Solution to the oil problem

[UShadItComing]

Sweet, we agree. It's socialism, and socialism is a problem. The solution is no socialism! We agree.

It appears that we are in agreement at least on the US style of socialist bailouts anyway. Albeit Andy, the implications of not doing anything can't be ignored in that one and the next one which your gov just gave you. you simply must do something to stop your government from having to bailout big corps. It's not fair Andy.

Look, honestly, I can't argue this specific case with you, because I don't live in Canadian (thank God) and never will. With that said, I have read hundreds of personal testimonies from people in Canada, and though I don't assume they are all perfect angels sent with notes from Heaven, I have to conclude there is some sort of pattern. In fact, many of the statements themselves show a pattern.

If you spoke out of place then just admit it. I sort of knew you were starting to wiggle when you came in with the 'agree to disagree line'.

Darren, lived in the US, and moved to Canada. He says as follows:

​

Further statements from other Canadians include:

​

​

​

​

​

​

You'll need to try that one again I think.

This is a small sample of hundreds of posts. Possibly thousands. Now... either A: Canadian are all habitual liars and ICBC is actually really good... or B: Canadians are decent people and ICBC sucks. I mean honestly, $2000 a month? I could buy 3 years of insurance or another car for one month of ICBC 'service'!

For the moment I will just say that neither is the case. Bewar of angry cons though because they don't dislike anything more than seeing a corp like ICBC work. I want hard evidence Andy and you can run from this or face the music.

Now if you want to shoot down each personal testimony, I can keep you busy for weeks. I have found 6 full websites dedicated to disbanding ICBC in just 2 days of looking, each containing hundreds of statements like these. I would wager there are a bunch more too.

And I can produce a website which proves that the earth is flat.

So you would claim that the average individual could not possibly setup a shop selling (anything) flowers, without some sort of government socialism? Odd, I think Apple computer and Hewlett-Packard both were built without a shred of socialism. In fact billions of companies have been created without the slightest touch of socialism.

Oh my dawg, everything I've said is either going straight over your head or you're being difficult now. Please Andy! And for example right off the top of my head: you now have a minimum wage don't you? Does your flower shop abide by it or does it indiscreetly hire illegal aliens to cause more problems than you already have, mainly because of a coddling of greedy capitalists. Greedy capitalists who run businesses that are not viable if run above board. YOur government should have stepped in long ago with socially responsible measures which could have stopped the hiring of illegals under the table to save money on their costs. That's why you have a problem which can't be solved because those businesses are unviable if they have to pay Amreicans to do them for minimum or better. I know Andy, it happens in our Okanagan valley with the fruit picking. It needs to be stopped because it's unfair competition against the good legitimate businesses.

I would suggest that your theory is less logical. Listing all the socialistic programs running in the US, is there even one, that without it we couldn't survive and even thrive? Just one?

Probably but I haven't thought of it that way. Why does it need to be a matter of survival and not prosperity and helping fellow citizens to live a happy and prosperous life?

The only thing government provides at the federal level, that we need, besides a military for protection of the country, is justice. We need them to try criminals, and punish wrong doers. (which is mostly done at the local level) But oversight to find the stuff like Worldcom.

And what is justice at it's root but socialist reform over for example sharia law? What is a lack of justice if it isn't anarchy? This extremist rhetoric may be silly but it's you who wanted to ask extremist questions my friend.

Sure. The last rolling black outs in California were caused by government enforced regulation.

I've heard more about the shortfalls of privatization. We have it too and to save money the private companies who are supposed to keep our roads clear of snow in the winter skimp on the service. It's inherent with capitalism to try to make more and more and the way to do that is to give less.

In an effort to 'break up monopolies', the government in CA regulated that companies must sell off power plants and even distrobution grids, in the name of competition. Of course if you have seperate companies controlling each part, the overhead alone forces the prices up.

If you're in favour of breaking up private monopolies then you sound like you are in favour of taking responsible social measures to look after the people. You are actuallly applauding government interference it seems.

Further, in CA, they prevented (for environmental concerns) the building of more natural gas pipelines to import from other states, while at the same time legislating natural gas as the sole source for power generation.

Sounds bad. Why did the gov do that? Was natural gas being mandated solely a good and proper decision? I would need to know more. I don't just jump at measures taken such as that and start screaming like a banshee until I am able to study the decision. But listen to your fellow capitalists and the extreme rabid righties do just that. ONe of them was just trying to tell me that a person should have a right to do whatever he wants on his property. I hope you are able to rise above that kind of lunacy. But I wouldn't bet on it now!

Finely, and most important, they instituted price caps on the sale of electricity, preventing utilities from passing on the afore mentioned price hikes to the consumer.

