The Carbon tax cash grab - Plain simple politics

I am a dumb and stupid guy. i filled up my 500 litre slip tank on the 4th Jan. I am a bobcat operator.

When was the last time you had an "injection" at the hospital? Do you remember the feeling. how the needle touches your butt and then there is this slow and vague pierce and then the dull achy pain.

Let me be a layman, a simpleton a know- nothing and that is what I feel about the cash grab called carbon tax. And coming from a third world country, I know the games politicians play, alas Canadians are so naive to believe "all that looks white is milk" and trust their politicians. Not sure if Canadians consider it offensive to mistrust people, but hey , have you not got duped in life before?

Think it this way. Who will receive the money from the carbon tax grab?
Look at the information provided by the Alberta government   here it is https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx#p184s4

It is like asking a 3 year old "where is all the candy I gave you?"
"I gave some to my teddy bear, I gave some to Tom, and I gave some to Tom to give to others and I gave others" - makes no sense.

$645 will go to establishing a new agency. So what is this? let us have a meeting about having a meeting thing? let us have an agency to have an agency that will build another agency?

$3.4bn will go to large scale renewable energy and all those carp. Now whose money is this, and who is going to spend it and who will manage it? who has the experience? what is the cost? where is the competitiveness?

Folks! it is all going to be a big "swindle-dee-dum, I-fo-fum" (and here is the thumb, suck it)

Developed countries should progress towards towards "less and lean" government. But 10 years in Canada and I see that government is more and more getting involved. Maybe they need a "job security" and that is why they keep "healthcare and education" have they not spoilt the Canadians? Why? is USA not living? of course there are problems in US of A but Canada is not without problems.

The NDP government is playing pure politics, seems they are working their math and moving their coins like chess pieces, these are their objectives

1. What words if we say will people turn their ears to us?
2. How many votes do we need to win power?
3. What is the math of votes?
4. What action if we take will people consider to vote us? (hike the minimum wage)
5. So our first priority is to play the masses, then who are the other parties that we will antagonize in the process of playing to the masses?
6. How can we pacify those antagonized other parties (big businesses)
7. Grab cash from these fools and give it to business

Here is a renewable energy idea for you Albertans!

Now give me $30mn and I will build this for you (fools)

Is Alberta economic diversification even possible ? "Return to innocence"

At the end of the article I sounded like a socialist to myself though I am not, 

1. WHAT CAN WE PRODUCE AND WE DO NOT NEED FROM OUTSIDE?
2. WHAT CAN WE NOT PRODUCE AND WE NEED FROM OUTSIDE?
3. WHAT OTHERS NEED FROM US THAT THEY CANNOT PRODUCE?
4. WHAT OTHERS DON'T NEED FROM US AND THEY CAN PRODUCE ON THEIR OWN?

Globalisation has moved us from the simple CAN vs CANNOT to so many complications by supporting the "economies of scale" type of production, which leads to one country or group holding the "highest scale of production" of one thing and trying to dump the surplus production to other countries using "trade" 

Governments on both sides are the benefactor in "trades" due to the various taxes low are high. Owners of the means of production are a benefactor since higher volumes means lower unit cost and profit percentage higher.

Does not "economies of scale" also mean "efficiency at its greatest"?

Don't we need 'economies of scale" to lower costs?

As a common man does not lower cost means a lot to me? say these footwear I am wearing.

We have to remember a trade deficit the other guy made us a little poorer, a trade surplus means we made the other guy a little poorer.

Does that mean trade is not good?

Free Trade Vs "Controlled" trade

Trade was there since time immemorial, Trade cannot be eliminated in whatever type of society. Trade is good if the above principles are followed

Should trade be free from control and regulation? Imagine,  you cook food at home and take it to the Mcdonalds and eat your food there (because your kids wanted to play in the play area) now who is the loser? Did Mcdonald's lose anything?

Another example, pop the popcorn in your home, sneak some bottle of cola and go to the movies, now here you have saved $10 , now did the theater owner lose?

Yes, control is necessary for trade no need to explain further i believe.

Governments wants to "increase" trade with other countries which may or may not be necessary, increased trade always does not translate into "jobs" or "wealth" the most important thing for a common man.

