Despite Precise Celestial Navigation a lot of Ships and Valuable Cargoes still got Lost at Sea
Open sea navigation was once very perilous. It took a long time before ships ventured from sight of the shoreline. And a lot of technology. Boats used to go the long way across the Mediterranean Sea. Because being in open water at night without any visible landmarks was very dangerous. So they hugged the coastline. Adding days to every voyage. And more danger. Because the longer at sea the greater the risk there was of sinking. Especially when you were skirting the rock-infested shallows of the shoreline.
The Sumerians charted the stars. The Greeks continued this work, producing charts that could tell you what latitude (north/south position) you were at by looking at the stars and planets. By measuring the angle of the stars and planets above the horizon. The Arabs created one of the first tools to measure these angles. The kamal. Knowing this angle you could do a little math and look at a pre-calculated table of values. And get your latitude. Better instruments followed. The cross-staff. The astrolabe. And then the sextant. The gold standard of angle measuring until the advent of Global Positioning Satellites (GPS). Calculating longitude (east/west position) was a bit more complicated. Because the earth rotated. Which required some more skillful measuring and more calculations. And/or a reliable and accurate clock. To adjust your results by the time of day. As the time as well as the stars moved from east to west as the planet rotated.
The Chinese developed the magnetic compass. A helmsman steered his ship by the compass. The navigator checked the angles of celestial bodies (sun, moon, stars and planets), checked time and the ship’s speed to fix the ship’s position. By determining latitude and longitude. The navigator fed course headings and course corrections to the helmsman. Armed with these skills, tools, celestial charts and tables, the navigator could do a little math and navigate a ship across a vast ocean day or night to any port in the world. Transporting valuable cargoes safely and timely across the globe. Pretty impressive for the time. But despite this precise celestial navigation, a lot of ships still got lost at sea. As well as their valuable cargoes.
The Joint-Stock Company and Insurance Reduced the High Risks of Transoceanic Shipping
No matter how well a navigator could fix a ship’s position there were some things he just couldn’t do. Such as avoid an uncharted reef. Prevent a mutiny. Fend off pirates. Fend off enemy warships. Make storms go away. Or even see through dense fog. Simply put being on a small wooden ship in the middle of an ocean was very dangerous. Which poised quite the problem for early global trade.
It was a huge investment to put a ship to sea. It took another huge investment to fill a ship with valuable cargo. And if that ship didn’t make it back to sell that cargo it was very bad news for the investor. A lost ship could financially ruin them. So not only could you get rich in this new global trade you could become impoverished. Which made rich people reluctant to finance this early trade. Because it was so risky. Two things helped to reduce this risk to manageable levels. Insurance. And the joint-stock company.
A group of investors could buy stock into a company that was going to make numerous voyages on various ships. In exchange for a share of the profits from this trade each investor paid a share of its cost. Thus the joint-stock company spread the risk to multiple investors, reducing the risk to any one person. So one lost ship would not cause financial ruin to any one investor. Thus encouraging investment into this lucrative new trade of transoceanic shipping. And with the advent of insurance, shippers could insure each voyage for a small affordable fee. By collecting this small fee on every voyage the insurer could pay for the few ships and cargoes lost at sea. Not the investors. Thus further encouraging investment into this very risky endeavor.
Celestial Navigation, Insurance and the Joint-Stock Company made Transoceanic Shipping Possible
The smartphone you can’t live without today most likely came to you via a large container ship from a port across some ocean. It made a long and perilous voyage to get to you. Which wouldn’t have been possible without celestial navigation, insurance and the joint-stock company. The things that made transoceanic shipping possible. Most of which are still in use today. As they were when brave mariners took to the open seas in those small wooden ships of yesteryear.
Tags: angle, calculations, cargo, celestial bodies, celestial navigation, compass, global trade, helmsman, horizon, insurance, investment, joint stock company, latitude, longitude, measuring, navigation, navigator, ocean, planets, sea, ship, shippers, shipping, small wooden ship, stars, transoceanic shipping, valuable cargo, wooden ship
With the Royal Navy, the Steamship, the Railroad and the Telegraph, Great Britain Peacefully Ruled and Led the World
The British Corn Laws were on the books from 1815 to 1846. To protect domestic cereal farmers from less expensive food imports. By adding a tariff to these grain imports. Increasing their price. So they weren’t any cheaper than the domestically grown grain. Interestingly it was the few great landowners who wanted these tariffs. Not the people who had to buy the food. For paying more for food meant they had less to spend on clothing and other things.