I would be most concerned about whether a power company is charging a legitimate price to the consumer. There is fairness and then there is unfairness. Unfairness was the rule in B.C. before ICBC and that's why there was room for ICBC. Now the private companies don't even bother crying anymore. They take the little bit they can get from those who walk around complaining about socialized auto insurance and they don't even try to compete seriously. They just can't afford to compete. I tell you true Andy, regardless of what you here from the whiners. The link I provided was no exaggeration.

So, to sum up: All power generation must be natural gas (socialism), and the amount of pipelines for natural gas is regulated low (socialism), and there are price controls on the product (socialism), and we broke up the system by which prices are kept low (socialism), and the result is? Rolling black outs. Maybe a shock to the socialists in California, but not so much to the Capitalists.

Sounds like bad government but it's baffling to me because the world regards your country as one of the most capitalist extremes while your claims seem to place you under the thumb of the commie hordes. I think we can say that your country and it's form of capitalism is totally f--ked up unless you are exaggerating. Isn't that what you want me to believe now?

I think our differences now boil down to you blaming socialism for all the problems in your country while I'm pretty sure it's a capitalist system gone out of control. I find it quite laughable considering that we are the socialists according to Americans and we don't have the same problems. Riddle me that one Andy!

Even now, we face nationally, a massive increase in power generation costs. Why? Prevention of the building of coal, nuclear, hydroelectric power plants which generate power cheaply. This leaves only Natural gas, which due to the obvious spiking demand, is sky rocketing in price. This forced move into single source power generation, is jacking up the price. (socialism)

Meanwhile, the government has also forced the use of expensive alternative electrical energy sources like solar and wind and geothermal. (socialism) These expensive energy costs are being passed on to consumers in higher rates.

Same answer Andy, you're the capitalists with the problems and we're the socialists which are quite happy. And to hear a capitalist start in on alternative sources of energy is just too rich for me. Up until about 2 or 3 months ago you capitalist were convinced that alternative energy was a scam because you could stay with fossil fuels.

No

I'm going to be fair with you on that one even though you haven't demonstrated you deserve fairness. Your country has a water problem, an infrastructure problem, and an energy problem. Therein lies the difference and only part of it is because the right has refused to even believe in declining fossil fuel which has driven up the price. along with a total non-acceptance of any need to get off of fossil fuels to protect the environment.

 

[UShadItComing]

Well, first I'd debate the preconceived notion that a publicly run corp doesn't have huge executive salaries. Paul Taylor was pulling a cool $300K a year, plus ICBC was blowing $18 Million in "manager incentives" which I would make a fair bet he collected a chunk of that. In many cases, being in a government sponsored corp has the benefit of not being taxed. So even if he is paid less, he keeps more of it than a CEO making more but losing 40% of it in taxes.

Further, Paul Taylor was a fairly networked man, having been Deputy Minister of Finance, he had connections with the many in government, and this is how he landed his cushy job at ICBC. Further, he had business relations with members of BC Automobile Dealers Association, in turn he was on the negotiating committee for the Collision Repair Industry Agreement (CRIA). This was part of the evidence of kick backs, in the form of multiple hourly rates for collision repair, where specific shops were given more favorable rates for repair, than others. Paul also had connections to minister of finance Gary Collins, who after meetings, changed the luxury tax in way favorable to the BCADA. Paul may not be given stock options, but he sure has been given a lot, and not by earning it, but by back door deals and shady business transaction. All of this on top of the salvage car scandal, where rigged auto auctions and repaired cars were sold by managers, without proper repair titles.

The difference between a private capitalist CEO and a socialist government CEO is... the Capitalist built up a company, earned his pay, and will go to jail if he breaks the law, the Socialist politico was given his position, receives a cushy job with a huge bonus and nice salary, while getting kick backs and shady back room deals, and will resign without ever facing trial for his actions because they would expose the people above him.

That said... do I believe that a government run corp can be successful? Depends... on how you define successful. Can it survive? Of course. The government will never allow it to "fail" in that sense because it will automatically be bailed out, just like ICBC was. So if that is all that's required to be successful, then yes.

But when I think of successful, I think of being able to stand toe to toe in the market place. Now from an open minded perspective, in hypotheticals, a government run programs 'should' be able to be successful. But... they are not. Let's say they left ICBC exactly they way it is, and just removed the law requiring the purchase of basic insurance through them. Would ICBC be able to compete? I submit no. Just from the premium comparison, ICBC would have to cut their rates. And that $2,000/mo would never fly in an open market.

In fact, nearly every single socialized system can not survive with out it being enforced by law. This is why communism is always a tyrannical government. It has to be, or it will fail.

