[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by normajean777

Last time I checked there are literally millions of unemployed Americans. So take your pick. Hire 20,000 people Bob and get to work. No one is stopping you.

It would only be an opportunity cost if they could be doing anything productive with their time otherwise. They aren't.

If I tried to make the same point in my province, it would be hard. We simply don't have a big unemployed population.

It would serve you well to temper your opinions with a touch of humility and tact.

The government has the ability through direct means like subsidies and indirect means like bankruptcy and tax laws to influence what type of businesses get created, and even whether businesses get created at all.

Leaving that aside, that people aren't doing anything productive (your words not mine) doesn't mean they couldn't be. There is no way to back up that connection. The opportunity cost remains.

Finally, we don't need one person or company to hire 20k people. It would be just as good (better really) to have 1000 companies hire 20 people each. The question we should be asking is how we can inspire 1000 people to start sustainable energy companies, not how we can get even more oil.

Originally Posted by doulos14

You can teach an average person how to build a pipeline, but certainly not a turbine, hydrogen fuel cell or ethanol fuel mixtures.

I couldn't disagree more. Everyone is average at birth. Maybe an average person can't build or invent an advanced sustainable energy source, but an average person can certainly learn enough to eventually be able to do so. They can grow beyond average.

[dtaylorl]

I must admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the issues involved with this pipeline, and as an Albertan I really should be more informed. What are the reasons that we feel the need to send our oil clear across the continent rather than refining it in Alberta? I imagine there probably are good reasons, but I'm not sure what they are.

[tlj009]

Finally, we don't need one person or company to hire 20k people. It would be just as good (better really) to have 1000 companies hire 20 people each. The question we should be asking is how we can inspire 1000 people to start sustainable energy companies, not how we can get even more oil.

The government has been paying 80% of the cost for renewable energy for several years and there still isn't much of a market for it. I guess that the government could up it to 100%?

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

It would serve you well to temper your opinions with a touch of humility and tact.

I don't really want to offend you. I'm trying to think of how to describe my emotion here, and I guess I'm a bit insulted that you don't think these people are worth enough to have jobs. But instead would like them to think about the possibility of jobs.

The government has the ability through direct means like subsidies and indirect means like bankruptcy and tax laws to influence what type of businesses get created, and even whether businesses get created at all.

And they do. I see $80 billion of green spending mentioned in a previous post. According to this article the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that $80 billion saved or created 225,000 job. Thats roughly $355,000 per job. Keystone creates 20,000 for free. Is it worth it to spend countless more billions to create 20,000 artificial jobs, or take the ones offered? Or even both? Billions in fed spending, and Keystone for 40,000 jobs? The 12.8 million unemployed Americans would love this.

Leaving that aside, that people aren't doing anything productive (your words not mine) doesn't mean they couldn't be. There is no way to back up that connection. The opportunity cost remains.

Finally, we don't need one person or company to hire 20k people. It would be just as good (better really) to have 1000 companies hire 20 people each. The question we should be asking is how we can inspire 1000 people to start sustainable energy companies, not how we can get even more oil.

Economically, they aren't doing anything productive. If they were producing an income somehow by selling a good or service, it would be a job, and they wouldn't be in the unemployed.

Agreed about small businesses. But we don't need anyone to hire 20,000 people at all. We need them to hire 12,800,000 people. The 20,000 jobs is Alberta throwing you a bone. It is your choice to accept it or not. You could look for inspiration to start sustainable energy companies as much as you want. But its not exactly a priority for most.

Originally Posted by dtaylorl

I must admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the issues involved with this pipeline, and as an Albertan I really should be more informed. What are the reasons that we feel the need to send our oil clear across the continent rather than refining it in Alberta? I imagine there probably are good reasons, but I'm not sure what they are.

This is an excellent question. It may seem that we should simply refine the oil in Alberta, and gather all the profits for ourselves.

However there are a few things stopping this:
- Refining capacity: we don't have any excess
- Labor force: we definitely do not have the manpower for this. As we head into another boom, we will be even more short staffed than before.
- No new refineries: NIMBYs, politicians, and businesses don't want any here
- It needs to go south anyway

In the current state of North America, most Alberta crude is shipped to the Midwestern States. These refineries have always had enough capacity for our oil before, but expansion has now filled them to capacity. There are refineries down east, but they are at capacity as well. However there is a large amount of refineries in the Gulf of Mexico with huge amounts of untapped refining capacity. Thus it makes economic sense to ship the oil to the Gulf to make use of all this capacity.

But whats the urgency? Supply and demand. Most of the world is continually increasing their demand for oil. This has kept the world price high in recent years. Most of our oil goes to the Midwest, mainly Crushing, OK. There are more pipelines coming in than out. To much supply, to refinery demand. This bottleneck means that Alberta oil generally trades at a rate of $10-25 below the Brent rate.

