It's becoming a recurring theme to blame the high oil price on "speculators". This of course implies some sort of clear distinction between someone legitimately purchasing oil contracts or someone purchasing or selling them purely for profit. There is of course a difference. You might call the first one a country or a company. You might call the second a trader.
The solutions being presented suggest that all we have to do is convince Wall Street to stop trading oil! Here's a choice exert:
Saudi Arabia promises to fill in the supply gap if the Iranian crisis escalates, but there's only one place that can help stave off high oil prices: Wall Street.
Now, blaming speculators for high prices is nothing new. What is new is that one of the largest speculators in the oil markets, none other than Goldman Sachs (GS), admitting that heavy speculation does have an impact on oil prices. How much? Well, Goldman's oil analyst wrote in a note last month that every million barrel equivalent of oil futures that was net long the market adds 10 cents to the price of oil. The market is currently net long US benchmark crude, or WTI, by 258,406 contracts which is equivalent to 258 million barrels of oil. At 10 cents per every million barrels, that would mean speculation is currently adding $25.80 to every barrel of oil -- without the excess speculation, oil would trade at around $81.52.
Note the language here, without the "excess speculation". Excess. So who decides whose contracts are "excess"? ALL of the contracts are speculation but only some are "excess" speculation. Well it's simple some are probably saying, the "excess" would be those not in the market to take delivery. It sounds simple, but effectively what you are saying is that you would be entering into a non-transferrable binding contract. A country that made a loosing bet on oil for instance would not be able to trade their contracts and would have no option but to take delivery, take the losses and then put the product back on the market. Not very effective. So this is to say that if we are to have an oil market at all, it will be a speculative market.
Despite the verbal assaults, there has been little impact on global oil supply as a result of the tougher sanctions on Iran. OPEC estimates Iran produced 3.424 million barrels of oil a day in February, which is off around 5.4% from the 2011 average. Increased crude production from the rest of OPEC, namely Libya and Saudi Arabia, more than made up for this small decline in output. Meanwhile, the U.S. market continues to be well supplied. There is currently enough oil in commercial oil storage tanks to cover 57.5 days of demand, which is 4 days more than a year ago and 6.6 days more than the five-year average.
But it is the potential for a massive supply disruption that is adding a special premium to oil prices, even though such a possibility is remote. Saudi Arabia's oil minister told reporters last week that the Kingdom stands ready to "make good any shortfalls – perceived or real – in crude oil supply." This week, the Kingdom's cabinet released an official statement saying that it "alone" would supply enough oil to the markets to return prices back to what it deems to be a "fair" level for consumers. U.S. benchmark crude futures shed about $2 after the news, to end Tuesday at $106.07.
If only the futures market cared about the present. What they are telling you here is that even though there is plenty of supply now (enough to last 57.5 days) the "speculation" is being driven by fears about the future. People are paying a premium now because they are anticipating supply issues in the future. Traders are "bull" now because they anticipate supply disruptions in the future. Wall Street isn't causing the anticipation, possible supply disruptions are.
We're all speculators. Ever filled cans of gasoline because you knew or expected the price to go up? congratulations, you're a speculator. The price could possibly go down, but you made a bet it wouldn't. That it would go up and paid a premium price in the now to save money in the future.
Now I'm not saying the market isn't corrupt. It is. But if we want to do something about that, oil speculation is hardly the place to start. The reality is, if it wasn't Wall Street, it would be someone else. Like the Chinese for instance, or Japan whose imports have tripled since Fukushima. There is no shortage of demand, and speculators have nothing to do with that.
Well it would appear that China has finally found a spot to park it's unwanted USD. That would be here in good old Canada and all it cost them was leasing us two Pandas. What a deal! Back in 2011 I wrote a quick post about why Canada's economy is good, bad and bullshit. A key portion of this post was that China was dumping the USD - but one year later with multiple countries such as Russia, India, and Iran writing off the USD as well one has to wonder, who exactly is taking it? Well it would appear the answer is Canada.
Now not only are we trading resources to the U.S. for a devaluing USD, no no.. now we will accept them from China as well. Many people are probably looking at our new trade relations with China and say to themselves: "well thats good isn't it? We're diversifying from dependence on the U.S. economy" - but this isn't really the case. Whether we are receiving USD from China, or USD from the U.S. it is still USD which is directly tied to the health of the U.S. and global economy. So are we breaking our dependence on the U.S.? When it comes to the actual physical trade: yes. When it comes to the value we receive for what we trade: no.
Are you a big coffee drinker? Have you noticed anything happening to the price of coffee? How about other imported foods? If you are conscious about your grocery bill you will probably have noticed it's gone up quite a bit. This is a direct result of piggybacking the CAD off the USD. Many analysts now claim the CAD is directly tied to resources now. They indicate that when resources go up, the CAD goes up, and when resources go down, the CAD goes down. However, the target for comparison always happens to be the USD. You may notice that if the CAD does exceed the USD, it's not by very much and not for very long. This is because while resource prices influence our dollar, a 1:1 ratio with the USD at most (approximately) is essential not just for continuing trade with the U.S. but also to continue trade with any country who trades using USD. The number of countries is large, albeit dwindling. It is really a match made in heaven: MAny countries around the world are looking for a place to dump their USD and Canada's valuable resources are "open for business". As most of our politicians are heavily involved in the U.S. stock market, they also have a vested interest in keeping the USD alive, even if the cost of food and gas for you and your family becomes unaffordable. This is the new measure for economic health, this is why the Euro was rising even as Greece was burning. On paper accepting austerity is great, but in reality it is destroying what's left of their physical economy. You know; the economy that feeds people, not HFT.
The source of concern is a new U.S. regulation meant to deter deposit-taking institutions that receive backstopping from Washington from engaging in speculative trading for their own—not their clients’—profit, a practice known as proprietary trading. Risky trades by global banking giants were central to the banking crisis that compelled former U.S. president George W. Bush to launch a $700-billion bailout of Wall Street in 2008.
Translation: our banks engage in the same practices as in the U.S.
It goes on further:
“I think the impact could be very, very negative,” said Canadian Bankers Association President Terry Campbell. “If you interfere with the ability of governments and corporations to fund themselves, if you interfere with liquidity in the marketplace, which is necessary for funding, then you could have a very severe impact on our economy.”
Translation: Governments and Corporations fund themselves using risky and sometimes fraudulent banking practices and if we try to change that now then our "financial stability" is put at risk. Canada's complaints about these changes should confirm for all Canadians that our banks ARE NOT anymore stable than the U.S. or European banks. When you combine this fact with a world that uses the USD and a U.S. whose financial system is mostly dependant on foreign countries providing goods for that USD it should be no surprise the Fed's crisis fund bailed out non-US banks including Canada's TD.
The crisis in Greece is a preview of what's to come for all countries that engage in these practices as their ponzi economies rely on ever-increasing returns while peak oil ensures returns will be ever diminishing. It is the shortfall between leveraged value and real wealth which has Canada concerned as without riskier and riskier ways to leverage funds: profits dry up. For proof of this look no further than Alberta's latest budget which depends on a predicted 40% increase in oil revenue to meet expenses and bring Alberta out of a deficit (yet again).