When it came to consumer prices the people were always for free trade. Because whatever they earned it never seemed enough. So paying more in taxes was never a good thing. These wealthy landowners even put forth the argument that paying higher food prices meant higher wages. In a feeble attempt to maintain these tariffs. They said that manufacturers just wanted cheaper food so they could pay cheaper wages. Because if food wasn’t that expensive their workers wouldn’t need as much pay. And, of course, the greedy manufacturers would just pocket more profits. Much like the greedy landowners were doing thanks to the Corn Laws. But their greed was somehow different.
Well, free trade won out. Eventually. And they repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. And, as expected, food prices plummeted. Soon they imported more food than they grew. Because it was cheaper. And it freed up more money for use elsewhere in the economy. Stimulating innovation and invention. Taking the Industrial Revolution to new heights. And raising the standard of living for all people. Not just the wealthy landowners. The British Empire reached its zenith in the 19th century. After the defeat of Napoleon there was about a century of peace called the Pax Britannica. Where Great Britain became the global policeman. With the Royal Navy, the steamship, the railroad and the telegraph, Great Britain peacefully ruled and led the world.
The U.S. was a Large Free Trade Zone with a Common Currency, Language, People and Customs
The British were the most advanced nation in the 19th century world. And the richest. Her empire dominated trade. Her rule of law and common currency made that trade efficient. It was a giant free trade zone within her empire. But it couldn’t last. The cost of maintaining the empire, plus a world war, was just too much. Her economic might faded. While another rose. In a former colony. The United States.
The sun never set on the British Empire. Because it was that big. Reaching around the globe. Connected by long lines of communication. And an imperial British culture uniting different peoples. Who knew different cultures, laws and money. Whereas as the United States had all the advantages of empire (size and range of resources) without any of the disadvantages. The U.S. was a large free trade zone with a common currency, language, people and customs. The states comprising the U.S. were as big as countries in other parts of the world. But trade could flow between any two states without custom duties, tariffs or even inspections. It was truly free.
When the Industrial Revolution reached the United States, the economy took off and never looked back. By the end of the 19th century she was challenging the British Empire. And rapidly overtook her. There was another global policeman in town. All because of a giant free trade zone that was as big as a continent.
The ‘United States’ of Europe created the Eurozone and a Common Currency (the Euro) to Compete with the U.S.
The United States is such the perfect model of free market capitalism that Europe created the Eurozone and a common currency (the Euro) to compete with the U.S. And it worked. For awhile.
The ‘united states’ of Europe as a whole has a larger economy than the U.S. But they have their problems. For a common currency is only part of America’s success. The U.S. is a united federation of states with one set of federal laws, language and culture for interstate commerce. Something Europe doesn’t have. And probably never will. European countries have far too much history and culture. And nationalism. They will never unite politically. Like the United States. Or the British Empire, for that matter.
The key to the British Empire was that it was British. One currency. One language. One set of laws. One culture. For interstate trade, at least. Just like in the country that surpassed her. The United States. Still, there’s nothing wrong with being a smaller economic power than the U.S. As long as you have free trade your people can enjoy a high standard of living. Without the added responsibility of being the global policeman.
Tags: British, British Corn Laws, British Empire, common currency, Corn Laws, culture, currency, economy, Europe, Eurozone, food prices, free trade, free trade zone, global policeman, grain, Great Britain, greed, imports, Industrial Revolution, interstate, interstate commerce, landowners, law, manufacturers, rule of law, standard of living, tariff, tariffs, trade, U.S., United States, wages
When People can Buy and Sell as they Please without Outside Interference we call it Free Trade
Agriculture advances gave us food surpluses. Food surpluses gave us a division of labor. The division of labor gave us trade. Money made that trade more efficient. Religion and the Rule of Law allowed great gatherings of people to live and work together in urban settings. Thus unleashing human capital. And creating a great diversity in economic output. Because all these people with spare time could create new things. That other people discovered. And wanted.
