Jobs report

#851
#851
volinbham said:
On the other hand acting like the pipeline will destroy the planet or Nebraska simply isn't accurate.

You're right, it is politics but there is so little downside in approving it that it looks worse to me to have the government deny activity for political reasons.

Bottomline, they shouldn't have to prove massive positive employment impact to be allowed to build something.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on both accounts.

It reminds me of Oregon and New Jersey and the way those states have artificially created jobs by prohibiting auto owners to pump their own gas. All the service stations are full service, all of them. Guess who has to pay for their gas to be pumped?

No government should never be put in the position or pressured to pass legislation for the sake of creating jobs in the private market.

At least when gas prices were near $5 a gallon there was an easy argument for the pipeline, i guess. Now that it's gone - the crony capitalists in Washington are still pressing the issue, except now it's with an empty tool belt in which to make their case. The jobs argument simply rings hollow. At best it was a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
 
#852
#852
Septic said:
I agree with you on both accounts.

It reminds me of Oregon and New Jersey and the way those states have artificially created jobs by prohibiting auto owners to pump their own gas. All the service stations are full service, all of them. Guess who has to pay for their gas to be pumped?

No government should never be put in the position or pressured to pass legislation for the sake of creating jobs in the private market.

At least when gas prices were near $5 a gallon there was an easy argument for the pipeline, i guess. Now that it's gone - the crony capitalists in Washington are still pressing the issue, except now it's with an empty tool belt in which to make their case. The jobs argument simply rings hollow. At best it was a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
Click to expand...

I doubt oil prices are a temporary problem. This is infrastructure that has value. Nuts to say no for some trumped up claims and because you are pandering to some voter blocks. Let business operate unless there is a compelling reason not to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#854
#854
volinbham said:
I doubt oil prices are a temporary problem. This is infrastructure that has value. Nuts to say no for some trumped up claims and because you are pandering to some voter blocks. Let business operate unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Click to expand...

You should know dam well that we do not plan for the future!
 
#855
#855
volinbham said:
I doubt oil prices are a temporary problem. This is infrastructure that has value. Nuts to say no for some trumped up claims and because you are pandering to some voter blocks. Let business operate unless there is a compelling reason not to.
Click to expand...

Public infrastructure has public value, the pipeline would be owned and operated by TransCanada not the U.S. government or it's citizens - yet had it passed, lots of land would have been forfeited by land owners to make it happen.

I think it's naive to think that claims aren't trumped up daily in order to move the needle in Washington.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#856
#856
Septic said:
Public infrastructure has public value, the pipeline would be owned and operated by TransCanada not the U.S. government or it's citizens - yet had it passed, lots of land would have been forfeited by land owners to make it happen.

I think it's naive to think that claims aren't trumped up daily in order to move the needle in Washington.
Click to expand...

Very little to no land would have been forfeited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#857
#857
Septic said:
Public infrastructure has public value, the pipeline would be owned and operated by TransCanada not the U.S. government or it's citizens - yet had it passed, lots of land would have been forfeited by land owners to make it happen.

I think it's naive to think that claims aren't trumped up daily in order to move the needle in Washington.
Click to expand...

I won't even pretend to understand all of the nuances of the pipeline, but it's always seemed to me that Canada stood much to gain from it and the US very little. Seems like a way of using our land just to fill Canadian coffers, since Alberta is Canada's only real "money machine" for its aging and otherwise relatively unproductive population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#860
#860
Septic said:
To be fair, 3,900 were for the actual construction and even then only temporary. The balance of that 42,000 figure was fuzzy and included things like 'food services'.

The bellyaching over the pipeline is largely partisan and even then largely driven by the mouths who's constituents and donors would benefit.

Acting like the pipeline would have any significant long term impact on the economy simply isn't accurate. It seems that the argument has shifted from "we need cheaper gas" and replaced with "we need the jerbs" but with unemployment at 5% - it's hard to get outraged by the loss of temporary jobs.

I don't know where you guys are, but the job market here in SWFL is BOOMING.
Click to expand...

You don't have any idea the amount of revenue and jobs this would create along the path of this pipeline.

The long term benefits would be great for small communities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#862
#862
Obsessed said:
You don't have any idea the amount of revenue and jobs this would create along the path of this pipeline.

The long term benefits would be great for small communities.
Click to expand...

It's a pipe, not a three thousand mile shopping center. After construction the only revenue it'd create would be pouring out the end.

What small community revenue do you think will be produced after construction I'd complete?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#865
#865
Septic said:
It's a pipe, not a three thousand mile shopping center. After construction the only revenue it'd create would be pouring out the end.

What small community revenue do you think will be produced after construction I'd complete?
Click to expand...

You'll find out after the GOP takes back the White House .
 
#866
#866
FLVOL69 said:
You'll find out after the GOP takes back the White House .
Click to expand...

At this rate, I imagine cold fusion will be powering flying vehicles before the GOP fields a candidate in a general capable of getting the White house back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#867
#867
This would be a bigger issue if gas prices were approaching $4.00 a gallon. We never plan ahead on gas prices. When oil prices are down is the time to prepare so gas prices will remain low.
 
#869
#869
Septic said:
It's a pipe, not a three thousand mile shopping center. After construction the only revenue it'd create would be pouring out the end.

What small community revenue do you think will be produced after construction I'd complete?
Click to expand...