Alberta's entire budget is based on a "bet" and betting is a feature of gambling. So Alberta's budget isn't really a "budget" at all now is it? When I budget for the month, I do not assume that sometime during that month I'm going to win the lottery and I certainly do not factor my theoretical lottery winnings into my budget. After you win the lottery and have the money in your hand then it is safe to include that in your budget. Now of course the odds of predicting oil price are a lot better than winning the lottery, but the cost of failure is the same.
Back in 2008, no energy analysts and no economic experts predicted a drop in oil price from $147/barrel to $38/barrel. No experts predicted that there would be a scooter revolution due to the price of gas at the time. Alberta has spent the last decade convincing Albertan's the oilsands were making them rich and yet wheres the money? The sustainability fund has been drained, infrastructure is crumbling or 20 years behind, the heritage fund in leu of their olympic train, $25m rebranding effort, and $2B for carbon capture is hardly sufficient to account for all of the resources given away in Albertan's names. With the latest budget and Alberta's continued campaign to pretend it has more money than it does - I expect a repeat of the 2008 situation in Alberta within the next 2 years.
Remember, at $147/barrel - and with cheap credit everywhere - debt could not be sustained. This time around all of that cheap credit has been used up and I believe the ceiling on oil demand is a lot lower. There is no more debt people (Americans) can get into to subsidize their ever-increasing cost of living. If oil hits Albertas targets and without some external crisis (Iran), it's highly unlikely it will be sustained any longer than the time it takes for those price changes to show up in the cost of consumer goods.
In chapter 1 of what now may be considered the beginnings of a World-War III we discussed what was then the active military action against Libya. We covered economic hitmen and the typical approach taken by western nations to overthrow or at least get nations to play along with their game.
Of course there are many other skirmishes going on, such as Syria but for me it is Iran which gets a "chapter 2" due to the clear escalation it represents. Back in 2005 Michael Ruppert described exactly the scene we are seeing play out with Iran today:
I know it is 2 hours long but please do take the time to watch as it is extremely important material. As you can see there are no mentions of nuclear weapons in this video and clearly what is happening now has been building for a long time far longer than this "sudden" nuclear media spotlight threat from Iran. Iran of course is simply going to be another theatre war as was described in "Project for a New American Century"'s report titled "Rebuilding America's defenses". The nuclear threat is the same WMD bullshit we were fed with Iraq.
Understanding the concept of "theatre" here is very important. It is theatre for your consumption, like a hollywood movie. If you have been watching the republican debates, one you might find quite interesting is the debate specifically oriented around national security. First of all, to begin: why national security? Why not the economy? It seems to me that national security really only comes up when the mass media exadurates the threats coming from countries with resources, or drugs. Then notice that for some reason all of the questioning is about Iran. You'd think with multiple wars going on, North Korea's leader near death, and China quickly gobling up global energy resources that some of the topics might have also made the list of "national security"; but instead it's a full 2 hours of essentially descriptions of theoretical scenarios involving Iran and how the candidates would respond to them. And respond they did, my most memorable response was Newt Gingrich talking on public TV about how he would use covert operations. Let me ask you, if Iran was such an imminent threat to their national security then why would they publically be discussing tactics they've yet to deploy? Why antagonize a nation you are not yet at war with by talking as though you are? Why give them the heads up? You see it was all for you, dear reader. It was a big scary show put on to promote a war with Iran and to scare the viewers with all of the scary theoretical scenarios the media (government?) could dream up.
I'd like to show you an interesting contrast. Here is some lovely theatre fluff for your consumption put out by ethicaloil.org to promote the ethical oil brand at the expense of Iran, and on the back of 10 years of propaganda and lies. It doesn't hold back at all even mentioning 9/11. It's 100% advertisement.
Here is an objective article put out by Zero Hedge about the dangers of Iran and oil price. See the difference? One provides facts and the other? Well the other tells you all about how great ethical oil is because you know.. war sucks. Sorry.. "conflict" sucks. The HuffPost article is so incredibly filled with shit I'm surprised Huffington even published it. Let's disect this sucker!!!!
Not everyone cares about the conflict footprint that comes with oil from Iran's loathsome regime. Plenty of countries are content to patronize a government that not only brutally tramples basic human rights, degrades women, and persecutes gays, but also uses the currency it collects from oil sales to build nuclear weapons so it can threaten and potentially attack its neighbors.
This is a real gem of a paragraph, let's look past the obvious and skip the demonization introduction. I'm not a fan of Iran but that sentence is clearly there to set your mood for this article. Tacked on to the end after the first three crimes get you all angry is this: "uses the currency it collects from oil sales to build nuclear weapons so it can threaten and potentially attack its neighbors". Obviously the author is hoping that the introduction has numbed your critical thinking here as this sentence is clear propaganda. The mention of using "oil money to build nuclear weapons" is interesting. First of all: I wasn't aware that ethicaloil.org had access to Iran's financials and second: that's a lot of oil money they've spent to not yet have a nuke, don't you think? It's an assumption on speculation presented as fact. Finally the author insults your intelligence by implying Iran has been threatening to attack it's neighbors with nuclear weapons when they re in reality denying these weapons exist at all. Moving on.
When France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, recently floated the idea of slapping an embargo on Iranian oil to pressure the mullahs to stop their dangerous and illegal nuclear arms race, he won support from Britain, but the rest of the European Union wasn't hot on the idea. They're just fine punishing ethical Canadian oil, but debated over punishing Iran's conflict oil.
Again, let's ignore obvious points such as the fact that there is a large ocean between us and Europe and the infrastructure to heavily douse Europe in Canadian oil doesn't exist anyway. What I find really interesting here is the idea implanted by the author that oil consumption at the moment is some sort of choice by these countries. For those who read this blog I shouldn't have to remind you that we only pump just under 2million barrels of ethical oil a day and I think it is safe to say that with the U.S.'s oil demand, and China.. Europe isn't getting any. Europe is demonizing our oil because it makes economic sense. They don't rely on our oil and they must appease those pesky environmental activists somehow. So they campaign against a product that doesn't impact them to gain popular support, just as ethical oil does against Saudi oil for popular support here. China is a brutal regime too, but we have no problem inviting them in and allowing them to use foreign temporary workers for staff.
But supporting conflict oil doesn't just mean promoting terror, persecution, murder, and war -- though it certainly does mean all those things. It also means promoting instability and risk. That's what the Europeans, and other importers of Iranian oil, are discovering right now. That's because the Iranian autocrats have declared that if the world continues to bring pressure to bear on them over their illegal nuclear program, they'll choke off world oil supplies by closing off the Strait of Hormuz.
The author doesn't know what "supporting terror" is, this is supporting terror with a direct result. Like I said, it is theatre for your consumption, dear reader.
In short, that could be disastrous to a world economy that's already perilously fragile. The Strait of Hormuz is the main channel through which Middle Eastern tankers transport oil for export from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Iraq. In addition, about 15.5 million barrels -- or a third of all ocean-transported oil and liquefied gas worldwide -- moves through the six kilometre-wide strait. Even for those countries, like the U.S. and Canada, who aren't clients of the Shariah oil state, the spike in oil prices that would be caused by such a major disruption of supply could be devastating. This is what a world at the mercy of conflict oil looks like. It's a hostage situation. We either directly support the horrendous rule of the worst dictators on earth and, if we don't, they can cause the entire world great economic pain and, potentially, even spark warfare. As the National Postreports, Iran's decision could very well "trigger military conflict with economies dependent on Gulf oil."