Would Social Security work if you could opt-out? It's not working now, so of course it wouldn't if we could leave it. Would Medicare? None of them would.

This is good because you ask hard questions. Sadly I keep hitting the char limit... which until this thread I didn't know existed.

A few comments:

You're mostly parroting the con party line which has little to do with ICBC's success.

The B.C. Liberal party has contol over ICBC and they are responsible for the corruption now. That party is the party of the right in B.C. politics.

I've given you a factual link which shows that contrary to your bailout claims of ICBC for (unknown, unstated years) it is a very profitable corp now.

ICBC is a success and it give B.C. motorists better than our nextdoor neighbour Alberta.

Private companies can't compete and couldn't even if they were allowed to sell the basic. They try to sell the cream as you should know by now because I see you are finally taking the time to learn.

Do the comparison with Alberta and Ontario and then give me one good reason why anyone should believe that a private company could do better for us. Enough with the quotes of $2000 a month which don't mean a damn thing standing on their own. No more than me telling you I pay about $1000 a year for full coverage on 3 year old Buick including collision with a $300 deductible. Sure an 18 year old brat who cracks up daddy's suv's at the rate of one every sic months may pay two grand a month. That's socialism for you!

Somebody has been telling you some whoppers I fear!

 

[Sihouette]

I see, back a couple of pages I was sharing some pretty shattering information about BigOil suppressing R&D for alternatives in the 1960s and 70s and suddenly the topic has turned to politics of socialism..

Monopolies like BigOil are fascist and their fascism is evident, particularly in how they threatened past researchers for many decades to drop their projects on alternatives to their monopoly..

They don't like competition that they cannot easily takeover to maintain their monopoly.

It's hard to put a meter on the sun and fix the price of incoming solar radiation. Fear monopolies, not socialism..

 

[Sihouette]

The subject here is "solution to the oil problem"

I'll attempt to redirect it back.

Here are the smashed GM electric cars again. Remember, there was nothing wrong with them, other than they worked too well and BigOil pressured GM to recall them...with force in some cases. One woman was cuffed when she resisted the theft of her property.. Oh and now GM teeters on the verge of bankruptcy due directly to its investment in gas hogs when the industry knew fossil fuels were dwindling.. Go get 'em stockholders..!

Here's the map of availible geothermal potential across the US. Many areas in red have steam at or near surface which would be ridiculously easy to tap and utilize for steam generation.

Here is a solar array in the desert. There are millions of acres of vacant desert land just begging to be set up into a grid. Do the calculations of wasted solar energy falling on the deserts of the US and it'll make petrolium reserves shrink even smaller by comparison..

The thread is about the solution to oil. If you want a conversation about governing then start one, elsewhere.

 

[UShadItComing]

I see, back a couple of pages I was sharing some pretty shattering information about BigOil suppressing R&D for alternatives in the 1960s and 70s and suddenly the topic has turned to politics of socialism..

Monopolies like BigOil are fascist and their fascism is evident, particularly in how they threatened past researchers for many decades to drop their projects on alternatives to their monopoly..

They don't like competition that they cannot easily takeover to maintain their monopoly.

It's hard to put a meter on the sun and fix the price of incoming solar radiation. Fear monopolies, not socialism..

I don't know Sihouette, every ill of the US is being blamed on socialism by Andy while at the same time we should all know that the US is one of the most capitalist countries in the world.

And now you blame the problems on fascism which is a little more consistent with capitalism taken to an extreme, but I'm not sure I can draw the same conclusion. Maybe?

Whatever it is it's seeming more and more like a perversion of capitalism when capitalism is taken to the extreme. If a healthy mix of social policies are not included then I think that can explain the problems.

For example, there was a lot of hell raised by the right with the new fed minimum wage and it was argued that it was bad for business. I think that is correct in that business has put itself in such bad straits that now it prehaps can't even afford to pay a decent wage to Americans. This is reflected in the fact that nobody ever did want to take appropriate measures to control illegal immigration by preventing the hiring of illegals. It seems to me that would have been the most effective way to accomplish the objective. Could that have caused a decent wage to be paid in the low paying jobs which many illegals come to America to fill and thereby raising prices which would in turn help to make Mexican farm labour more attractive and better paying.

I'm trying to apply capitalist principles here because it can work but it can't work when it is perverted out of selfishness.

Capitalists need to always understand that if they get too greedy they will eventually undercut themselves. To listen to Andy talk it appears that instead of trying to come to terms with sensible measures to fix his capitalist system he will deny even more rights to those who struggle with their labour to make capitalism work. These are the people who need to be looked after because if they aren't then they become ineffective and incapable of continuing to produce. That's where we get into discussing issues such as a suitable level of heathcare for all, minimum wages, proper working conditions, and a hundred other social considerations. It seems that America's capitalists don't want to do that and they have a solid grip on the situation which enables them to have their way. That is going to change. If not now then it's going to get worse, not better.

