately raise the age of eligibility to 67 from 65.

He admonished industrialized countries for complacency about economic growth and affordable spending, saying Canada must work hard to avert a fiscal mess as its population ages and lives longer than previous generations.

“Is it a coincidence that, as the veil falls on the financial crisis, it reveals beneath it, not just too much bank debt, but too much [government] debt, too much general willingness to have standards and benefits beyond our ability or even willingness to pay for them?”

Sources say Mr. Harper had a major hand in writing his Davos remarks – he frequently shapes his own addresses – and some supporters are likening it to a Speech from the Throne, which governments deliver when they open a new session of Parliament.

Reworking old-age security to make it less costly is not a short-term initiative and would not likely affect would-be seniors for many years, so that Canadians have advance warning.

Mr. Harper appears to regard it as a legacy project and one his party and ministers now are selling to Canadians.

Ted Menzies, the Tory Minister of State for Finance, hammered home the notion on Friday that Canada must learn from the European experience.

“When you look at Europe right now, the reason that many of those countries are in the situation they’re in – a good portion of their problem – is unsustainable retirement promises to their citizens,” the minister said.

“Many countries have more people retired than are working and they’re all receiving a defined-benefit pension plan. We don’t want to get ourselves in that situation and we will guard against that,” he said.

An internal Conservative message sent to supporters on Friday described old-age security as a significant burden for ordinary Canadians that needs to be fixed.

“OAS is funded primarily through taxes on working people and is unsustainable on its current course,” the Tory message said. “If we do nothing, OAS will eventually become too expensive.”

First: it may be a little hypocritical for someone like me, who is well over 65, to be cheering for reduced benefits for e.g. my son, who, not being 40 yet, is likely to be the object of social policy changes; but

Second: we, all of us - no matter what age, must face the demographic and financial facts. Our social spending envelope, the money we ask our children and grandchildren - yet unborn, perhaps - to pay to support us, is too rich. We have, as Prime Minister Harper said, "too much [government] debt, too much general willingness to have standards and benefits beyond our ability or even willingness to pay for them ..." We are reluctant to say "no," but even more reluctant to pay up.

Harper, Flaherty and Menzies, et al are doing for future governments what Mulroney, Wilson and Mazankowski did for Chrétien, Martin and Harper: telling Canadians that we must live within our means. Bravo! 

[GAP]

There was an interview on Power Play (I believe) that the US has already started on this program. They have done it on the basis of 1 month per year extension, thus in 24 years retirement will be 67....

[GAP]

Interesting article on RIM and Founderitis

The diagnosis for Research In Motion: acute Founderitis
michael posner Globe and Mail Friday, Jan. 27, 2012
 Article Link
 
The phrase “severe reality distortion field” is probably not one you bump into every day. But if you were seeking a clinical description of the problems that continue to beset the once-vibrant health of BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion, SRDF might be just the ticket.

The phrase comes courtesy of Christine Comaford, a San Francisco-based “rapid-growth and turnaround expert,” who, as a BlackBerry owner, is also a disappointed observer of RIM's recent travails. “I am so depressed to see what's happening to the company.”

SRDF, according to Ms. Comaford, is a distinguishing symptom of Founderitis, a more serious malaise that, in her judgment, clearly victimized Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis, the former chief executive officers of RIM.

Sometimes referred to as Founder's Syndrome, it typically strikes successful business owners and organizations that fail to adapt to changing competitive landscapes.

Founders must overcome incredible odds to realize their visions, often by adopting unorthodox strategies.

For example, when Michael Overs, founder of Toronto's Pizza Pizza, was starting out, he insisted that all franchises share a single telephone number, and that customers be guaranteed delivery in 30 minutes – or the pizza would be free. Although consultants warned him that both ideas were impractical, he held out and built an empire. Iconoclasm, when it works, can pay huge dividends.

But with Founder's Syndrome, the very character assets that yield initial success – stubbornness, charisma, risk-taking – eventually become liabilities. Hostage to old ways of looking at the world, founders fail to see the emergence of new realities and can be blind to recommendations – or, in the case of RIM, demands – for change.
More on link

[E.R. Campbell]

A good and a fair question posed in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/why-isnt-ei-reform-on-harper-governments-radar/article2322100/

Why isn’t EI reform on Harper government’s radar?