This paragraph is almost true, if you remove one word "conflict". It should read: "This is what a world at the mercy of oil looks like". Somehow the ethicaloil.org author has determined that Canada's ethical oil production will have no problem reaching the combined oil output of "conflict oil" countries. Considering that Saudi alone produces around 9million barrels / day I don't think I need to tell you why this assertion is a slap in the face to your intelligence.
Most of the time the difference is psychological: It's about values and the fate of persecuted people in foreign lands. Once in awhile the cost of choosing conflict oil becomes very palpable and very direct; 9/11 was one of those times, when Saudi oil money was linked to Al Qaeda.
Here's the kicker... 9/11!!!! Mixed in with the last three paragraphs of ethical oil promotional lines.
I guess the author hasn't heard that a lot of American money was "linked" too:
To conclude, the momentum behind this war has been building for years. It's no surprise that ethical oil would take advantage of this situation but seriously HuffPost, WTF? The Iran situation is certainly dangerous, it is something we should all be paying close attention to. Last year I predicted that oil prices would bounce between $80 and $100 for the remainder of 2010 (turned out true, no?). This year with the Iranian, Chinese, and Saudi situations I think we will definitely see $150, I can't say whether or not Zero Hedge's $200 will happen, that seems a little high. If it does happen, oil will be so hard to find on the market that it won't matter I believe.
I'm happy to say that since my last post Occupy Edmonton is doing very well. Edmonton (and the whole world) showed tremendous support tonight. I dare say Occupy Edmonton is nearing the amount of critical mass it needs to carry forward as a major movement. But where to?
All around the world it seems this is becoming the next big question: What is next for the Occupy movement? Will they start political parties? Will they make demands? I've been thinking about it for sometime from a theoretical point-of-view.
Some of the people who I talked with might remember me saying that ending compound interest for instance might be a good demand. But as this week has gone on I started asking the question 'why should there be demands?' What the people are upset about is obvious. Forcing them to make demands is almost an act of submission in itself, just wrapped in a confidence bow. Sure specifics need to be provided, by why is all of the onus on the people to come up with a credible "societal equitable business plan" and present it to big business/government when they would have us believe they make the big bucks because only they know how to make the big decisions or plan the big plans.
Obviously this stance by the system is completely contradictory. It serves a purpose though, it allows them to play both sides of the field. Say Occupy does make a plan or demands and we present them; it's highly likely the system comes back and says that it had it's "experts" analyze our plan and it simply won't work for one reason or another. When dealing with a systemic issue as large as we are the number of straw-man arguments is endless, there are countless ways we could restructure and everyone has a different idea what that restructuring looks like. Its simple to come up with an argument against any system, as the perfect system is yet to be invented. If no demands are made at all we make an argument for the system in that "we do not know what we want". This isn't desirable either.
So seemingly both avenues are cut off. But wait! There is another!! What if the demand is Occupy itself? Think about it. What if instead of demanding what the people need, the people are actually just doing what the people need? Could our society (for now mostly the U.S. although Canada's turn is coming soon) actually have already reached a point where confidence in the system is so low the people are simply shedding it?
Look at the U.S. right now, Occupy tent cities everywhere. They are beginning to turn into miniature self-governed communities. If these continue to grow.. what significance is the government anyway? If the government can't take care of the people and is just a revolving door and shell game with the banks, what good is it? What service exactly is it providing?
This week it occurred to me that the world just might have been looking in the wrong spot. While we were sitting and waiting for demands, we witnessed the birth of a globally supported, internet based governing system. A system based on direct democracy and consensus.
Lets be honest here and admit society is collapsing, and everything is not ok. As a society we have neglected and underestimated many fundamentals to life which have been lost in our current standard of living. Perhaps without even realizing it the human race is already adapting for the inevitable low-energy future just around the corner.
"We Will Lead Every Revolution Against Us" -- Theodor Herzl
It's unfortunate I have to write this post as I have been an avid supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement before it even began in the United States. During the first week there was a media blackout at which point I told many people that "there is an occupation of Wall Street going on right now". "Yea right", they said "I would have heard about it on the news.". Before Occupy Wall Street even started I have been writing about it abstractly. So before you assume I am an Occupy hater, realize that to me this movement isn't a prime time fad.
Sure enough, a few days after this embarrassing act by the NYPD, Occupy gained internet fame:
At this point mainstream media had no choice but to report on the growing protests and in the U.S. a new symbol of hope for America's youth has risen to create a uniting front against corruption and fraud. Most of what you see on TV regarding the movement is heavily doctored to sway your opinion regarding it. Following the original livestreams is the only true way to know you are not being lied to during this trying time.
In the U.S. the media made a fatal mistake, they attempted to ignore the message instead of control it in hopes that the movement would get bored and go home. In the week the media was ignoring the protests, hundreds of thousands found out about it and instantly lost all trust in anything media was telling them. Control is essential in public relations. This failure has ensured the U.S. movement became a success.
In Canada, it seems media and government learned from the mistakes of the U.S. We decided to control the message right away, taking this power away from Occupy itself and giving a heads up to any "activists" who always seem to end up where the cameras are. Articles like this showed up 10 days in advance. In fact on October 2nd I made a note of it on Twitter:
From this point on I decided to be cautious until I could confirm it's legitimacy as it was obvious that parts of this movement were not naturally occurring as they were in the U.S. In the U.S. the people did not need the mainstream media to tell them about the event to make it successful and here they were practically promoting it. This is a red flag.
Sure enough when I discovered that there would be an Occupy Edmonton, Mike Hudema's name (the Greenpeace mouthpiece) showed up as one of the organizers. About a year ago I contacted Mike Hudema about a possible interview regarding his views on peak oil, he never did respond. Suffice to say, I don't think he has any interest in representing this:
It looks more like he's interested in stuff like this. Greenpeace stuff, it looks like. I'd like to direct your attention to this article put out by CSIS. Does that sound like a government that wants to promote Anti-Globalization to you? How much have you heard about Anti-Globalization and banking fraud in relation to Occupy Edmonton? I'm not talking about "Ending Capitalism" here. I'm talking about addressing events like this:
Some of the world’s strongest banks have profited from an emergency credit facility set up by the US Federal Reserve to shore up confidence in the global financial system, according to a Financial Times analysis of data released by the Fed..
Rabobank of the Netherlands and Toronto-Dominion of Canada, two of the only banks in the world with triple A credit ratings, used more than $20 billion in cumulative Taf loans.
Ed Clark, TD chief executive, said that using Taf was logical even though his bank never had a liquidity problem. “That wasn’t how we made a lot of money. But you make a dollar here, you make a dollar there. What’s the spread you make on a billion dollars?” he said.
My bet would be little or none.