 

[UShadItComing]

Sihouette wrote:

The thread is about the solution to oil. If you want a conversation about governing then start one, elsewhere.

With all due respects my friend, this thread has gone to 16 pages now and most of it is sincere and intelligent discussion and debate. Please be flexible enough to understand that a subject sometimes morphs off in a little different direction at times but in this case the connection can still be made back to the original topic. I don't think that means that you can't bring it back abruptly as you have done but I don't see why you would need to do that. Can you at least accept the idea that the reason why the US has not kept up with the rest of the world on alternative energy and the fight against global warming is because of the kind of capitalism I have spoken of here?

 

[Andy]

Albeit Andy, the implications of not doing anything can't be ignored in that one and the next one which your gov just gave you. you simply must do something to stop your government from having to bailout big corps.

Agreed. My plan is to keep electing as many non-socialists capitalists as possible. If you have an alternative idea, feel free to post it.

If you spoke out of place then just admit it. I sort of knew you were starting to wiggle when you came in with the 'agree to disagree line'.

The evidence validates my views. I've seen nothing to change that.

For the moment I will just say that neither is the case. Bewar of angry cons though because they don't dislike anything more than seeing a corp like ICBC work. I want hard evidence Andy and you can run from this or face the music.

To me testimonies from people who live in Canada is hard evidence. Why would they all lie? To me the case is closed. If you have evidence they are all lying, feel free. We have reached an impasse at this point. I'm satisfied that the evidence I collected is conclusive.

And for example right off the top of my head: you now have a minimum wage don't you? Does your flower shop abide by it or does it indiscreetly hire illegal aliens to cause more problems than you already have, mainly because of a coddling of greedy capitalists. Greedy capitalists who run businesses that are not viable if run above board. YOur government should have stepped in long ago with socially responsible measures which could have stopped the hiring of illegals under the table to save money on their costs. That's why you have a problem which can't be solved because those businesses are unviable if they have to pay Amreicans to do them for minimum or better. I know Andy, it happens in our Okanagan valley with the fruit picking. It needs to be stopped because it's unfair competition against the good legitimate businesses.

This is off the topic I was responding to. You said my claim that complete Capitalism would not work and that we need a "sensible mix" of socialism.

I made the point that business can be started and successful without a single shred of socialism. This is true. Can you prove otherwise? Can you prove that any specific socialistic program or mandate is required to do business? No you can not.

In fact, your own point disproves you. You claim there needs to be oversight because of illegals that are hired in order to circumvent the minimum wage. This isn't socialism, this is enforcing the law and justice. I'm fine with that.

But ironically what's the cause of this problem? The cause of the problem is the minimum wage! What's the minimum wage? Socialism! Once again, a problem caused by socialism is cited as proof of the need of socialism. Case closed.

And what is justice at it's root but socialist reform over for example sharia law? What is a lack of justice if it isn't anarchy? This extremist rhetoric may be silly but it's you who wanted to ask extremist questions my friend.

Justice is socialist reform? So by putting murders to death for murdering, I'm a socialist? Somehow I'm not seeing the connection. In fact, typically socialists try and prevent justice, evidence by how criminals have more rights in our country than law abiding citizens do.

I've heard more about the shortfalls of privatization. We have it too and to save money the private companies who are supposed to keep our roads clear of snow in the winter skimp on the service. It's inherent with capitalism to try to make more and more and the way to do that is to give less.

Yeah but that's the beauty of a Capitalist system. Anyone can open a company and provide a product or service. When company A starts charging to much and delivering much less, company B steps in with a lower price and better product. Company A goes bankrupt and company B expands.

In a socialistic system, the government supported corp typically has no competition. Thus the product is crap, customers are treated like cattle, cost goes through the roof, and fraud and mismanagement tend to reign. Just like the railway in France. 3rd more employees than the entire company has rail cars.

If you're in favour of breaking up private monopolies then you sound like you are in favour of taking responsible social measures to look after the people. You are actuallly applauding government interference it seems.

Hmm. Not very often. Most of the time breaking up corps has negative results. MaBell, Standard Oil, the utilities. In each case, the result was higher cost, and in a few, lower service. The real monopoly is ICBC.

Sounds bad. Why did the gov do that? Was natural gas being mandated solely a good and proper decision? I would need to know more.

Coal is 'fossil fuel', and thus is automatically bad. Nuclear will detonate the planet. Hydro harms fishes. Geothermal is too limited. Solar doesn't make enough. So Natural gas it is.