Building the keystone pipeline would free up the current refining bottleneck, and bring the two prices a bit closer to each other. It should in theory be good for producers and consumers, bring the two prices closer to one average price. This spread is estimated to cost Canadian oil producers about $1 billion per month. As our royalty structure agreements generally take off a much larger percentage of the profit when oil is high, this costs our Alberta government perhaps between $3-5 billion per year in lost revenue.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I couldn't disagree more. Everyone is average at birth. Maybe an average person can't build or invent an advanced sustainable energy source, but an average person can certainly learn enough to eventually be able to do so. They can grow beyond average.

If only it was that simple, because you don't account for the desires of the person or a natural talent that cannot be taught, genetics or abilities. There are classically trained singers and 7 year old prodigies, of the academic type as well. Why then can a 14 year old graduate from college but a 40 year old on welfare cannot do basic math? Teaching or ability? Opportunity or oppression? Why do I have a photographic memory and choose to study Biology in college when my sister wants to work with children or be a cosmetologist and gets B's and C's in high school? I can tell you that there are many people trying to be doctors and even Biology majors who want to learn, but cannot.

Sure you can teach average Joe how to build a part in a factory, but did he come up with quantum theory or can he comprehend hydrogen bonding, electrical engineering and advanced physics? Right now we need thinkers not doers and you cannot teach a person to think like that, only to follow the product of others intelligence... Mendel made significant progress and formed ideas that were later expanded on and modified by those in the future (such as chromosome theory), but no one decided to test independent assortment before that. You can teach someone to perform those experiments in a lab (such as me), but I will probably never make some significant discovery that redefines genetics.

A person could be labeled as average and limited in their potential by environment or their own choice, but how could we ever determine that?

I believe in equal opportunity for all as well as the necessity for workers of all kinds from manual labor, skilled trade and the sciences, but jumping those gaps is a very complex task

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by normajean777

I don't really want to offend you. I'm trying to think of how to describe my emotion here, and I guess I'm a bit insulted that you don't think these people are worth enough to have jobs. But instead would like them to think about the possibility of jobs.

I appreciate that. For my part, I guess I'm a bit insulted that you don't think these 20k people are capable of starting businesses or inventing new sustainable energy sources.

Economically, they aren't doing anything productive. If they were producing an income somehow by selling a good or service, it would be a job, and they wouldn't be in the unemployed.

But you said they *couldn't* do anything productive. That's why I took offense.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by doulos14

If only it was that simple, because you don't account for the desires of the person or a natural talent that cannot be taught, genetics or abilities. There are classically trained singers and 7 year old prodigies, of the academic type as well. Why then can a 14 year old graduate from college but a 40 year old on welfare cannot do basic math? Teaching or ability? Opportunity or oppression?

Frankly, I don't believe in natural talent that cannot be taught. Natural talent makes a difference between the 99th percentile and 99.99th, but not between the 9th and 90th. And at that, we are clearly at an impasse.

[doulos14]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

Frankly, I don't believe in natural talent that cannot be taught. Natural talent makes a difference between the 99th percentile and 99.99th, but not between the 9th and 90th. And at that, we are clearly at an impasse.

I suppose so. I just can't justify averaging people like that because to hold that thought, you have to not only elevate those who "seem" less intelligent, and discount those who are held as intelligent because what they have achieved is nothing special because anyone else can learn to do it. I wouldn't want to win a Nobel prize and be told that any average guy could be taught to do it.

Like I said, I'm all for equal opportunity and anyone can work towards their goals, but the standard deviation between geniuses and remedial students is just to great. Sounds hypocritical I guess, but maybe the real thing is psychology, people were told they couldn't succeed and those that have were just told they could (in your argument).

You can teach people to perform, but not to reason because most every great advancement was someone doing something different or thinking differently that the status quo, and you can't teach that

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I appreciate that. For my part, I guess I'm a bit insulted that you don't think these 20k people are capable of starting businesses or inventing new sustainable energy sources.

Ok lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and say these 20,000 people are budding entrepreneurs, and giving them a job would stifle them. Now there 20k free thinkers who still have no capital but would like to start a company... And 12 million other unemployed people who may or may not be budding entrepreneurs. I guess what the point really is, is not that these people aren't capable, but the sheer amount of people make it extremely desirable to freely take freely offered jobs. Perhaps having the job, will let the budding entrepreneur finally start his company, since he will now have money (instead of just hunger...). And then, since its America, and not a communist country, he can freely quit that job, and the company can find a replacement (there are 12 million others who would love to have it).

But you said they *couldn't* do anything productive. That's why I took offense.

Sure.