I don't know much about the other two media moguls of Occupy Edmonton. Mike Thomas (who blogs at adhdcanuck.ca) seems to be your run-of-the-mill environment activist. I know even less about Chelsea Taylor. I don't watch TV, so I haven't really been keeping up with interviews.
On Tuesday, I went down during the day, while taking a moment from work (If you don't get it yet, Occupy isn't about hippies who don't want to work contrary to the opinions of the likes of Michael Moore, and the other camera whores that pretend to be "alternative". Hey Michael, if you love socialism so much why are your documentaries *pay only* unlike pressfortruth.ca which is pro-capitalism and puts theirs out for free?) and during my time there some Greenpeace activists were across the street from the Occupy camp. With my megaphone I told them they should come over and join us, in response they smiled but decided to stay across the street. I made a mental note that this was fairly strange considering the Greenpeace spokes-person on oilsands was just across the street. Red flag number 2.
I also happened to witness a certain conversation between Mike Thomas and another participant at Occupy Edmonton. I will not release this persons name on this blog as he is not recognizable via media. Mr. Thomas was worried about some routine security problems and required a "chief of security". He assigned this position to the participant I was having a conversation with and told him he could gather volunteers. I offered to be a volunteer but due to my schedule I never actually ended up participating in any "security services". He went on to mention that it would be confirmed at the general assembly that night and consensus on the new position would be taken, but that in the midterm the position was required until then. I could not remain at Occupy long enough to witness the General Assembly myself, so I cannot say if that happened or not. For the moment I thought nothing of it and continued enjoying the protest until I left.
Throughout history revolutions have happened a lot, and yet they usually end up in tragedy. Take Egypt for instance. Often a desperate population will latch on to anything that even resembles a leader in the hopes it will bring freedom, even if they don't have their best interests at heart. Hitler, the Russian revolution, the list goes on and on. A disenfranchised population combined with demoralization and copious amounts of propaganda can easily be manipulated into following a Napoleon into their own battle of Waterloo, and that is exactly what I feel is happening to Occupy Edmonton.
By the time I got home Tuesday, I had a direct message waiting for me on Twitter from one of my followers asking if I knew what was going on with some incident involving a chief of security banning representatives from kikkiplanet.com. This was the first I had heard of it, and I had only passing familiarity with the Kikki Planet blog. I replied that I would look into it further.
Now one thing Occupy has been doing (for the most part) is taking the moral high ground. It's why they are winning. It's why the LAPD has a twitter account dedicated to supporting Occupy. Truth and honesty always win, and since this movement revolves around corruption it is ever more important. While the system puts out failures, the people stand united and outraged yet courteous and honest. New York avoided eviction by cleaning the park better than the company hired to clean it had. That's how you win against these assholes. That's how you avoid public relations nightmares. While media and big business plays friendly towards Occupy, they are just waiting for that big PR fuck up that will make their day!
I put on my sleuthing hat and away we went. First I had to catch up on the situation, reading Twitter, Facebook, comments on articles. I then decided to contact KikkiPlanet and see if I could get more details. At this point I was simply interested in avoiding a PR disaster. Occupy has enough trouble gaining support in Edmonton it certainly didn't need this. After conversing with Kikkiplanet.com and determining I had enough background on the situation, I decided to write a letter to act as a Proposal for the Occupy Edmonton General Assembly by proxy. I had too much work to do to make it down in person so I left the delivery to someone I felt I could trust regarding the subject matter. Kikkiplanet.com had positively confirmed to me that the "security chief" in question was the participant I met earlier.
Here is the proposal I wrote:
Good Evening Occupy YEG,
This is a proposal by proxy and thank you to the one reading it.
It's come to my attention that there has been a somewhat hostile exchange between Occupy and the blog Kikkiplanet.com. While I was not directly involved in any of the exchange I decided of my own accord to try and mediate a peace.
Occupy is very important for myself, and all of it's participants. We will face many struggles and proper representation of what we are, and what our opinion is very important. I think we can all agree that no one opinion represents this movement. I think we can also recognize that with no leaders we all are responsible for the movement's actions.
I therefore propose to the GA that a formal apology is constructed by the group for the ill-will Kikkiplanet.com has received. I'd ask our participants to hold no ill-will towards any media, as I am confident that when they see what we are really about they will be fair.
I believe in our movement, and that the GA can properly address this issue, and all parties can move on and focus on the important problems in society.
Kikkiplanet.com has requested to me to relay that they wish to publish an unedited version of tonight's GA baseline minutes. Please oblige.
@RichardFantin
I waited for word of the result.
A few hours later the person I had asked to deliver my proposal returned. They told me that they had delivered my proposal to someone named 'Rob' and he promised it would be read. During their time at Occupy Edmonton they had a chance to talk with Mike Thomas. They asked him about the exchange between Occupy Edmonton and KikkiPlanet. His reply was that the security chief position has never existed and that Occupy is being set up. I then confirmed this response with KikkiPlanet who had been told the same thing by Occupy Edmonton even though she sent them emails from the "security chief" in question which proclaim her to be banned. I have been forwarded all correspondence, it is authentic.
So there is now a cover-up underway. Occupy Edmonton was facing a small bump in terms of PR stemming from a negative blog post from Kikkiplanet.com seemingly based on misunderstanding. They are now facing failure. The person I sent down to Occupy told me they were shocked how many times Mike Thomas said "I'm in charge".
Charging into Waterloo.
*ADDENDUM*
I hope OccupyYeg can work past this issue and truly respect the spirit of Occupy. Here's a hint about what that spirit stands for (we're better than politicians, aren't we?):
Oh and this has nothing to do with my post, but here is a true hero:
Not long ago a naive younger version of myself decided he would be ‘left-wing’.For many years I subscribed to this ideology. I amongst many others took part in partisan flame-wars on news article comments. “Everyone on the right doesn’t have a clue”, I told myself.
Five years later, my perspective has changed considerably. I no longer identify with any ideology. Today I rarely even bother to look at what our politicians are saying, because I already know what they are saying. They are promoting whatever ideology they have subscribed to. They will paint today’s issues with a partisan brush and explain how only their ideology can work. It seems that no matter what sort of problem society encounters all it will take to solve it is a subscription to a specific ideology.
Reality tends to dictate though, that whatever your plan is unforseen circumstances will likely screw with it. This is why life on this planet is adaptive. Life adapts to the circumstances of which it finds itself in. In the last 100 years, with the advent of the petroleum based society which arguably for the first time in human history has provided more surplus than we know how to handle a new problem emerged. How do we control and distribute these resources? It is from this question that the modern left and right ideologies formed. Free market vs. Communism.
Today the world faces vastly different problems than it did 100 years ago and yetwe continue to frame all debates within these two very limited views on society. These views are not adaptive, they do not acount for unforseen circumstances. No one who subscribes to these views truly lives by either of them 100%. Many of those on the right are all too happy during a natural disaster to have governmental disaster relief. Take for instance the recent fire in ultra-conservative Alberta. Even though the government is giving money for rebuilding efforts no one is saying this defies the free market response. Albertans have been accepting of government intervention in this unforseen circumstance.
When push comes to shove in society, ideology goes out the window in favour of critical thinking. The rules of our virtual ideologies do not apply when the “greater good” is deemed imminently threatened. When a crisis is occurring most people are focused on what needs to be done, not who and how they are going to do it. These considerations do not matter in a crisis, there’s a job to be done and someone’s got to do it.
