The last paragraph says it all,in spades.
Unfortunately,until we clean house in Victoria(and Ottawa),that isn't going to happen.
I keep hoping we will see a rise in independant thinkers and candidates with no particular party affiliations.
Those are the people who's thinking and actions will not be controlled by a self-serving leader and a political party with it's own agenda.
Problem is,the party system we have had for so long in B.C. keeps the independant thinkers marginalized and powerless.
That is no an accident.
As well,we as voters need to re-think the way we vote.
The party system is ingrained in us all, and unfortunately,it is not the answer.

So what do we do? Some suggest a new party and how long would it survive before it is controlled by lobbyists and big corporations. The NDP didn’t have the solution when they tried to manipulate big business they just shut down all development and the economy went down the dumper.

To make change the middle class will have to come on board. How do we lower their sights to the better of the community rather then self.

So Peter you have told us what the problems are so help us find a solution. How about a little Egypt think we can get the masses out there waving their flags and shouting "we want change".
Cheers

It is funny how retired and others others still bang the NDP for our collapsed economy back in the NDP's day. They always conviently overlook the the collapse of the Asian market that brought our economy down mainly due to lack of diversification caused by every government not just the NDP. The fiberals have now brought on a huge dept load, why is that overlooked?

The Asian market will again correct itself bringeng on hard times that will be compounded by the fiberal dept load.

I agree with the new party issue, Retired 02.
The problem seems to be within the "party" system in itself.
Political party's depend on big biz for funding and "donations".
The reality is,these corporation are actually buying favours for themselves down the road somewhere,assuming of course that their politicial charity of choice manages to get elected.
They are in effect,buying a piece of government.
Case in point...the B.C.Liberals....they are owned by corporate interests,and they know it.
With enough support from big corporations and business,there is a damn good chance they can win any election.
Not hard to see why they hate independant candidates.

You call the Liberals fiberals but if you are condemning the performance of the BC Liberal government during and after the financial meltdown of 2008 (biggest meltdown since the Great Depression!) I must heartily disagree, as Liberal policies have kept B.C. in pretty good shape while indeed (yes) adding to the debt by spending on large infrastructure projects - thereby providing tens of thousands of badly needed jobs.

The Federal government added over 200 billion to the national debt and will add at least another 100 million over the next four years.

If the ability to borrow is a bad idea during bad times - is it a good idea to borrow during good times?

No? I didn't think so.

I still blame the NDP for putting the economy of B.C. in the tank. Let's not allow that from happening again, please!

Andy, and the NDP is owned by the interests of who?

Ask Moe Sihota to answer that question Prince George!
If the NDP was to manage a win at the ballot box in 2013,and they still could,it won't because of their smarts.
It will because of a massive hate for the B.C.Liberals,that they earned,by the way!
We should also keep in mind that while the NDP was blamed for tanking the B.C.economy,big business had a lot to do with the spin that made it so.
In reality,economics had as much to do with it as anything the NDP did...up to a point!
Sure they made mistakes,but so have the Liberals.
Apples and oranges...and nothing the NDP did back then is even rellevant anymore.
It's the here and now we should be concerned with.

Good points, Andy! Don't forget that the first few after-the-NDP years were the ones when heavy duty measures were required to get the province out of its have-not-status coma again!

If there is a massive hate for the B.C. Liberals one wonders if that hate is going to be as big as the anti NDP hate which resulted in its being reduced to a paltry TWO seats in the Legislature!

The NDP earned that as well!

Can't write off what the NDP did THEN if you don't write off what the Liberals did in the past!

Both parties are going to have new leaders which means the new leaders can have a go at it in the here and now!

There's the key...new leaders for both parties.
But it remains to be seen as to whether or not the attitude and policies will change.
If it's the same old stuff with a new face on their leaders,we are right back where we were.

Actually some comments are a bit off Mr. Ewart's topic, which is concerned with the extraction of raw materials and the long term outlook for the North especially and the rest of the province.

"We need new blood, new ideas, and a new vision for BC."

There are plenty of new ideas and visions but the buck always stops at the question what should the role of government be or should not be and what the role of private business should and should not be.

Government should enact and enforce sensible legislation to encourage economic activity, protect the enviornment, etc. Should it go into competition with private business?

For instance: Alcan has operated a smelter in Kitimat for more than five decades. No secondary aluminum manufacturing facilities have ever been constructed by Alcan next to the smelter or anywhere in the Northwest. Alcan does all that somewhere else. All the metal leaves in ingot form on ships and trains.