Sometimes government's approach each other with an hidden agenda to "dump" their production surpluses or capacity surpluses. Corrupt governments may try to "push" or export those goods that will favor certain businesses and in return will "accept imports" the other government which if also corrupt will "accept the surpluses" and push its export.

CORRUPT EXPORTER Vs GENUINE IMPORTER

CORRUPT EXPORTER Vs CORRUPT IMPORTER

GENUINE IMPORTER Vs CORRUPT IMPORTER

GENUINE IMPORTER Vs GENUINE IMPORTER 

There are many dynamics which the common man will not attempt to understand

But one thing we should understand is that "Governments may do a favor" to some entity and this what we do not want to the government do and WATCH

My point is, sometimes the government does trade deals that are not at all necessary, same thing like "wars that are not necessary"

The common man does not have time to go into each and every aspect of government and it is then left to the opposition parties, but the opposition party is also part of the system so cannot watch.

WE NEED WATCHDOGS who are in no way associated with the government or with the parties or with businesses and should be fully funded by donations from the public.

Let us all - the employable people, unemployable people, blue collar, white collar, brown collar, collarless workers etc etc etc - Let us all accept that the "economic landscape" of Alberta is permanently changed or s undergoing a permanent fundamental change.

In 2014 The Alberta energy sector's share of the economy was 29.98% hand in hand Industrial production was also at its highest at 35.19% totalling a 65.17% share in economy by 2015 both brothers shared only 51.08% of the economy

The province's economy itself shrunk by $11.4 billion between 2014 and 2015. The average jobs in 2014 were 2.72 million which shrunk to 2.3 million by 2015

Conclusion is we lost

• 420,000 Jobs
• $11.4 economy 

Magnitude

In 2015 2.72 million people produced $311 billion dollars worth of economy that is a monthly production of $9,528 per job 

Imported Furniture - Ban? 

Let us take the example of IKEA 

In 2015 total Canadian economy stood at $1134 Billion, IKEAs 2015 sale  stood at $1.795 billion that is 0.15% of Canadian economy, IKEA reports a 10.4% growth whereas the Canadian economy grow by a mere 1.80% between 2014 and 2015

We can say IKEA grew 5 times more than the Canadian economy or we can say the Canadian economy did not grow as much as IKEA grew. I will let the reader judge for my focus is elsewhere, IKEAs growth is IKEAs growth.

IKEA says it is the leader in the $22 billion home furniture industry. It is reported to have a 8.5% market share (CANSIM tables put the market at $16.6 billion)

Imports data reveal that in 2015 $7.31 billion worth of furnitures were imported, now let me stop talking about IKEA here, let us talk about imported furniture that is 44% of the Canadian furniture market.

Banning Imported Furniture 

Can 100% of imported furnitures be banned? definitely not, there may be some designer furnitures, business furnitures like sales fixtures, however most (needs a study) of the items maybe beds, cabinets, storage and stools

Even if we can ban 80% of the imported furnitures (and tax the remaining 20%) that is $5.8 billion let us say that based on population Alberta consumes 15% of the imported furnitures that is $870 million of imported furniture.

Assume that we (we means government and industry) develop the home furnishing in Alberta and just for Alberta's consumption then that is a $1 billion annual sales (this assumption has several sub-assumptions, it is not that easy but that is what for a governments and think tanks are) 

A $1 billion industry (0.32% of the economy) plus we are not even talking about exports (and we do not want to talk about it since we are banning imports, let us be fair to globalisation)

Cautions

Now how this "ban" will impact federal and other international trade policies, WTO, NAFTA, TPP etc are unknown 

It may be possible that Alberta is a "nett exporter" with trade surplus and this suggestion may even dwarf the nett exports.

But this is a right way start re-thinking our provinces economy

1. WHAT CAN WE PRODUCE THAT WE DO NOT NEED FROM OUTSIDE?
2. WHAT WE CANNOT PRODUCE THAT WE NEED FROM OUTSIDE?
3. WHAT OTHERS NEED FROM US THAT THEY CANNOT PRODUCE?

My Values - Abortion

Why is Abortion a (political)  Issue?
Modern societies value freedom, human beings time immemorial have valued and fought for freedom the antonym of freedom is "slavery" or "controlled against their will"

In the modern society is there not a place for "Animal freedom"?
Is there not a distaste for "Animal abuse"?
Will anyone in modern society tolerate a person inflicting injury on an animal?