Yet when the crisis subsides the ideologies take hold again. The petty arguing between citizens resumes over petty issues. Who they think should provide health care, the government or corporations for instance. Both sides overlook the fact they both want the best healthcare to be provided, and that should be the primary concern or ‘root’ problem to solve.
Anyone who has ever debated me in politics may or may not have noticed that I refuse to use political labels. When I discuss issues you will not hear the words socialism, capitalism, etc, etc. I don’t use them because they don’t really mean anything when there is a problem to solve.
Since I’m a programmer, I will explain this using a programming analogy. Many people today have a favorite O/S of which you can find flame wars all over the internet debating which is “better”. Few of these arguments though put the phrase “better” in a circumstance.
IE:
“Windows is better for new users.”
“Linux is better for security professionals.”
“Android is better for embedded devices.”
Instead most of these discussions are absolutes, “Windows is better.”
When I’m approached for a development contract, my first question is always “what is the exact problem you are trying to solve?”. I don’t ask what their favorite O/S is, or if they have a preferred language. The reason? The preferred language or platform may not be the best choice for the particular problem. You might want a desktop app to manage your database, but I insist a centralized corporate website is better!
I can tell them what is the best solution to their problem because I evaluate all tools available without bias. Just because I do not like Windows does not mean I automatically rule out Windows as a tool to solve problems. This is the approach that is needed today in politics. As a society we must learn to address the root problem, and use all tools available to do it. Just as Linux is not the best O/S for every situation, the left (or right) is not always the best ideology for a given situation.
What we need to do to solve today’s problems is focus on critical thinking first and foremost. Not until all available tools are given equal weight will a true solution to our problems emerge. I don’t just mean left and right either, as I mentioned before these ideologies are mostly about resource distribution. None of the mainstream ideologies account for things like “finite resources”, instead opting for infintie growth. These ideologies were developed at a time when things like oil production and consumption might have been a sidenote on someone’s napkin at best. They were developed at a time when the majority of economic activity took place within a countries borders. We need to fully step back and address today’s problems without bias. We need to be open to modern technology, and the infinite amount of tools available to us. We need to understand that today’s world is neither socialist, nor capitalist.
It's 3:45am. For the past week I've had a churning in my stomach I can't shake, and with it I can't sleep. So much is on my mind, but so much is always on my mind -- why should this week be any different? So I'm going to just sit here, and write in my little space on the internet. I don't know yet even what I'm going to write about.
I can almost sense that the moment of just utter economic panic is closing in now. Since 9/11 who could have believed what we've seen? What we've witnessed? The G20s to riots in London. An utter war rampage in which now it's "nothing big" when we start attacking or invading a new country, It's seemingly become our right, and our right alone (NATOs) to globally police the world. I'm sick of it, seriously plain sick of it. Is this really all our "civilized" and "progressive" society is going to do? Wage war for the earth's remaining petroleum reserves while enslaving the future generations to debt servitude? These days it sure seems like it. So many people I speak to are so adjusted to the constant atmosphere of war and terror played on repeat to us through our discount Chinese slave labour TV screens.
This post isn't about Libya though, I still don't know what it's about. Maybe it's about the fact that the number of problems the world has on it's plate is overwhelming? Or maybe it's about the fact these problems are being left to a generation that will have no resources while the baby boomers drool over their stock portfolios and all of the monopoly money they think it will bring? Or how 10 years later it's perfectly O.K. that civil servants and the population was lied to about dust not being toxic from 9/11? The number of inconsistencies, lies, and glaring holes in not just 9/11 but the entire economic and political systems continue to mount and where is our Canadian voice? I'm still not hearing it. We are not going to be able to vote to fix these issues. Not at a federal level at least. The corruption of our system is utter and complete to the point where deception and propaganda infiltrates our lives almost 24/7. Marketing agencies are on a constant search to see where they can put ads next to get in your face. Cable companies continue to extend the time given to ads and then wonder why people are leaving their services. It's amazing anyone manages to end the day having any independent thoughts that weren't baked up for them by a public relations team.
The double-think in our world I believe can literally drive a non-adjusted person insane. If your memory is longer than 5 years then watch out; the plain criminality and denial can be a lot to handle. But no, none of these things are what is keeping me up tonight. So, what could it be?
I don't get this feeling often, maybe its some sort of super-power? I wish. It just feels like a climax of unseen proportions is barreling our way. Today was an insane news day. I'm still processing everything and trying to understand it. It seems Canada is stepping up it's police state. Two announcements today: Stephen Harper is predictably reinstating the charter violating anti-terror laws and in Vancouver's riot report, the "recommendations" certainly raise some suspicions. Take note of the vague terms such as 'hooligan demographic'. Do you know what that is? It's anyone, like "terrorist". I find it interesting in light of London which may arguably have the most CCTV cameras in the entire world and still had the recent riot, CCTV is still being recommended for riot prevention. Watch how fast 'hooligan' and 'terrorist' become one and the same. The writing is all over the wall at this point, Canadians really need to start noticing the path we are on. If you have never seen it, you need to see Into the fire -- this is their preparation for whatever is in store. I've been writing now for some time about how Canada will soon be in the same economic boat as the other western powers, does it still seem so unbelievable? If it does I'm sorry to say, but you have been brainwashed. Repeated statements such as 'economic stability' and all the other crap these politicians spout might sound fancy, but critically think about what they have said. Are they saying anything? Our banks are stable because we have "regulations"? Give me a break; we use fractional reserve banking, fiat currency and compound interest just like every other ponzi fiat economy. They are not stable, Canada's just in a different spot in the economic food chain. Just today I read an article about how we had better drop our "hostile corporate takeover" regulations. "Hostile takeovers in the U.S. are a lot more difficult" -- I almost pissed my pants laughing. Harder for who? Those not on the inside.
Am i rambling? I can't even tell anymore. There are so many problems, but in reality they are all one problem. A failed naked system, an emperor not only with no clothes, but no money in the bank either. The world's last economic hope of China has just reported that they anticipate a slowdown of growth in their economy. Probably because they are short on energy to grow it. It's simple logic, you see. But does either article point to the conclusions of the other? No. Everything is compartmentalized and packaged with a neat little bow for your half-thought out consumption.
I can feel tensions in my generation are growing. It's not a simple anger boiled around politics or economics. It's a complex, deep seeded anger, that either consciously or unconsciously is on every youths mind. When we see articles today about the baby boomer pensions crisis it's pretty well a huge red flag of hopelessness for future generations already debt ridden. If anyone from my generation believes there will ever be a pension waiting for them, it's a false belief. Maybe it's more faith than belief. Or even normalcy? My generation has been taught that you work hard, live it good, then retire. It's another form of double-think, we are constantly told by the system that everything is ok, and yet if there is a debt crisis now, a pension crisis now, what hope do we have in 40 years? This feeling of hopelessness is inherently political. It really makes me angry when simple-minded supporters of this corruption boil down events like the London or Vancouver riots to simple phrases. One of the more common one's I heard was "Well what do you mean they're poor? They've all got ipods and are tweeting.". Well what do you expect? this comes back to the 24/7 corporate invasion into our life. Madness that can drive actions like this. This isn't 1991, you don't need to be rich to have a cellphone, and most carriers are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts providing the phones for free. Just like how governments keep adjusting the CPI so that real inflation is hidden. Oh the price of food went up? That's ok, kids will just buy more Ipods because they are cheaper. This is the lunacy of the system we surround ourselves with, and then wonder why it's blowing up in our face.