JOHN IBBITSON

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2012

The Conservatives are telling Canadians that social programs must change because society is changing. That’s why they want to reform Old Age Security. So why not Employment Insurance?

As a recent report by the Mowat Centre, an Ontario-issues think tank, makes plain, today’s $22-billion EI system is “unprincipled and incompatible with the modern Canadian economy.” It penalizes long-term workers who suddenly lose their job and rewards workers who become unemployed routinely.

And it props up employers who fail to modernize and compete by subsidizing their workers’ incomes, which punishes firms that invest to become more productive.

The solution, according to the report, is to establish a uniform set of rules for everyone everywhere, returning EI to its traditional role of job insurance, rather than the welfare program for chronically depressed regions that it has evolved into.

Such a reform would be both more fair and better for the economy. And yet there is no word, or even rumour, of Conservative plans to reform EI. It’s a puzzlement.

Right now, the Employment Insurance formula divides the country into 58 regions. How many hours people must work to qualify for EI, and the minimum and maximum number of weeks they’re entitled to benefits, swings wildly from region to region, depending on its level of unemployment.

One simple example: If you live in eastern Nova Scotia, 420 hours of work qualifies you to receive benefits for at least 36 weeks. But if you live in parts of Southwestern Ontario, you need 700 hours, and you can be cut off after as little as 14 weeks.

Is that because finding a good job in Southern Ontario is easy? Tell that to hundreds of thousands of workers who have been stripped from the province’s manufacturing sector over the last decade.

In fact, as the Mowat report points out, “an individual in a low unemployment region with a deteriorating job market almost certainly has worse job prospects than an individual in a high unemployment region with an improving job market.”

Add it all up, and you get what we had in 2010: Almost every person in Prince Edward Island who was unemployed was on EI, while less than 40 per cent of the unemployed in Ontario were receiving benefits. Federal programs continue to treat Canada’s largest province as the land of milk and honey, even though large swaths of it are turning into a Bruce Springsteen song. Last December, Ontario’s unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent. Nova Scotia’s was 7.8 per cent.

A system that treated each jobless worker equally regardless of the local environment would encourage labour mobility and improve productivity. No wonder Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall damns the existing system as a “huge disincentive against getting people to go where there is a job. The principle infused into this ought to encourage people to go where the work is.”

EI reform would also, one can’t help noticing, benefit workers in Ontario and the West, while reducing benefits for workers in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Which parts of the country vote Conservative and which parts don’t?

And yet when asked Tuesday whether the government was planning changes to EI, a Human Resources spokeswoman would say no more than this: “We are always reviewing the EI program to ensure it is fair for Canadians in need of benefits.”

Maybe the Conservatives feel that punishing the poorer regions of Canada by scaling back EI benefits would look bad. Maybe they are keeping their powder dry for pension reform.

Whatever the reason, reforming employment insurance so that all workers are treated equally, however much it would benefit the economy, is a can the Tories appear to have kicked down the road.

Unless, of course, there’s something they’re not telling us.

EI or UI has come (or gone) a long way from the days when it was an "insurance" programme aimed to tide one over between jobs. I, personally, remember when many (most?) workers ( but not "professionals" like e.g. teachers or civil servants) had a UI book - they got stamps for every two weeks worked, to prove their employment status - in much the same way as other "insurance" products had books and stamps and in the same way that bonds had coupons. Not, as Ibbitson points out, it is a form of institutionalized welfare which has everything to so with where you live not whether or not you need some temporary support between jobs.

The pogey has become part of the Canadian socio-economic landscape; we, citizens in e.g. Alberta and Ontario pay people to stay home in some regions while they work at seasonal jobs rather than allowing (forcing?) them to move to other regions to get good, steady work.

Politicians are afraid to touch EI, fearing a too big backlash.

Prim Minister Harper deserves credit for moving, albeit slowly, on pension reform - assuming he is going to do that; he could get more "bang for the buck" by looking more closely at EI.
 

[Rifleman62]

Add UI reform as an item on his secret agenda to be introduced after a majority reelection in 3/4 years.