Will any human being, irrespective of creed and color, irrespective of status, irrespective of whether he is liberal or a communist or a conservative , any human being tolerate a person lashing on an animal?
What is your reaction to this picture of a calf taken during a rodeo?

If your reaction was "life should not suffer pain" or "life should not suffer"

or "animals should not suffer but humans can"






What about the pain suffered by the unborn fetus? (during the process of abortion) even to pull a tooth grown up adults are looking for pain killers. Even for a back sprain people are looking to pain killers.

Does not our many indulgence an "antidote" for stress and pain? Marijuana, drinking, smoking or even binge eating, boxing the pillow

I am sure everyone irrespective of their cause, creed and belief will agree that "physical pain should not be inflicted on any life at any stage" No one, liberal, democrat, conservative, Amish, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Protestant, Communities, Fascist and all the "ists" except for the "terrorists" would agree "physical pain should not be inflicted on any life at any stage"

Does not we as a society eliminated the "corporal punishment of children"?

Then why inflicting pain on the unborn fetus is overlooked?
Below is video showing how the fetus reacts (weeks unknown)

What is needed (biologically) to feel pain?

1. First you should have the "mechanism" (the neuroanatomical pathway) or simply put all the "hardware" the wires should be in place
2. Second you should have a "computer" (physical brain development) to which these wires should be connected
3. Third the computer should have a its "software" or the logic to translate the signals and then react (type A in keyboard and you see A in monitor) a.k.a in medical parlance "stereotypical hormonal stress response"
4. And lastly the "poke" or the stimuli

Does a fetus feel pain? - Arguments and Facts

Let us hear one Professor Stuart WG Derbyshire

His conclusion is "fetuses cannot feel pain"

Though he accepts that the "mechanism" is considered complete by the 23-26 weeks and he also accepts that by the 18th the "software" is thier ...The stereotypical hormonal stress response of adults or older infants, of about 18 months onwards, reporting pain is observable in fetuses at 18 weeks' gestation..

His conclusion is based on "pain" being a subjective issue "..Pain experience requires development of the brain but also requires development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity of pain..?

In layman terms he thinks the fetus is "too young" to feel pain based on his logic that "needs a developed mind" to feel pain, to support this he gives an example of a larva worm when subjected to a lighter flame, he says though the larva coils or bends away "Can it be said it felt pain?" he terms it simply as a muscular reaction and he concludes that the larva "does not have the capacity" to feel pain

Let us for moment imagine in different ways
1) If you squash an egg (with embryo) do you think the ege will feel pain?
2) Or if you pour semen in hot water do you think the sperms will feel pain?
3) If you "slaughter" a cow , do you think it fails pain?

Don't you agree that somewhere in the stage of being a simple sperm (or an egg) to a throbbing fetus with a heart and brain to the wailing new born baby, there is a "pain reception"?

Somewhere in those 40 weeks of gestation..? definitely "yes" on the 40th week, the baby is full term, definitely "no" when the sperm and egg has just met each other.

Our Group's Constitution - Draft

DRAFT

(1) Our stand on Propaganda - The word propaganda is viewed as "derogatory" misleading and biased this word along with the words free speech, doctrination, values education. Surely we will have to "propagate" to further our cause and to garner support to our cause, don't we need to defend our cause? do we see other causes in conflict? thus are we essentially at war with other causes? for e.g. LGBT Issues, Abortion etc etc ,  we recognise that human society is divided, we recognize every human has the right to chose their cause, defend the cause, propagate the cause to garner support and fight for the cause. We recognise the right "To defend and fight" for a cause. However that is why we have division's like "Country - Province - County - family" is country not a division? is it not a clear demarcation with secure boundaries with a control on who enters into it and who exits? is province not a clear demarcation? what you bring in and what you bring out ? is it not controlled? Are divisions not containers? don't humans need containers? don't humans need boundaries? definitions? principles? values? - all this does it not make a "cause"? does a cause need be furthered? does cause need not be defended? does not a cause have a belligerent? does not there a conflict? does not there a fight? even you have to put up a fight to not to fight? can't we not call fight a struggle? is not defense a fight? is not defence a struggle?