Unfairness was the rule in B.C. before ICBC and that's why there was room for ICBC. Now the private companies don't even bother crying anymore. They take the little bit they can get from those who walk around complaining about socialized auto insurance and they don't even try to compete seriously. They just can't afford to compete. I tell you true Andy, regardless of what you here from the whiners. The link I provided was no exaggeration.

$2000/mo is fair? Funny, but from what people are saying, it's hardly fair.

Sounds like bad government but it's baffling to me because the world regards your country as one of the most capitalist extremes while your claims seem to place you under the thumb of the commie hordes. I think we can say that your country and it's form of capitalism is totally f--ked up unless you are exaggerating. Isn't that what you want me to believe now?

'The world' has a lot of misconceptions about the US. I have many friends that came here from asia and the middle east. Many told me some of the things they were told before they came, and it's insane. They have jobs working for $8/hr and get calls from overseas asking for money. People think Americans are all super wealthy walking around with gold coins falling out of their pockets. One said flat out he was lied to by everyone, and soon later returned to his home country.

But no, I don't want you to believe whatever. Look at the evidence and come up with your own conclusions. That said, the parts of our economy that are capitalist, and untouched by government socialism, are perfectly fine. I have a pretty good job with a company that started up in the living room of some guys house. He built the entire company and sold it, and we're doing pretty well. As long as the government leaves us alone, we'll do fine.

I think our differences now boil down to you blaming socialism for all the problems in your country while I'm pretty sure it's a capitalist system gone out of control. I find it quite laughable considering that we are the socialists according to Americans and we don't have the same problems. Riddle me that one Andy!

Same answer Andy, you're the capitalists with the problems and we're the socialists which are quite happy. And to hear a capitalist start in on alternative sources of energy is just too rich for me. Up until about 2 or 3 months ago you capitalist were convinced that alternative energy was a scam because you could stay with fossil fuels.

Um... I don't know anyone anywhere that claims Canada is a socialist based economy.

That said, from what I've seen, Canada does have some huge issues with the socialized parts of it's economy. I did an in depth report on Canadian health care for a college class I was in many years ago. And from what I've seen, things have gotten worse. Now, from what I have learned, you have a pretty big problem with ICBC.

The issue between us is, you are labeling an entire system 'capitalist' and then saying it has problems. Thus the problems must be with 'capitalism'. The error is, you have ignored the cause of the problems. When you identify the cause of the problems, for example a socialistic minimum wage that makes illegal workers a plus, you see that the cause of the problem is a socialist policy, and has nothing to do with Capitalism.

I'm going to be fair with you on that one even though you haven't demonstrated you deserve fairness. Your country has a water problem, an infrastructure problem, and an energy problem. Therein lies the difference and only part of it is because the right has refused to even believe in declining fossil fuel which has driven up the price. along with a total non-acceptance of any need to get off of fossil fuels to protect the environment.

First, there is little evidence supporting the peak oil theory. That said, let's pretend you are right.

If oil does dry up, as the supply starts dropping, the cost will increase automagically. Supply and demand at work. Thus, as the cost goes up, alternative fuels will automatically become more competitive in the market, and therefore will become more plentiful as the capitalist system moves to provide a product in demand by the public.

Moral of the story: there is no need for a government controlled mandate for alternative energy. The market will provide for itself.

The socialist on the other hand will invent reasons to create a government boondoggle for alternative energy like Ethanol. Ethanol is a scam, and is a waste. It provides no benefits, but gives government socialists reasons to give socialist supporters like Ted Turner, millions in tax payer hand outs. More on that if you like.

 

[Andy]

You're mostly parroting the con party line which has little to do with ICBC's success.

Again, success is a loose term. The corp has made tons by charging high rates for mandated service, and providing low pay-outs. When the people have no options, then the company can be tyrannical without recourse.

The B.C. Liberal party has contol over ICBC and they are responsible for the corruption now. That party is the party of the right in B.C. politics.

Which ignores that corruption and politics go hand in hand. I don't care what party is in charge, all politically based corporations end up in corruption. It's the same as USPS, Medicare, Social Security, and any other government socialism.

I've given you a factual link which shows that contrary to your bailout claims of ICBC for (unknown, unstated years) it is a very profitable corp now.

Did that change the fact they were bailed out? No. When ICBC has a captive public, and can change their rates to whatever they wish, while at the same time giving minimal pay outs, yeah I bet they are a tad profitable too.

ICBC is a success and it give B.C. motorists better than our nextdoor neighbour Alberta.

...Do the comparison with Alberta and Ontario and then give me one good reason why anyone should believe that a private company could do better for us....