[GAP]

I don't see UI being touched until the next mandate, and then only after a long education of the populace, and.....if the majority is larger.

[E.R. Campbell]

This, our economy growing less dependent on the USA, as indicated in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is (mostly) good news so long as the economy is growing, however slowly:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/growth/canadian-economy-growing-less-reliant-on-us-td/article2322690/

Canadian economy growing less reliant on U.S.: TD

HUGH MCKENNA

Toronto — The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, Feb. 01, 2012


The Canadian economy appears to be on a long-term trend toward less dependence on the United States, according to a new study by TD Economics.

The study, released Wednesday, found that Canada’s economic reliance on the U.S. in its share of exports and GDP has dropped steadily over the last decade.

For example, exports to the U.S. directly contributed an annual average of 0.5 percentage points to nominal GDP growth over the last decade. That was well below an average annual contribution of 2.3 percentage points during the 1980s and 1990s.

TD Economics says a rebound in U.S. economic growth should boost Canadian exports south of the border over the next few years.

But over the long term, the bank said Canada’s economic prosperity will increasingly be driven by trade with other non-U.S. economies.

That will reinforce the trend in recent years, where Canadian economic power is shifting more and more from central Canada to the energy and resource-rich western provinces.

The export shift also likely means future job growth in the Canadian economy will come mainly from the energy, mining and other resource industries based in Western Canada and which export more of their output to China, Japan and other international markets.

The traditional auto and manufacturing sector based in Ontario and Quebec that had driven Canadian exports for decades has already cut tens of thousands of jobs in recent years and is expected to grow much more slowly.

In its report, TD Economics projects that by 2020 the direct contribution of the U.S. to Canadian exports will have slipped to under 67 per cent from a peak of 84 per cent in 2002.

“At the same time, the direct contribution of U.S. exports to Canadian GDP will stabilize at 20 per cent, almost half of its share 10 years ago,” the bank said.

On the other hand, while exports to the U.S. are down 14 per cent from the peak in 2002, Canadian exports to China have more than doubled and exports to Europe are up 83 per cent.

Factors driving Canada’s shrinking reliance on U.S. exports include a one-third appreciation in the loonie against the U.S. dollar.

A high loonie (CAD/USD-I1.000.0040.42%) – it gained more than half a cent to $1.0026 (U.S.) on Wednesday – makes Canadian exports to the United States more expensive and harder to sell.

“In combination with rising unit labour costs, [that] has eroded the competitiveness of Canadian-made goods in the U.S. market,” TD said.

As well, the U.S. market has become more competitive with emerging markets a growing source of U.S. imports.

“For instance, in 2003, China overtook Canada’s position as the most important source of U.S. imports.”

Meanwhile, the boom in exports in 1990s following the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement has seen diminishing returns in the past decade, especially since a “thickening in the Canada-U.S. border” following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

The report also noted that the 2008-09 recession took a large bite out of U.S. demand for Canadian imports, particularly for automotive and machinery and equipment products.

And the study’s authors also point out that strong gains in commodity price have been a major driver of GDP growth over the past decade.

“In addition, low interest rates and a boom in Canadian government spending have spurred outsized growth in domestic spending, thus making U.S. exports look smaller in the overall count.”

TD Economics said any short-term bounce-back in exports to the U.S. market will be counteracted by those structural changes, especially the high Canadian dollar and increased competitiveness in the U.S. marketplace.

“With respect to trade diversification away from the U.S., the ball has already been set in motion,” it added.

Since 2009, Canadian officials have signed or brought into force six free trade agreements and are currently negotiating 14 free trade agreements, including one with the European Union expected to be concluded some time this year.

A joint study by the European Commission and the Government of Canada estimated that once in force, such a free trade deal could increase Canadian exports to Europe by an additional 20 per cent by 2014.

One point: While the "thickening" of the US border was/is mostly the result of security concerns, big labour, in particular, has been especially active in trying to keep the border closed - to "protect" American jobs from competition - and big labour is a key Obama supporter.

And another: We need to push harder to expand our trade with Asia and we need ro recognize that Brazil, with weak industrial/labour and investment standards and a fairly high tolerance for corruption, is our main competitor.