The Rule of Law gave us property rights. And it’s because of property rights that people take chances. Then. And now. To create things. Invest their labor and capital. Because they own what they create. And are free to trade these products of their own labor and capital. Freely. With whom they want to. At the value of exchange they agree to. Encouraging others to do the same. So they, too, can enjoy the products of their own labor and capital.
When people can buy and sell as they please without outside interference we call it free trade. Outside interference can include many things. But mostly it means government interfering with market forces. Such as taxing things differently. Placing tariffs or quotas on imported goods. Subsidies to certain domestic manufacturers. Etc. All things that complicate the exchange of goods and services. Because you have to consider all of these other things in addition to the goods and services you wish to exchange. Complicating the economic exchange. Making it more costly. Less free. And simply less of it.
The Overregulation of a Free Market Creates a Black Market
The less free and more complicated trade gets something happens. The overregulation of a free market creates a secondary market. A black market. Where economic exchanges occur free from government interference. The black market then becomes the free market alternative to the overregulated ‘government’ market.
The former Soviet Union is a good example. Government bureaucrats completely controlled the market. They set the prices. And allocated the resources. Poorly, I might add. And the result? Stores full of items no one wanted to buy. Long lines at stores selling the basic necessities of life (such as soap and toilet paper). Where people waited to buy their allotted quota because there was so little available to sell. And a thriving black market where you could buy the latest in Western fashion and electronics. Which proved very handy in bribing government bureaucrats. Because even they wanted what the Westerners traded freely.
Another good example are cigarettes. Stores across certain state lines do very well selling cigarettes. For these stores can sell cigarettes at steep discounts compared to those on the other side of the border. Why? Cigarette taxes. And some cities and states really pile them on. Making some people spend more money on gas as well as risking trouble with the law to get these more affordable cigarettes. Often buying them in bulk. And then smuggling them back home.
An Overly Regulated Market alters our Economic Decision Making, Resulting in Less Economic Activity
A free market lets us come together freely to buy and sell what we choose. An overly regulated market alters our economic decision making. Due to higher prices. And regulatory costs. A minimal amount may not affect our purchasing decisions. Whereas an excessive amount pushes some outside the law. Into the black market. Back to a free market. Which is what we all want. To freely buy and sell what we choose.
The net effect on the economy? The less free the market is the less economic activity there is. Either due to higher prices. Or higher regulatory costs. Both of which leave us with less to spend on other economic exchanges. And less motivation to commit labor and capital to create new things to trade.
Tags: black market, capital, cigarettes, economic exchange, economic output, Economics, exchange, free market, free trade, human capital, labor, labor and capital, market forces, overregulation, prices, property rights, regulatory costs, rule of law, taxes, trade
Week in Review
The supercommittee failed. Deadlocked over higher taxes. What a surprise. And by surprise I mean it’s what everyone expected. Because it never had anything to do with deficit reduction. It was just yet another opportunity for Democrats to raise taxes. And when they failed it was yet another opportunity to blame Republican intransigence. While all the time refusing to budge from their demand for new taxes (see Supercommittee Failed, and Spending Is Still the Problem by Curtis Dubay posted 11/25/2011 on The Foundry).
Overspending, especially on entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is the cause of our debt problem.
Higher taxes are unnecessary because there is enough revenue flowing into Washington as long as Congress holds spending to historical levels. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with all current tax policies, including the Bush tax cuts, tax revenue will surpass its historical average as a share of the economy in a decade. And should the economy break the shackles of growth-impeding Obama policies faster than CBO anticipates, tax revenues will exceed that mark much sooner.
On the other hand, in 2021 the federal government will spend 26 percent of the economy, well in excess of its historical average of 20 percent. And it will keep growing on this trajectory, primarily because of the growth in entitlements. The data is clear. We have a spending problem – not a taxing problem.
They’re forecasting tax revenue at record amounts. Yet it’s not enough. It’s never enough. Why? Because the government spends it faster than they can collect it. And that’s the problem.
Advocates of raising taxes often resort to the argument that debt reduction requires spending cuts and tax increases. But they’re merely revealing their preference for bigger government. Higher taxes lead to bigger government because Congress always spends the extra revenue it raises. The new taxes never go to deficit reduction. That’s why any deal that offers spending cuts in exchange for tax hikes is fundamentally unbalanced – despite the president’s claims.