Consider this. I have an 1140cc motorcycle which has been insured in several places: Rochester NY, Eugene OR, Edmonton AB, Bonn Germany, Paris France and now Victoria, BC. Insurance for this motorcycle was pretty cheap in Alberta at $160/year. In France my bills added up to about 400 EUR per year. In Germany, it only cost 200 EUR per year (both my European policies insured the bike for all Europe and North Africa). My insurance in Eugene and Rochester was a bit more expensive since it was comprehensive insurance. These policies were about USD $700-$900/year. 3rd party liability insurance would have been in the USD $300/year range at that time. In BC minimal insurance for this motorcycle is $1200/year. At first I thought, "this has to be wrong". But I've since learned this is really the insurance rate that is deemed fair in BC. I would like to know why this is considered fair.

To find out, I've been talking with the ICBC Ombudsman, Janet McKennon. She originally tried to convince me that I'm getting higher-quality insurance for my money in BC. I tried to convince her that such a statement was very difficult to confirm, and even if it was true, my BC insurance policy is certainly not worth 8 times what my Alberta policy provided me. For the kind of money ICBC is charging me, I'd expect free fuel, oil, tires, and someone to occasionally come into my apartment and clean up after me.

Alberta = $160/year
France = 400 EUR per year.
Germany = 200 EUR per year.
Eugene and Rochester comprehensive = USD $700-$900/year.
BC minimal insurance = $1200/year.

U.S. private comprehensive is $900, and ICBC minimal is $1200.
I am not convinced.

 

[UShadItComing]

Andy, you've turned bitter and negative on the topic and so there is little point in continuing with you on this issue.

I did find one thing that I have to answer on though and that is your claim of it costing $1200/year to insure a motorcycle. It's Sunday today so I can't get a quote but I will tomorrow for you, not that it's going to make any difference now because it's clear you just don't want to know. I did myself ride a bike up until a few years ago and I never ever heard of such rates for insurance unless you wanted to buy theft coverage and that was expensive wherever you went. Hardly anyone does. In any case I will find out on the MC insurance because you just may have found a little niche to work with. You won't see me run from it if it is factual.

One more issue: You made the claim that private insurance was unavailable in certain parts of B.C. and I challenged you on that claim. You've run away from it now and that's because it's coming out of your behind and both your ears at the same time pal.

Have a nice day!

 

[BigRob]

Point to remember.

Only like 20% of people support the mortgage bailouts. The government ignored them and did it anyway.

I think it was like 70% also oppose Wall Street bailouts. The government did it anyway.

So, it would seem that the people in America are capitalist, it is the inability of the government to represent the actual views of the people that is the problem.

 

[GenSeneca]

U.S. private comprehensive is $900, and ICBC minimal is $1200.
I am not convinced.

Math and facts have a strange way of combining to reveal the ineptitude of Socialist policy. I'm shocked you would prefer to rely on reality over flowery rhetoric... thats very bitter and negative on your part.
-------------------

Well the Pickens Plan was recently proposed before Congress and while I don't entirely support his plan, the man had some very excellent points to make... most notable of which was his statement that government had 2 options:

1. Use the power of Government to support Private industry in developing alternatives and expanding traditional resources.
2. Use their power to get Government out of the way.

I'd personally prefer option 2, just let capitalism work and get your socialist - we settle for nothing but perfection (unless we do it double standard) - policies out of the way.

 

[Andy]

Andy, you've turned bitter and negative on the topic and so there is little point in continuing with you on this issue.

lol If you say so. Sounds like a cop-out to avoid the points I made. Either that or you don't see that politics and corruption go hand in hand, which is insane to not see that. Or that you don't see a company that passes costly policy changes on it's consumers without notice, is tyrannical when they have no choice in using ICBC. Or really I have no idea what you mean lol.

I did find one thing that I have to answer on though and that is your claim of it costing $1200/year to insure a motorcycle. It's Sunday today so I can't get a quote but I will tomorrow for you, not that it's going to make any difference now because it's clear you just don't want to know. I did myself ride a bike up until a few years ago and I never ever heard of such rates for insurance unless you wanted to buy theft coverage and that was expensive wherever you went. Hardly anyone does. In any case I will find out on the MC insurance because you just may have found a little niche to work with. You won't see me run from it if it is factual.

I'm still lost on what real evidence you have. You claimed that the people of B.C. had this overwhelming support of ICBC, yet I've found thousand that do not support ICBC. Even wiki indicates polls show a very mixed review of ICBC, not a generally or vastly favorable review as you claim.

You claimed the insurance rates were vastly cheaper, yet I found evidence they were about the same or much higher, yet at the same time having much lower pay-outs and generally higher deductibles.

