EU (European Nations) is envious of Canada

A right-minded person might conclude that the EU is jealous of Canada. Forbes rated Canada number one in business. Then there are the resources such as oil sands which they do not have. The Europeans rely on importing from the Middle East and Russia.

Thus, the envious EU decides to rank Canada as one of the highest carbon options. But Canada does not export Ethical Oil from the oil sands to Europe.

Do you think the Russians and OPEC members of totalitarian nations — some are experiencing revolutions that might fall in the hands of the Muslim brotherhoods — perhaps influenced the European politicians and bureaucrats?

EU have the nerve of calling the oil sands dirtier. They threaten the negotiations of Free Trade. They think Canada will cave in, because Obama and his czars have in certain areas, to a point.

But, Canada has stalwart ministers such as Joe Oliver of Natural Resources; plus a great Statesman and Prime Minister in The Right Honourable Stephen Harper.

EU oil sands ranking disturbs
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/04/eu-oil-sands-ranking-disturbs/

EU warned about calling oil sands dirtier
http://www.financialpost.com/todays-paper/warned+about+calling+sands+dirtier/5503221/story.html

Canada's Oil Sands
http://www.capp.ca/oilsands/Pages/default.aspx?gclid=CLHf9LLV0asCFc_AKgod2C5WYw

Ex-Greenpeace leader bats for oil sands
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/09/26/ex-greenpace-leader-bats-for-oil-sands/

The Best Countries For Business
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2011/10/03/the-best-countries-for-business/

 

oil from the tar sands may be dirty but so long as the demand for oil is so high then its either accept it or take a chance with oil from fundamental extremists in the middle east!

 

Further evidence why advanced economies need to fund massive Manhattan projects, paid for by taxes on fossil fuels, to reach renewable energy independence in a reasonable time frame, say 5-10.

If we don't, we'll just keep making the Exxons of the world richer, while we get closer and closer to the peak oil abyss.

 

Hm I seriously doubt the EU would be jealous of Canada over some Forbes ranking...

 

Really? And it's not just the Forbes rating. Our banks didn't need a bailout.

We have a leader who stands tall against the EU, UN, totalitarians, Middle East despots etc. He has not bowed to any leader such as the anointed and self-absorbed Obama has to the Saudis and perhaps others.

Furthermore, Canada has resources that will last several life-times. Our best friend, however, is our neighbour — United States of America — and the oil sands oil will help both countries.

Europeans have questionable neighbours, close to those who would like more power and territory.

Canada is fortunate that America is not an empire builder, and with the American military so close, but North America is so far away from those I mentioned above, Canada is in an enviable position.

After Obummer is defeated in the 2012 election America will go for more accessible local fossil fuel which is needed.

 

A reader of my weblog sent the following:

Pythagorean theorem: 24 words
The Lord's prayer: 66 words
Archimedes' Principle: 67 words
Ten Commandments: 179 words
Gettysburg address: 286 words
US Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
US Constitution with all 27 Amendments: 7,818 words

EU regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words*

* Europe's Problems Summed Up

 

Canada, US and Australia seem to have a sense of individualism, not present in Europe. I wish we had Canadas and Australias fiscal restraint. Europeans look to the smart people in government to direct the individuals. Unfortunately Obama seems to long to be more like Europe.

 

The lack of social mobility that typically exists in Anglo-Saxon capitalism suggests otherwise. Rather than a sense of individualism, there's instead a class limitation that destroys potential entrepreneurial activity and discourages upskilling

 

Energy Europe out to lunch
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/08/europe-out-to-lunch/

 

One only needs to look at the economies of Canada, US and Australia to see that isnt so.

 

That Anglo-Saxon capitalism exhibits less social mobility (and hence greater class immobility) is a mere matter of fact

 

What silliness you babble on about, but this should be good for a laugh. Lets see this study of "Anglo-Saxxon Capitalism", compared to any other economic form.

 

I can appreciate your innocence of economics, but the distinction between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and the liberal democratic/social democratic alternatives is quite standard. Anglo-Saxon capitalism is characterised by higher poverty and, despite the warped perceptions that suggest otherwise, a class based system exhibiting relatively low social mobility.

 

I did say "lets see". And would "democratic/social democratic alternatives" include Purtugal, Spain and Greece?

Population below poverty line
Portugal 18% (2006)
Spain 19.8% (2005)
Greece 20% (2009 est.)

or Germany

Germany 15.5% (2010 est.)

You are full of it.

United Kingdom 14% (2006 est.)
United States 15.1% (2010 est.)

 

Tut tut, you didn't put any thought into that did you? Just copying and pasting from a data source without understanding how the data is derived. Shameful!

You should be referring to sources such as the Luxembourg Income Study. By standardising data international comparison is available. Its just factual to note that Anglo-Saxon capitalism has higher poverty rates. The interesting aspect is of course analysing whether its a short term phenomenon. The desperately naive would crow that, due to individualism and the desire to improve one's life, there is a greater mobility. They ignore class limitations of course!

 

But I know how it is derived, and you are still full of it.

 

Why do you think researchers use LIS for international comparisons of poverty? Its not difficult to work out. Your copying and pasting just isn't up to scratch.

Now I know why you're trying to use tantrum tactics. You already know that the US is class-based and characterised by a relatively low social mobility.

 

Its much more up to scratch than your vague references to income studies without any copying and pasting.

 

You haven't been able to find a LIS paper that agrees with your position? I feel for you, really do!

But back to the thread: why do you think the US has such a shoddy record with regards social mobility? I've asked several right wingers and they always respond with rather distasteful anti-Americanim

 

Here's me wishing I could see outcrops of oil sands from my house.

 

The Tuileries would never have looked better!

 

To be honest, of all the things I could envy Canada for, besides cheap mapple sirup, it would be Montreal's underground city.

 

The political opposition to green energy is too great for it to ever be viable in the US.

 

You are a joke. You proclaim-

I reply nonsense. "Lets see it", and you think I should find a "paper" that agrees with my position???? Id be surprised by any "paper" that even bothered trying to distinguish between Anglo-Saxon capitalism and any other. You are the one with all the unsubstantiated proclamations of fact about
"Anglo-Saxon capitalism". I am the one who said Canda, US UK and Australia had a sense of individualism not present in much of Europe. And not really clear how you even think a higher poverty rate would even be evidence that this isnt so.

 

I just know more than you on this issue. Admittedly that wasn't a difficult proposition as you've made basic error over poverty comparison in your bid to blindly copy and paste.

I didn't give you a paper, I gave you the income data that has spawned countless dozens of papers. I'm surprised google has let you down so badly given LIS is the main sourse for cross-country analysis. For an exanple of a paper see Smeeding's 'Poor people in rich countries', published - if my memory hasn't failed - in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

And that reflects your innocence on this topic. Understanding how different poverty dynamics evolve is a significant issue (ranging from welfare state analysis to more specific focus, such as reference to different rates of housing tenure)

You've gone for petty cliche. When confronted with the reality- such as the relative social immobility- you've hid. Try to respond this time: why does anglo-saxon capitalism demonstrate a class structure, rather than the mobility we'd expect with individualism?