Higher taxes would go to pay for the spending increases that President Obama and his allies foisted upon the country – including stimulus spending, Obamacare, and a host of other big government programs. Unless they’re reformed, entitlement programs would also devour new tax revenue as more baby boomers retire.
Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush learned the tax-and-spend lesson the hard way. They agreed to deals that were supposed to cut spending and raise taxes. While the tax hikes became permanent law, succeeding Congresses were under no obligation to abide by the agreed-upon spending levels and quickly undid them. The same would be true today if Congress strikes a similar deal.
How to you get a deficit? By spending more than you collect in taxes. Note the word ‘spending’. That’s key. Because if you don’t spend more than you collect in taxes you don’t have deficits. Record lows in tax revenue didn’t cause Barack Obama’s record deficits. Record government spending caused those record deficits. Again, spending is key. Because you have to overspend to get a deficit.
This isn’t chicken and egg stuff. Spending clearly came first. Then deficits. So the logical and rational way to deficit reduction is to cut spending. Not to raise taxes. Because raising taxes just supports further overspending. And you know they will. Because they always do. Because you don’t buy votes with deficit reduction. You buy votes with spending.
Which is why the supercommittee failed. Because it was supposed to fail. If the full House couldn’t agree to spending cuts neither could a supercommittee. Because they all report to the same leadership. This was just theater to raise the debt ceiling. And a delaying tactic by the Democrats who hoped they could turn public opinion into favoring tax hikes.
So now what? I’m guessing more lies. And more theater. At least until 2012. When the curtain finally falls on this tragic comedy.
Tags: cut spending, deficit, deficit reduction, Democrats, government spending, higher taxes, overspending, raise taxes, raising taxes, record deficits, spending, spending problem, supercommittee, tax revenue, taxes
Week in Review
I guess George, John, Paul and Ringo were wrong. Love isn’t all you need. You also need conflict resolution services (see Women Bring Peace to Zuccotti Park by Victoria Pynchon posted 11/26/2011 on Forbes).
Peter, Paul and Mary memorably sang “whenever two or more of you are gathered in His name, there is love.” But whenever two or more of us are gathered to build a bridge, stage a protest, or run a business, there is conflict.
Fortunately for Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park, mediators and other peace workers have been providing conflict resolution services to protestors, including daily nonviolent communication training and mediation for conflicts among the occupiers.
Guess that’s what happens when you use your fellow protestors’ part of the commons as your personal toilet.
One thing for sure is that you never heard stuff like this about the Tea Party. The Tea Party generally cleaned up after themselves. Didn’t urinate or defecate anywhere but in a proper toilet facility. And they didn’t want to beat the crap out of their fellow protesters. Because they all got along. And they got along with the community they were in. For there was, dare I say it? Love.
Everybody now…love, love, love…. All you need is…love, love, love…
Like in the Tea Party. But apparently not in the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zuccotti Park.
Tags: conflict, conflict resolution services, love, Occupy Wall Street, protestors, Tea Party, Zuccotti Park
Week in Review
Once again someone is advising the Republican Party how to pick their candidate. And apparently the ideal Republican candidate would be a Democrat (see Jon Huntsman’s Vision for the US Military by E.D. Kain posted 11/24/2011 on Forbes).
It’s become increasingly clear to me what a shame it is that the Republican Party is so in thrall to its far-right fringe. If they weren’t, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman might stand a chance at the GOP nomination. That would be a good thing for the Republican Party and for the United States.
It would be good for the Republican Party because Huntsman has broad appeal outside of the conservative base. He also has presidential good looks, has command of the issues, and manages to be at once reasonable and articulate in a debate that has teetered too often between the ludicrous and the absurd.
So, the Republican Party, the party of conservatism, would be best served by nominating a candidate that isn’t a conservative? Didn’t we try this already? Didn’t we nominate John McCain because he was everything this guy says Huntsman is? Well, everything perhaps except being handsome. And how did that work for us? Not good. Because the moderate voters chose the other moderate in the general election. Barack Obama. And he was only lying about being a moderate to boot.
The last great Republican president was Ronald Reagan. And why did we elect him with such overwhelming majorities? Could it be because he ran as an unabashed conservative? You bet. Because the voters in a center-right nation didn’t want someone who could reach across the aisle and cave on issues conservatives hold dear. Like John McCain campaigned that he was only more than willing to do.