In fact, the only thing you have brought to the table is one single article that merely states ICBC has made massive profits off of a captive customer base. An article that doesn't really compare actual rates from all across Canada, or the U.S., nor does it compare pay-outs and service, nor does it compare how ICBC treats customers vs private companies. If fact the article contained no quantitative comparisons of any kind, only some ambiguous "ICBC is cheaper, and private companies can't compete". Really? A private company can't compete in a government mandated monopoly? I'm shocked.

The only thing I have come to understand is that they can't compete for supplemental insurance because since ICBC has a monopoly on the basic insurance that everyone must have, then they can subsidize their supplemental insurance, where as private companies that don't have that option, obviously have a disadvantage.

One more issue: You made the claim that private insurance was unavailable in certain parts of B.C. and I challenged you on that claim. You've run away from it now and that's because it's coming out of your behind and both your ears at the same time pal.

Well you can read it anyway you want. Like I said before, and hopefully you will understand it this time, I can only read what other people have said to me. Now perhaps I misunderstood them, and perhaps they are wrong in what they said. Like I told you before, I can't speak first hand because I don't live in B.C. I can only tell you what I have read. That's one of the things I read. That in some areas there are no private insurance options. If you wish to conclude all your fellow Canadians are liars, well... I guess I have more faith in them than you do.

http://www.visitvancouver.bc.ca/ICBC/case-in-point.html
http://www.visitvancouver.bc.ca/ICBC/fairness-review.html
More happy ICBC customers explaining how much they love their socialized system.

My personal favorite is when ICBC was requested statistics by the government, on how many people were affected by a completely unannounced policy change, they claimed: "$16.50 per minute for mainframe computing time and $7.50 per quarter hour for programmer's time" which is over $1,000 an hour, and it was a full year before they released the info. But hey!! At least it's not a bail out! Canadian tax money at work.

But nonetheless, I think we can agree to disagree. You haven't answered any of my points. You have sparse evidence to back your theories. Even the other people reading the thread can clearly see I have made my case. Yet... you persist in pointless evasive answers... or as I like to call them 'non-answers'. So perhaps we should discontinue.

 

[Andy]

Math and facts have a strange way of combining to reveal the ineptitude of Socialist policy. I'm shocked you would prefer to rely on reality over flowery rhetoric... thats very bitter and negative on your part.
-------------------

Well the Pickens Plan was recently proposed before Congress and while I don't entirely support his plan, the man had some very excellent points to make... most notable of which was his statement that government had 2 options:

1. Use the power of Government to support Private industry in developing alternatives and expanding traditional resources.
2. Use their power to get Government out of the way.

I'd personally prefer option 2, just let capitalism work and get your socialist - we settle for nothing but perfection (unless we do it double standard) - policies out of the way.

Option 2 for sure. Option 1 has already been tried, and Ethanol is a boondoggle. Although I bet a number of wealthy Socialists will go for option 1. Ted Turner sure won't give up his millions in subsidies without a fight.

 

[UShadItComing]

lol If you say so. Sounds like a cop-out to avoid the points I made. Either that or you don't see that politics and corruption go hand in hand, which is insane to not see that. Or that you don't see a company that passes costly policy changes on it's consumers without notice, is tyrannical when they have no choice in using ICBC. Or really I have no idea what you mean lol.

The reason I didn't bother to address it was because most of it was hogwash Andy.

I'm still lost on what real evidence you have. You claimed that the people of B.C. had this overwhelming support of ICBC, yet I've found thousand that do not support ICBC. Even wiki indicates polls show a very mixed review of ICBC, not a generally or vastly favorable review as you claim.[/qtuoe]

Actually I said no such thing but I did say that private insurance can't compete with ICBC. you have failed completely to supply and information at all to say that is not true. Instead you go searching for a site which has a bunch of disgruntled idiots making stupid claims. You don't want to stick to the facts and solid evidence so I find you a waste of time now.

You claimed the insurance rates were vastly cheaper, yet I found evidence they were about the same or much higher, yet at the same time having much lower pay-outs and generally higher deductibles.

You 'may' have found a niche where ICBC is not beting private but I doubt it and I said I would find out tomorrow by getting a quote on an 1100. YOu aren't even gracious enough to acknowledge that. What's the point in continuing with you? Your mind has slammed shut because you could never bring yourself to admit anything which flies in the face of your brand of capitalism.

In fact, the only thing you have brought to the table is one single article that merely states ICBC has made massive profits off of a captive customer base. An article that doesn't really compare actual rates from all across Canada, or the U.S., nor does it compare pay-outs and service, nor does it compare how ICBC treats customers vs private companies. If fact the article contained no quantitative comparisons of any kind, only some ambiguous "ICBC is cheaper, and private companies can't compete". Really? A private company can't compete in a government mandated monopoly? I'm shocked.