The response from the system is becoming obvious. A campaign against western youth is well underway. The system knows we are long overdue for a generational revolution, and it just doesn't want to let go. It'll come none-the-less though, it's inevitable. Just as civil unrest has spread like wildfire in Europe and the Arab nations, it will be here too. One day in your streets you will see events like this for yourself. They are gearing up for a war against the generation they've stolen everything from. They know most of us will figure it out one day, and when that day comes the propaganda against them will be in full effect.
Update* Forbes is sourcing bogus stuff. I have contacted the author to either verify or correct.
Update2* I've contacted the author, and he was not aware the source was bogus. Bloomberg has not made this announcement, at least not yet. I still recommend giving these videos a watch though.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
===========================================================
In the wake of hurricane Irene Forbes is reporting that Mayor Michael Bloomberg has warned looters they will be put in internment camps if caught. This is a shocking development, and leads me to believe that the United State's (and Canada's?) network of internment camps is now running and operational. This could signal that they expect economic crisis in the very near term.
The notable paragraph:
In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg chose not to evacuate the criminals in Rikers Island, according to Mother Jones. The mayor has also warned that any looters caught during or in the wake of the storm will be placed in internment camps. This raises questions about the role of law enforcement and order during a natural disaster.
So the deed is done, the U.S. has now officially been rated AA+ for an entire trading day during which the S&P took the ratings axe to many U.S. institutions. Many people who have read this blog probably look at it with an overly negative outlook. Please now look back at all of my posts and notice they revolve around two themes. The price of oil & the collapse of the USD.
I've been clear about three things in particular:
1) The USD will collapse.
2) The price of oil will not rise continually enough to sustain the oil sands developments, and the failing America's will not be able to afford it.
3) Alberta's failure will be due to lack of diversification or having all of our eggs in a failing market.
They are really not complex principles. Hard to believe maybe.. back in April, or March. Or if you followed me on Facebook before I moved to twitter/this blog for the two years on there in Canadians for an Energy Revolution. But are they hard to believe now?
I have to tell you all, I'm pissed. I do not write about these issues to be a "downer". I write about them because NOBODY is discussing them. I don't *want* Alberta to fail, but it WILL fail unless we address these issues now, TODAY. For over two years I have been posting news, writing blogs, emailing the legislature and parliament, and nobody wants to address a U.S.A. failure and the implications on Canada.
I don't have solutions for you. I'm not going to lay out any plans for you to follow. This is a job for the community to do. The communities around Alberta collectively need to discuss the very real and imminent problems in the economy that will be caused by maintaining the oil sands projects. They need to figure out how to adapt their economies away from an industry that puts multiple projects on hold if the price drops. This "stop and go" mentality is my main reasoning for my negative outlook on oil sands production capacity along with the three points above.
Extreme oil price volatility will be a fact of life now until 1 of 2 things happen:
1) U.S.A. stabilizes (won't happen)
2) USD is dropped as the reserve currency of the world. I've written a bit about this scenario here.
* Update | 08/09/2011: Seems that OPEC has now revised it's oil demand outlook downward once again. One of the reasons cited is the cost of oil hampering economic growth. Look back to point 2, The price of oil will not rise continually enough to sustain the oil sands developments, and the failing America's will not be able to afford it.
* Update | 11/09/2011: MSM articles about Canada's U.S. dependent economy are starting to emerge ( article1, article2 ). It's only a matter of time now before the truth is obvious and in our faces.
* Update | 17/09/2011: Will Canadian oil go to China instead of the U.S.? What Stefan doesn't understand in this interview is that it is not "individuals" from China investing in oilsands. It is the government of China investing. All oil in China is state run.
By now anyone who follows energy, economics, or the environment has probably heard the term "ethical oil". If you are not familiar with it; it was coined by Ezra Levant in his book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands. It also coined a lesser known term "conflict oil".
Recently a new blog came to my attention which was influenced by Ezra's book and it's causing quite the stir amongst environmental groups not sure how to counteract the image being portrayed. This image or argument is essentially that right now society requires oil, so would you rather get this oil from unstable, civil rights violating dictatorships or from friendly democratic Canada. This argument is painted for you in colorful contrasting advertisements which pop up on the blog showing the clear contrast between "life" and "death" (green or orange), along with exaggerated images to reinforce the idealism. A happy worker in a green field for "life", and a destroyed oil excavation site with Hugo Chavez imposed over top for "death" for instance.
Inside the site is scattered with cherry picked statistics, such as the employment statistics for nearby native communities. It is certainly a clever ploy by Big Oil which more or less renders the environmental aspect and argument moot as no matter what anyone says regarding environmental impact the response has become "well would you rather have 'ethical oil' or 'conflict oil'?". Clever indeed.
What the website fails to mention however is that as long as we have dependence on oil the world will always require conflict oil. Lets put this in perspective, here is a chart showing world oil consumption and production. Do you see the spread between European oil usage and production? How about for North America? Never-mind even about Asia-Pacific, but consider it none-the-less. For this argument we will not look at it as we don't need to. So roughly from that chart, you could say that if Europe and North America didn't import (or export), production would need to increase by what? 20million/day? 30million/day? Well according to Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Canada's total production in 2010 was 2.8million barrels / day. By 2025 they estimate 4.3!!! (Keep in mind, this is the oil industries estimates, not the *REAL* numbers.).
So here is what I ask you Ezra, how is your argument for Canadian oil relevant at all? The world doesn't just need oil, the world needs conflict oil. There is no magic bullet to make that not so, and no amount of Canadian ethical oil (rated at 1.5million barrels / day in 2010 (World usage = at least 85 / day)) will change that. Do you know why Ezra? Because unlike ethical oil, conflict oil doesn't need $100 / barrel to pretend a profit is coming in.
The oil sands are environmentally damaging and are not financially viable. We don't even know what the untold costs in environment and water usage are. They will never ever ever add up to more than a drop in the world oil usage bucket, because production is inefficient. It requires too much energy to make a barrel of low-quality "oil" from these projects of last resort. Remember when $70 / barrel was "expensive" and enough to make Alberta a profit? What happened to that? now we need $100. What happened is the input costs caught up with the output costs, and we don't want to know what happens if a sudden market move drops oil well below the input costs as it takes time for those price fluctuations to reach production. In other words the oilsands *only* bring in profit during sudden upward market moves in oil up until the time input costs rise due to the cost of oil. Get it?
Conflict oil vs. Ethical Oil is a straw-man argument. The infinite growth economy doesn't care how many people die to fuel it, or how much of the environment is destroyed. All it cares about is fueling more growth, which needs more resources, or the debt pyramid we've sold our kids into will collapse on our heads. You've been warned.