Indoctrination is necessary but where I differ is with

1. Dishonesty - lies
2. Brainwashing tactics - by distracting the audience to the sides and sneaking in noise and garbage.
3. Half truths, quarter truths, twisting facts to one's agenda or intention
4. Playing on perceptions and mind games
5. Not respecting human capabilities to "read between the lines" 
6. Not respecting human capability to analyse
7. Using heavy adjectives and judgements and prejudice

Basically to have the word "honor" in propaganda.


I also believe that human beings are very diverse in terms of analysing ability,  different levels of information processing capabilities, varying level of "getting fooled" , gullible or naive or innocent or people who take things on "face value" or perception. These people are like a man who has five children with different capabilities and understanding level.

I believe and respect the diversity in human capabilities, which brings in the question of "equality" are all human beings "equal"? it depends on the context, does this mean discrimination? my question is discrimination not a fundamental of life?

Discrimination versus differentiation

If a known terrorist applies for a US or a Canadian Visa will you allow him?
Is it not a discrimination? (Oh. i am sorry I went to the extreme to demonstrate my point)

Is not the immigrant selection process (of any country) discriminatory?
When you chose a restaurant among three restaurants are you not discriminating?
Are you not being discriminative when say "American cars are xyz and Asian cars are a,b,c"?

When you pick vegetables in a grocery store, say like tomatoes, dont take it in your hand, have a look at it around, squeeze it a little? are you not discriminatory?

Dating - Are you not discriminatory - when you see three best looking profiles (let us without prejudice) the one whom you chose to go on a date with, was it not discrimination

What is needed is  (1)Fairness and (2) remove "prejudice"

 

2. Our Stand on Democracy
There are various types of democracies, but the core is that the "common people get to vote" I believe and agree that "common people get to vote"

I also know the statement "51% ruling the 49%" or the majority ruling the minority" but the fact is the 51% is not ruling the minority whereas they are just electing from a group of nominees on "who will rule" this statement is often misread and often used to "propagate" anti democracy ideas.

All people are presented with same nominees, and every one is free to chose any of the nominee, the selection or rejection of a nominee by the people is their choice election cannot be "unanimous", you cannot go on a date with all the guys you speak to right?

Even if a country splits people should realise that the resulting country(ies) still needs an election which still needs choice, or nominees based on different causes thus bringing in "belligerents" and thus bringing in struggle.

If the whole country wants to elect Clinton or trump, then that is when democracy is defeated. We have to accept that in a democracy there will be different causes. And who gets elected depends on the cause that gets the most support. That does not mean that "your" cause is useless, it only means that "your cause is not a priority now"

That is the beauty of democracy is you see parties coming in and going out, you can see new parties coming in (not in the USA but surely in India) new leaders coming in.

Otherwise it is Kim Jong Sun or Kim Jong father for the rest of human life.

..contd

What this blog is about

POLITICS - Am I involved in it?
Politics cannot be ignored by any one, Every one is involved in politics but in varying levels. Politics influences "governance" and governments influences people's life. The word "politics" for some is a negative word and the reason is because of people like Chris Christie who assign the word "that is just politic" to incidents like Donald trump not following through on his campaign statement of "prosecuting hillary"

Here I am not sure my limited English knowledge will understand what he means by "that is politics.." maybe he meant "it is just a game we played like the wrestling match" or he meant that was just a "rhetoric"

IMHO Politics refers to the "policies and procedures" that governs and influences a society and does not mean "games" "rhetoric"

Everyone in the society are to varying levels involved in politics from none to the person intending to get elected to the extremists and the silent protesters, the persons who vote, the persons who do not vote (also are involved in the politics, because they are indirectly letting "one" candidate with the most voter turnout to have a possible win), the person who is posting online comments, everyone. No one can say "I am not involved in politics, but can say I am less involved in politics"

Remember inaction is also an involvement in politics.
To act is human, inaction can be a temporary thing maybe to take time, but inaction is never the final state.

Let us remember the words of the Democrat President Harry S.Truman (1945–53) who also happened to nuke Japan in WW. Maybe he said that to justify is historical "drop"