When they compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan during election times you know running as a conservative wins elections. Republicans should try that. Running conservative candidates. And forget about reaching across the aisle. For the Democrats don’t. The only time they feign interest in bipartisan cooperation is when they’ve lost Congressional majorities. And can’t dictate policy anymore to the minority party.
Tags: Barack Obama, conservatism, conservative, Democrat, elections, John McCain, Jon Huntsman, moderate, Reagan, Republican candidate, Republican Party, Republicans, Ronald Reagan
Week in Review
Another free trade agreement for America. And more young voters angry about income inequality and youth unemployment this free trade treaty will create (see Don’t shed a tear posted 11/23/2011 on The Economist).
They could have pushed Korus through several weeks ago, but continuing concerns among voters over income inequality and youth unemployment have seen the political pendulum making an unusually pronounced leftward swing. With parliamentary elections due in April, many GNP members fear losing their seats.
“Angry” young voters are thought to have punished the GNP in October’s Seoul mayoral by-election, selecting the independent Park Won-soon ahead of Na Kyung-won, the ruling party’s candidate. The ratification of Korus without the support of opposition parties could cause further subsidence of the GNP’s ratings in opinion polls. At the time of writing, a group of several thousand anti-FTA protesters was gathered in Yeouido, outside the parliament building.
Interestingly though, it’s the Korean youth who are angry. Who are worried they are going to lose jobs to those American sweatshops. And those slave union wages.
Of course, this is what you would expect the American Left would be saying. And the American youth. Who point to free-trade agreements as domestic job killers. So if both sides of a free-trade agreement claim that the agreement will kill domestic jobs one has to be somewhat suspect of such a dubious claim. Both sides can’t be losers. For there would be no reason to enter into an agreement. So if both sides are affected the same, and both sides can’t be losers, then both sides must be winners. Simply by the lack of options.
So why do the youth complain on both sides of a free trade agreement? Because free trade stimulates economic activity. And creates jobs. Which is apparently something the youth in both countries don’t want.
Tags: America, domestic job killers, free trade, free trade agreement, income inequality, Korean, Korus, youth protests, youth unemployment
Week in Review
When it comes to insulting world leaders what’s worse? Someone throwing a shoe at George W. Bush? Or this (see News woman shows her middle finger to President Obama on live TV posted 11/23/2011 on Your Jewish News)?
In the footage, Tatyana Limanova, an award-winning senior newsreader at the channel, can be seen briskly reading out an item about how Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has just assumed the rotating chairmanship of the Asia Pacific Cooperation organisation.
She is then heard to say that the post “has (previously) been held by Barack Obama” before mechanically and unambiguously raising her left arm and showing the camera her raised middle finger in an offensive gesture that is sometimes known as “flipping the bird.”
The channel, which goes out to 120 million people across Russia, has declined to comment. But sources close to it have tried to defuse the row by claiming that the newsreader had believed she was off camera at the time and merely providing a voice-over for a report. According to the same storyline, the rude gesture was intended for studio technicians who had been trying to put her off her stride.
REN TV has traditionally been perceived as a more liberal channel in a country where TV content is tightly controlled by the state. But it is now controlled by structures owned by a close ally of Vladimir Putin, the prime minister, and has been criticised for allegedly becoming more slavish to the Kremlin.
The scandal comes at a time when US-Russia relations appear to be getting worse after President Obama’s much-heralded attempt to “reset” them.
So much for that “reset.” She, Putin and Russia made it perfectly clear what they think of President Barack Obama. Which is probably worse than some lone shoe-thrower throwing a shoe at George W. Bush. Because this ‘finger’ appears to have the full weight of the state behind it.
Perhaps the next President can ask George W. Bush to go to Russia to fix US-Russian relations. If he only gets another shoe thrown at him at least it will show a warming trend in US-Russian relations. Anything would be better than getting the full weight and force of the bird being thrown our way.
Tags: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, middle finger, Putin, reset, Russia, Russians, the bird, throwing a shoe, US-Russian relations
Week in Review
The Keynesian economists are out again saying that we need to tax the rich more. Because lower tax rates for the rich don’t have a net economic benefit. Just as lower tax rates for the poor and middle class don’t have a net economic benefit. Because if a higher tax rate makes them work one hour less, they get one less hour of pay. And have one less hour of pay to spend in the market place. Ergo, it is a wash. For rich and poor alike. But the rich can afford it more easily so we should tax them instead of the poor and middle class.