* Updated | 08/08/2011: Well it's Monday now. The U.S. S&P downgrade has taken effect in the market; and what do you know, this appears in my twitter feed. Yea, wow. Amazing I know. Get it yet? The oil sands are a MONEY LOOSER. The price CAN NOT climb forever. What is worse: we are selling our resources short, without our own stock or "strategic petroleum reserve". That's right, we have no SPR.
Good day to you Albertans. I haven't written on this blog for quite awhile, in fact I wasn't even sure if I was ever going to blog again. Things are moving too fast now to really spend any significant time on a particular subject however I feel Alberta's economy needs some special attention right now.
Just recently I saw an article proudly displayed on every frontpage: Alberta tops U.S. job creation. Apparently Alberta's job market grew by 22,000 jobs where as the ENTIRE united states only recorded 18,000. Naturally Albertans rejoiced, claiming that boom times were back and economic growth was on the way. Further it seems to be not a reason to be concerned but instead put even more faith the Alberta government is right "waiting for oil & gas revenue to rebound". Anyone remember Ed-TV almost 3 years ago? Anyone remember Alberta's "5 year economic action plan"? Yea, I didn't think so, apparently 3 years into this plan we are still on step 1 "waiting for oil & gas revenues to rebound". So lets look at when they will be rebounding.
Who buys our oil? Who is our largest trading partner? Well it happens to be the U.S. The same U.S. that had the remarkable drop in job numbers, and now today GDP data just kicked the U.S. while already down. One has to wonder exactly where all of this expected economic growth is going to come from? U.S. oil demand continues to stagnate, and lets be honest about how much time it takes for oil infrastructure to be set up for any profitable sales to China or other cross-continental markets. A long time. China certainly is pursuing this option though, and you can trust that China (the largest slave-wage market) really has Albertan's jobs and wages at heart.
Just wait for the day in the very near future where Alberta says "hmm, we really didn't see this coming". Because they will, of this I have no doubt. The forgotten 5-year plan will be revived and extended into a "10 year plan" and by the time Albertan's and the Alberta government take the global economic situation seriously we will not have the funds to do anything about it.
The new Alberta boom is based entirely on faith that Alberta "always has a boom". We simply expect economic booms to be thrown our way, and when we are not in one we are waiting for the next. There is no world-economic data to show any signs of a coming boom for Alberta. Yes, we had more jobs than the U.S., so what? That means a whole bunch of our clients will soon not afford our product. 18,000 jobs for an entire country is dismal, it does not point to an Alberta job boom, it points to a U.S.A. mega-economic failure and this will surely affect the Albertan economy in the not-to-distant future. Faith alone can't sustain us anymore.
The oilsands continue to take public relations hits across the globe. Just recently the Keystone pipeline leaked yet again making for the forth pipeline leak in relation to oilsands pipelines in the last 2 months, 2 of which occured in Alberta. In the midst of all of the bad public relations it seems a very important long term trend has been overlooked: Canada has significantly decreased it's expected oilsands output.
In 2005 the alberta government released a video of their current plans for Alberta's oil economy:
The video makes an estimate that Canadian oil output will be 5million barrels per day by 2030, however just recently the Guardian released an article about Canadian oilsands which contains an interesting little blurb:
Output will increase five-fold to 5m barrels of dirty oil a day by 2040.
Now obviously this author is biased against oilsands oil, and in being so could have his facts wrong. He doesn't source where this output estimate comes from. If he is correct however, that means in the last 6 years, Alberta (and Canada) have significantly lowered their output expectations.
Going by Alberta's original video, over a period of 25 years we would see gains of about 140000 barrels per year. But if the 2040 estimation can be believed we will be seeing a yearly increase of only 100000 barrels per year over a period of 29 years. (Calculations based off 1.5m barrels / day in 2005, 2m barrels / day today).
So what could this indicate? Well for one, it indicates that prior to 2008 economic turbulence probably was not considered by the Alberta Government. Indeed their attitude at the time was "We're in a boom, we have money, it'll never end!", well until it did end that is. It tells us that Canada is overly-optimistic of their production capacity during a time when the input costs are an unknown (the gas and water and electricity needed to power the oilsands operations).
With an estimate of 5m barrels by 2040, I am now forced to lower my estimates of a peak of 3.5m barrels in 2020 to 3m barrels in 2015. We'll never reach the 5million mark, as oil price lead depressions will destroy demand as soon as any sort of production ramps up, causing the sorts of shutdowns we saw in 2008/2009.
Alberta, you need a new plan, and Canada: we'll never become an energy super-power if we expect to get our energy from the energy intensive, unstable, and fiscally impossible oilsands industry.
* Update: Changed calculation results from fractions to whole barrels produced.
Seems to be a lot of confusion out there about why exactly Canada's economy isn't entirely under water like the rest of the world. Is it Conservative policy, was it Liberal policy? No one seems to really know, and both parties claim it was their doing.
Reality Check: The people make the economy and not the politicians. So in this article I will explain to you why our economy is currently percieved as being stable (which in reality it is not anymore stable than the currencies we depend on).
Canadians have all heard the stories about how "stable" our banking system is. The reality couldn't be further from the truth and a little known fact is our banks were bailed out by the U.S. Federal Reserve. This was an under the table deal which was only revealed this year and it was on top of the Canadian stimulus package put forth by the Harper Government and the Liberals. It coincidently didn't make Canadian news, and I'm sure most people reading this never heard about it. You were never meant to hear about it as it would fly directly in the face of the 'deep integration' plans currently underway.
Now I know my detractors will point at the "AAA" rating of our banks in the article and simply say they were just looking for more profit, so let me remind you the banks that failed in the U.S. all had "AAA" ratings. Rating agencies are run by the ratees. This should be obvious given that the S&P is only just now warning about U.S. debt even though U.S. debt has been a problem for awhile. The S&P is only now saying something because their credibility is being seriously questioned by those who bought into the USD koolaid.
So what's so great about the Canadian economy? Well we export resources, and this isn't because of political policy in the last few years. We are one of the few energy exporting countries left, in fact just recently Russia announced it would be cutting off petroleum exports in the month of May. This is just one more sign that the dawn of the post-petroleum age has begun due to peak oil.
What is bad about our economy? Well, about 60% of our economy relies on trade with the U.S. We give them valuable resources, and they give us USD. Unfortunately the USD continues to push towards record lows due to the QE programs while gold continues to push for new record highs. So what exactly is Canada getting for it's valuable resources? Not much. We are trading resources that are only increasing in value, for worthless digital paper that is not worth the paper it's not printed on, and is also decreasing in value. Sound like a good deal to you? Well it gets better.
What does Canada use to import pretty well everything? USD. Unfortunately for us, China has begun dumping the USD meaning that as our politicians push for more integrated trade between the U.S. and Canada, the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to dump the U.S. and not get stuck holding the empty bag. Canada will be the empty bag holder, as none of our politicians have the political will to say no to the United States. In other words, all 4 politicians telling us the economy will be fine are completely full of shit. We have no control over the economy, we are an exporting nation. This means as long as there are buyers, we can be sellers -- but if no one is buying, we won't be selling. We experienced this briefly in 2008 before the U.S. initiated the TARP programs.