Finally: However (temporarily) weak it may be, the US remains our "best" market - closest, most familiar, friendliest, easiest with which to deal, most law abiding, etc.

[GAP]

The CAW just lost a lot of credibility on this one, plus there are now 400 employees out of work.......Great Job there CAW....you did your members proud....

Caterpillar to close London, Ont. locomotive plant
Reuters  Feb 3, 2012
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/03/caterpillar-to-close-london-ont-locomotive-plant/

Caterpillar Inc plans to close its Electro-Motive locomotive plant in London, Ontario, following several months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers union.

Electo-Motive is run by Caterpillar’s U.S.-based Progress Rail unit. The London plant employed more than 400 hourly workers, all of whom have been locked out of the plant since the beginning of 2012 due to the contract dispute.

The company said on Friday the closing is taking place because the cost structure of the operation is not sustainable and new agreement has not been forthcoming. Caterpillar’s contract with Electro-Motive Canada workers in London expired Dec. 31.

Caterpillar had been looking for wage and benefit concessions from the CAW.

A CAW spokeswoman could not immediately comment on the matter.

More on link

[GAP]

A little dated, but the information is relevant.................The whole series is a good read.

The Chopping Block: 2. Business subsidies
Special to Financial Post  Sep 29, 2011
Article Link
 
Eliminating regional agencies can save $8-billion over four years

By Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam

With the global economy looking ever more fragile, the Conservative government should feel increasingly uneasy about its plan to balance the budget. To strengthen the current plan and promptly balance the budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should aim his sights at cutting unnecessary government spending. An easy first step is to put regional development spending on The Chopping Block.

Since establishing the first of two region-specific development agencies in 1987-88, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Western Economic Diversification, the number of agencies and amount spent by the federal government on regional development has increased significantly (see graph).

In 2010-11, the federal government distributed almost $2-billion through its main regional initiatives: Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario ($507-million), Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec ($463-million), Western Economic Diversification ($429-million), Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ($382-million), Northern Ontario Development Program ($61-million), and Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency ($61-million).

While these regional development schemes share common goals like encouraging economic growth in flagging communities and regions with few employment opportunities, they have historically had little, if any, positive net economic impact.

All federal regional development agencies focus on providing subsidies to businesses through repayable contributions or “loans” (often not paid back) and non-repayable contributions. In 2009-10, subsidies to businesses and other organizations made up 65% of Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency’s spending, 54% of Western Economic Diversification spending and 62% of Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec spending.

The justification for these subsidies is that capital from the private sector is unavailable, either because entrepreneurs are unaware of the opportunities in these areas or unwilling to take the risk.  The reality, however, is that in many cases, loans and non-repayable subsidies are provided to businesses to fund investments that would have proceeded without involuntary taxpayer-financed assistance.

Also troubling is the fact that businesses receiving federal subsidies bid up the price of labour, capital and other resources, which increases the cost of these factors for non-subsidized businesses and ultimately reduces private investment.

The poor track record of business subsidies spurring economic growth is well documented.  This is particularly true for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. In a 2003 examination, University of Calgary professor Jack Mintz and University of Toronto professor Michael Smart concluded: “the impact of [the Agency’s] activities has questionable effects on the economy at a relatively significant cost.”

Canada’s Auditor-General has found similar results in its examinations of the federal government’s regional development initiatives. For instance, in a wide-ranging audit of such initiatives, the Auditor-General found that most programs had objectives stated in general terms rather than specific, measurable goals. And despite the billions spent on economic development programs, there was no clear consensus on results.

The Auditor-General has also confirmed that government regional subsidies displace existing businesses. In one case, the federal government sponsored the construction of a new fish plant in Quebec at a cost of $2.2-million. The plant was built near an established, already operating fish plant, which also received federal subsidies. More than 250 jobs were to be created by the construction of the new plant, but this job creation was offset by the closure of the established plant with as many employees.

In the case of the federal government’s regional development projects in Quebec, the Auditor-General noted how Ottawa’s own evaluators of those projects could not determine if those programs were of any benefit and noted 30% of projects that received financial aid would have gone ahead without government assistance.
More on link