This is macroeconomics groupthink. By a bunch of elitist who think they know better than everyone else in the world. They do understand some economic basics (see Somebody has to pay for government posted 11/23/2011 on The Economist).
If you tax rich people less, you tax regular and poor people more. And when you tax them, they, like rich people, have a certain propensity to work less (“deadweight loss”). Also like rich people, the money they pay in taxes is money they cannot spend, which leads to lower economic activity and lower GDP in the short run.
But make all the wrong conclusions.
Higher taxes mean people have less money to spend. They got that right. But all their theory is based on one great fallacy. And that fallacy is this: All government spending is necessary. And therefore must be paid for with taxes.
Contrary to Keynesian belief, all government spending is not necessary. In fact, most of their spending is not necessary. And should be cut. The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear. The federal government was not to be a nanny state. Being a nanny state is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. This growth of the federal government has only created a privilege class. And they have risen to rule us by getting as many of us as possible dependent on their ‘generosity’. Which, ironically, was the point of the Revolution. To end rule by a privileged class.
So when you look at federal spending in this light the argument of who should pay the taxes is a moot point. Spending should be cut. Meaning taxes should be cut. Not increased. On anyone.
Arguing not to increase taxes on anyone is a good argument to make. Because it transfers the argument past the veneer of fairness to what it actually is. An out of control federal government spending money wastefully and recklessly to buy votes.
Tags: economic, federal government, Founding Fathers, government spending, Keynesian, Keynesian economists, privileged class, spending, tax rates, taxes, wasteful government spending
Week in Review
The Environmentalists in the European Union are wringing their hands together in angst. Because the Canadians don’t want to play global warming anymore. Apparently the Canadians found a new game to play. And it involves wringing oil out of sand (see European politician warns Canada being left behind on Kyoto by Mike De Souza, Postmedia News, posted 11/23/2011 on The Vancouver Sun).
A visiting member of Europe’s Parliament says he is puzzled by Canadian government policies and fears the world may be forced to leave Canada behind as it moves forward in addressing climate change.
“It’s a very strange position for Europe, because really, for us, Canada is a dear partner,” said Kriton Arsenis, from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, the second-largest group in the European Parliament. “It’s an ally in the way that we share values for the environment, social values, how we imagine the state of the world and we somehow feel left alone…”
Canada appears to be the only country attempting to lobby the European Parliament in order to weaken its climate policies, Arsenis said. But he warned that the Canadian government’s position may isolate it from efforts to expand and extend the Kyoto Protocol which set legally-binding targets on developed countries’ greenhouse gas emissions as a first step toward preventing dangerous changes in the atmosphere…
Canada, Russia and Japan have all said they will not accept new targets when the existing commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2013, leaving the world without any binding requirements for countries to reduce emissions.
This is strange. Why would Canada go from Kyoto-embracing to Kyoto-eschewing? What could have happened to bring about this 180-degree change? Hmmm, what could it be? Was it those leaked emails from the University of East Anglia confirming the hoax of global warming? Did they see through the EU Emission Trading Scheme for what it was? An extralegal tax to prop up bankrupt governments in the EU? Or was it something else?
But Oliver attempted to blame the NDP for allowing Arsenis to promote European climate policies that would discourage consumption of fuels with above-average environmental footprints such as synthetic crude oil from Western Canada’s natural deposits of bitumen, also known as oilsands.
“Now (New Democrats) are hosting today a session that is giving support for the European Fuel quality directive which will single out the oilsands for bad treatment,” said Oliver. “It’s based on an unscientific and discriminatory approach. Here they are again opposing the creation of Canadian jobs and economic growth for the country.”
It was something else. Which can be summarized succinctly and simply as follows: Money talks and bull [excrement] walks.
These Canadian oil sands are a national blessing. One of the largest energy deposits ever found in an energy hungry world. Creating lots of good jobs in a depressed economy. And energy independence for Canada. And if the European global warming alarmists think they’re going to take that all away from Canada they’re mad. Let them find other ways to pay for their excessive government spending. And not use global warming alarmism to scare people into some new tax and regulatory scheme.
Tags: Canada, Canadians, economic growth, economy, energy, European Union, Global Warming, jobs, Kyoto, oil, oil sands