So Canada, we have a big decision ahead of us. Do we decouple the CAD from the USD, effectively cutting off trade with them, but returning our dollar to a reasonable value? Or do we keep the trade going by devaluing our own currency and thrusting 8% or more inflation on Canadian citizens. I'll be honest, neither option is without it's downfalls. We will not escape this crisis pain-free.
* Updated | 11/09/2011:The decision is now ahead of us. As I predicted when I wrote this article on April 30th (posted just after midnight on May 1st), Canada is faced with a decision on whether to break the peg to the USD. Raising interest rates would prevent the inflation I mentioned (for a time) at the cost of our exports to the United States. However, as I mentioned in 'Miss Canada' our political "leaders" have no political will and this probably won't happen. This includes the NDP which voted alongside the Liberals and Conservatives to continue our illegal war against Lybia, in which we are actually backing Al-Qaeda. They are all puppets.
Here we go again, another Miss Canada contest. Leaders debates, campaign roadshows, and probably more time spent in a stylist's chair than your favorite hollywood actor. Is it any wonder we have such low voter turnout when so many Canadians are not even entirely sure how our political system works? Let alone having any faith it works at all?
canada.com
Browsing comments on election articles you often will see statements such as "I'm not voting for Stephen Harper." Well just an FYI, hardly anyone in Canada is voting for Stephen Harper. You would have to be a member of his Calgary constituency. You see here in Canada, we actually don't vote for a Prime Minister, believe it or not. We don't even vote what "party" will be in power. Our MPs vote for these things and it is indeed quite possible to have a Prime Minister elected from a party not in power, as long as the house has faith in the governing body. In simple terms, we elect members of parliament and nothing else.
I know it sounds simple right, and yet here Canada is stuck in this Canada/American party politics, first-past-the-post void. Canadian elections today are more like leader popularity contests, which is funny because it is also entirely possible for the "leader" to not even have a seat in the house. This is why leaders choose a constituency that is highly likely to vote them in and favor "their party". Wouldn't it be embarrassing for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to not get elected to his seat? Yes it *could* happen in our political system. When it comes to the "party system", I believe strongly in what Gerald Celente has to say:
"they're having a party, and you're paying for it."-- Gerald Celente
This election though has had a few interesting turns in events. everyone has heard about Harper throwing students out of his rallies. I personally don't care what he does at his rallies, it is his prerogative who attends and who does not. Whether it represents true democracy or not is debatable but in any case it is not illegal. However, what seems to be getting the good old media white-wash on this is that it is the RCMP doing these background checks:
“I was told the RCMP had done a screening and that perhaps my name was affiliated with something on Facebook or the Internet,” MacDonald told the Star. “Something that made me unfit to enter. They wouldn’t say what it was.”
The RCMP are even complicit in removing media from Harper events:
Since when is it the RCMP's job to work for political campaigns in this manner? Normally we would say things like this happen in a police state but as mainstream media constantly reminds us we are not Iraq and this is not a police state, which leaves me still almost a year later without an appropriate term to call this circus:
Truth of the matter is that Canadian elections are just for our entertainment. None of the parties have any interest in explaining the real way things work. All of them have latched on to this party policy crap which is usually superficial issues that don't affect our overall agenda. Notice how during this election all work for the people has stopped to campaign, but agendas we take part in such as bombing Lybia are going ahead as scheduled. In the end no difference will be made, especially if we go with either the Conservatives or the Liberals who both have publicly stated an intention to sell Canadian sovereignty.
When it comes to the NDP, they will promise the moon to get in power. But once they get in and realize the world economic state what will they do about it? The sad truth is that today, no political "party" or politician has the political will to come out and lay down the situation about the world debt collapse and peak oil even though it's obvious confidence in the economy just isn't there.Take for instance the Liberal Platform fiscal policy which states:
A Liberal government will commit to reducing the deficit to one percent of GDPwithin two years, down from 3.6 percent in 2009-10. We will set subsequent, rolling targets to continue decreasing the deficit every year after that until the country is returned to surplus. Unless Canada is faced with an unexpected second recession, all fiscal planning will be consistent with this anchor.
Canadians need to realize that we have some serious structural issues that go far beyond our partisan political bickering. Until politicians stop painting the world in rainbows, sunshine and lollipops voter apathy will only go up. Fewer and fewer people believe the tired rhetoric coming out of these people's mouths on a daily basis and I believe this trend will only continue as the world situation gets worse and increasingly contradicts the unrealistic promises in their platforms until one day there will only be one action left to take: facing reality.
Tokyo sits in darkness during a rolling blackout / bionicbong.com
15 minutes until Earth Hour here in Edmonton Alberta and I for one will not be turning out my lights or avoiding the use of electricity. Probably an odd statement coming from me for those who know me or read this blog. But why? You might be asking, isn't the reduction in power usage what you advocate? And indeed it is what I advocate, so please let me explain.
Earth Hour is an interesting phenomenon, according to their website:
Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million individuals and more than 2,000 businesses turned their lights off for one hour to take a stand against climate change. Only a year later and Earth Hour had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries/territories participating. Global landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, CN Tower in Toronto, Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum, all stood in darkness, as symbols of hope for a cause that grows more urgent by the hour.
Climate change is what they are standing up against, not oil consumption, or the debt based infinite growth economy. Seems like a good cause anyway though right? I mean who doesn't want to help the planet? Who wants more extreme weather? Certainly not me, I can't stand the Canadian cold as it is.
My main question though of course is: how exactly does turning off the lights for an hour stand up to climate change? At the end of this hour we all know you are going to turn the lights back on, unlike the Japanese shown above who have been forced to have rolling "earth hours" for 6-8 hours at a time.
Here's the big fact that opposses the climate change philosophy of earth hour: power plants are still producing the same amount of power. Just because you are not using this energy, does not mean it is not being generated and essentially wasted. Power plants can not simply ramp up or down the amount of generating capacity at a whim. Power production relies heavily on anticipated usage so that they can ensure that the proper amount of power is being generated at any given time to meet demand without too much waste. What do you think an event like earth hour does to the anticipatory abilities of this power production? Well because it is voluntary it is therefore unpredictable. It is not known how many people will or will not be using power, and the hour long duration doesn't offer enough time to bother adjusting power output.
So, because you are not using power, is that power being saved? No, in fact its being wasted. Earth Hour wastes power, and all for some irrelevant symbology to appease our guilty earth destroying consciousness. We will produce excess energy for this hour all so that we can feel as though we are not wasting any.
So I will not be participating, and I hope you don't either. Proudly use the power being generated, because it will be generated regardless of whether you decide to use it or not. Earth Hour is the illusion of change, without having to change anything. Earth Hour should really be called "Us Hour", because truthfully it is all about our feelings about power usage and has little or nothing to do with genuine concern for the Earth or any sort of lasting change.
Update & note: For those who say "Earth Hour" is about raising awareness about climate change or energy consumption; consider that using this sort of logic that "wasting it shows you want to conserve it", it would then make sense to go around burning the money in your wallet. Not spending it, but literally lighting it on fire in waste. Under the logic of earth hour this should help raise awareness that saving money is a good idea.... Yea, it doesn't make sense to me either.