Had you shown an honest intent I could have brought more articles to the table. I still can if you want to change your attitude and open up your mind. You just don't want to know do you Andy.

The only thing I have come to understand is that they can't compete for supplemental insurance because since ICBC has a monopoly on the basic insurance that everyone must have, then they can subsidize their supplemental insurance, where as private companies that don't have that option, obviously have a disadvantage.

You're full of it pal. Private insurance is almost non-existent in B.C. and they hardly bother to advertise. You don't want to know the truth.

Well you can read it anyway you want. Like I said before, and hopefully you will understand it this time, I can only read what other people have said to me. Now perhaps I misunderstood them, and perhaps they are wrong in what they said. Like I told you before, I can't speak first hand because I don't live in B.C. I can only tell you what I have read. That's one of the things I read. That in some areas there are no private insurance options. If you wish to conclude all your fellow Canadians are liars, well... I guess I have more faith in them than you do.

B.S. All you can do is go on a search for disgruntled people who have had an accident and didn't succeed in scamming the system in most cases. And as with any insurance, there are instances of people being wronged. It happens in all insurance systems and markets. I'm honest enough to admit that! If you want to learn the facts just ask.

http://www.visitvancouver.bc.ca/ICBC/case-in-point.html
http://www.visitvancouver.bc.ca/ICBC/fairness-review.html
More happy ICBC customers explaining how much they love their socialized system.

I don't know what the problem is but your links don't work. maybe you don't know how to post them.

My personal favorite is when ICBC was requested statistics by the government, on how many people were affected by a completely unannounced policy change, they claimed: "$16.50 per minute for mainframe computing time and $7.50 per quarter hour for programmer's time" which is over $1,000 an hour, and it was a full year before they released the info. But hey!! At least it's not a bail out! Canadian tax money at work.

I don't know what you're on about but maybe that's the going rate? If you want to continue it's something you can try to hammer on again.

But nonetheless, I think we can agree to disagree. You haven't answered any of my points. You have sparse evidence to back your theories. Even the other people reading the thread can clearly see I have made my case. Yet... you persist in pointless evasive answers... or as I like to call them 'non-answers'. So perhaps we should discontinue.

No we can't agree to disagree! First of all apologize for your silly and unsubstantiated comment of some areas in B.C. not having access to private insurance. And clean up your bad attitude a little and I'll continue with you.

You've picked yourself a losing argument and you're not going to make it look like I'm running from it. YOu will be the one to run away buster.

Wht a bloody disappointment you have proven to be!

 

[sheldonking5]

:LLI been thinking about the current state of the united states and the world and i've come to the conclusion that the news and the currents events are not really occurring their manufacted for my benefit to get some type of reaction from me the recession is a hoax everbody is rich but me the warsnot really goin on we came back from Iraq in 2004 they've got McDonalds and everything over their now.The tattoos are just a lie to see i get a kick out of it or find it amusing....everybody's still together....(for all i know she's in there) and that really wasn't her....would somebody please tell me I'm imagining this whole thing (that last statement is for Huntsville residents only) I'm not really being detained I can't be im an American.....my bank account proves it it doesnt get anymore American than that......their not really blocking my emails,mail and phone calls it just nobody wants to talk to me.....you don't really think i'm going to atlanta to pick up some mysterious package from an unknown location that only happens in the movies......is it gonna be like at the airport a person with a sign and my name on it......should i listen to the radio for clues like a scavenger hunt....we cant really be still debating wether it was a good or bad idea....this is just a neverending joke to teach the sypathizer a lesson isnt....tell the truth.....it was just a song i really dont care, imbroke my lifes**** wether WWW IIII starts or not....I just maycome up off mass chaos.....It was just a view not necessarilly mine but somebody's that the good thing about music it's EXPRESSION......a hot cd put's you in six figures that's more than enough money for a poor person and you best believe him or her will sell their newborn baby's soul to keep from going back to them bricks...in kentucky they are cutting back to a 4 day school week to save on gas and energy cost's i say make it 3 and send them to Alaska and let em drill for 2 days.....while your at send medicare and social security up there too we can find something for em to do......as a matter of fact if they arent 80% or better buy the 9 grade make em full-time......this part one of a 2 part series.....explain it to me somebody cause im confused.....let me know whats going on i dont mean by playing blues clues I aint 6.....Im 32 it takes more than enuendos to make me believe I need facts coming from a rational human ADULT....to the people who smoke puntuations marks in the alley.....this is a forum not an essay contest.....There's a reason i dropped out of advanced englis and it was because mrs whitefield wasnt hot...........