This was my thinking as well. A pipeline is not a rail line. Once it's built, that's pretty much it, minus some minimal maintenance. It's not like a rail line that brings goods into your community and allows you to send your own goods out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#870
#870
I know this is the jobs thread, so I'll make this my last post about the Keystone (since we don't have a thread on the rejection oddly enough).

Let me first premise my question with three things. First, I know for a fact that I'm not an expert in economics, unlike many members of this forum unfortunately, so excuse my potential ignorance. Second, Albertan oil is currently cost-ineffective, making the pipeline relatively useless at the moment, although it would certainly be much more beneficial for the producers in Canada. Third, the issue of the pipeline has always been very nuanced for me. What issues I do have with it are not environmental, which is a ridiculous reason to be against it since rail is needed for its transfer and rail is more environmentally unfriendly for several reasons. The issues I have with it have always been what the positives of it are long-term for Americans and for American land-use (not Canadians and not Canadian land-use).

That being said, Obsessed's post on the $10 to $30 (pipeline v. rail) transport discrepancy got me to thinking about the economic impact of Albertan oil on the American economy. If transporting Albertan oil currently costs more money (a good deal of which I assume involves American industry and American jobs to some extent), doesn't it stand to reason that the positive economic impact for Americans of Albertan oil (sans oil's low prices at the moment) is higher without the pipeline than with it. I know there would be the initial creation of numerous temp jobs to build it, but after those ended, then what?

The cost savings, while great, seem like they'd apply far more to Canadian producers and that the impact on the American economy long-term would be worse.

Maybe I just don't get this, but I'm having a real hard time figuring out what the hell the point of this pipeline is long-term other than it provides a quicker, more efficient way to get oil from point A to point B and that it helps Canadian producers more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#871
#871
volinbham said:
On the other hand acting like the pipeline will destroy the planet or Nebraska simply isn't accurate.

You're right, it is politics but there is so little downside in approving it that it looks worse to me to have the government deny activity for political reasons.

Bottomline, they shouldn't have to prove massive positive employment impact to be allowed to build something.
Click to expand...

The use of imminent domain is my issue with the pipeline. Respect property rights
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#872
#872
Septic said:
It's a pipe, not a three thousand mile shopping center. After construction the only revenue it'd create would be pouring out the end.

What small community revenue do you think will be produced after construction I'd complete?
Click to expand...

All of the lease money paid to the land owners for 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#873
#873
volprof said:
I know this is the jobs thread, so I'll make this my last post about the Keystone (since we don't have a thread on the rejection oddly enough).

Let me first premise my question with three things. First, I know for a fact that I'm not an expert in economics, unlike many members of this forum unfortunately, so excuse my potential ignorance. Second, Albertan oil is currently cost-ineffective, making the pipeline relatively useless at the moment, although it would certainly be much more beneficial for the producers in Canada. Third, the issue of the pipeline has always been very nuanced for me. What issues I do have with it are not environmental, which is a ridiculous reason to be against it since rail is needed for its transfer and rail is more environmentally unfriendly for several reasons. The issues I have with it have always been what the positives of it are long-term for Americans and for American land-use (not Canadians and not Canadian land-use).

That being said, Obsessed's post on the $10 to $30 (pipeline v. rail) transport discrepancy got me to thinking about the economic impact of Albertan oil on the American economy. If transporting Albertan oil currently costs more money (a good deal of which I assume involves American industry and American jobs to some extent), doesn't it stand to reason that the positive economic impact for Americans of Albertan oil (sans oil's low prices at the moment) is higher without the pipeline than with it. I know there would be the initial creation of numerous temp jobs to build it, but after those ended, then what?

The cost savings, while great, seem like they'd apply far more to Canadian producers and that the impact on the American economy long-term would be worse.

Maybe I just don't get this, but I'm having a real hard time figuring out what the hell the point of this pipeline is long-term other than it provides a quicker, more efficient way to get oil from point A to point B and that it helps Canadian producers more.
Click to expand...

It's not all about Canadian oil. There are planned offshoots of the Keystone mainline that would connect the Dakota oil fields to east coast refineries, which would eliminate almost all need for us to purchase Brent crude. This is what Obama objects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#874
#874
hog88 said:
It's not all about Canadian oil. There are planned offshoots of the Keystone mainline that would connect the Dakota oil fields to east coast refineries, which would eliminate almost all need for us to purchase Brent crude. This is what Obama objects.
Click to expand...

Increased energy independence and efficiency (at least in transport use/costs) makes sense to me. I understand this aspect of the pipeline.

The main reasons provided for and against, however, I do not. I don't necessarily get the jobs/economic pro-argument (although I'm sure it could save costs at the pumps when prices are higher), and I certainly don't get the environmental con-argument. The con-argument that is against the pipeline due to land rights/use, however, I do understand, although I imagine it's the least of most people's concerns regarding whether or not this pipeline should be built.
 
#875
#875
Jobs Friday: Added 211,000 jobs in November, above expectations of 200,000 jobs. The unemployment rate held steady at 5% during the month, as expected. But, the labor force participation rate ticked up to 62.5% from 62.4%. Certain now the fed will raise rates at the December 16th meeting for the first time in 7 years. The participation rate ticking up is making traders think the rate increases will be small and gradual, and so futures are up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top