An aluminum foil rolling mill, a vehicle alloy wheel casting and machining facility, an extrusion plant to produce the kind of aluminum extrusions used for door and window frames and a host of other uses...wouldn't it be terrific if Alcan had built up these kinds of secondary plants in Kitimat and provided well paid jobs for many additional hundreds of Kitimat residents and a more securely based community with more amenities.

This is just one example.

How can any government induce companies to do what I would call the right thing?

If nothing can be done then all the new visions and ideas will be just pipe dreams.

If there were an actual Consumer demand for all those secondary manufactured aluminum items, and a way of making that Consumer demand an EFFECTIVE demand, they would be made.

If not by Alcan itself, then by some other Firm, or Firms.

The same is true of wood products. And other conversions beyond the initial stages of any product's manufacture or provision.

Business people are highly adept at seeking out opportunities for profit. Many of which turn out to be far less than what is hoped for, but, and the point is, if someone thinks there's a buck to be had doing something not currently being done, or even if it is, someone will attempt to do it. Just try to stop them.

Consumer demand, whether you have the simplest economy imaginable, or the most complex, is the only sane origin of all economic activity.

If it does exist, and the products CAN be made, and the only reason they are not being made is because the "cost" of their making cannot be fully recovered in "price", plus a sufficient enough profit to induce their continued manufacture, then it is to this latter that we should devote our attention.

For there really is no sense whatsoever, as we've found out several times under various NDP governments, in trying to engage in complex measures designed only to "create Jobs". Not only is there no sense in that, it is totally un-neccesary.
It simply wastes energy and resources. Both natural and human.

Obviously, if any of these more manufactured products are going to be manufactured at all there has to be a buck in doing it. If, for no other reason, and no matter whether a plant is owned by private enterprise, or by some agency of government, than it has been put in with 'borrowed' money ~ virtually all money is ultimately 'borrowed' money ~ and what has been borrowed can not be repaid if there is no profit.

You would never build a manufacturing plant in Kitimat and ship the finished product to markets in the USA or Europe, or China for that matter.

The freight charges and labour charges would be prohibitive. You are far better off to send the ingots to manufacturers in the highly populated areas and distribute the finished product from there.

The major population of North America is Eastern Canada, and Eastern USA. Probably 300 Million people in that area. Thats where the market is.

You bring in the raw material at low rates, and manufacture the finished product and then ship out. Supplying a finished product to an area like North Central BC can be done (and is done) from these manufacturing plants in large Cities.

We live in the backwoods of BC. There are 50,000 trucks per day that go into the City of New York just to supply them with all their needs. Container ships offload in the harbours and distribute products for a 500 mile radius.

You cant expect to build a plant in this part of the Country, pay workers $18.00 per hour, more or less, plus benefits, and pay the high transportation costs for shipping a finished product to market. It just doesnt work.

If it did work manufacturers would have been here years ago.

As an example, you would be far better off to ship pulp to Vancouver and make toilet paper and paper towels, and distribute it to markets in the Greater Vancouver area, Vancouver Island, and Washington State, than to manufacture the product here, and ship the finished product to those places. Its just common sense.

One carload of pulp to Vancouver would cost you about $1500.00 in transportation costs. (200,000lbs). If you made the finished product here and shipped the amount of product that you would make from 200,000lbs of pulp, you would end up shipping at least 10 carloads of paper towels or toilet paper. This would cost you about $15000.00 in freight and you still would have to warehouse it and distribute it in the Vancouver area. If you trucked the finished product from Pr George you would pay even more. The finished product has very little weight, and takes up a huge amount of space. This means higher transportation costs.

Manufacturing finished products in remote areas and shipping thousands of miles by rail or truck to your market just does not work. Is is the economies of scale. There is a very good reason why we do the things the way we do them. Major warehouses in Vancouver, Edmnton, and Calgary, service the whole of BC and Alberta. You would never see warehouses of this magnitude located in the interior to supply Vancouver, Edmtn, Calgary.

The monthly salary for a Chinese worker in the Urban area's of China is $26.00 per day. Thats your competition. Not much better in Mexico, the Phillipines, Tiawan, South East Asia, India. So dont expect any big changes on how business is done anytime soon.

It just doesnt work,so I suggest we go to plan Two(2)

Comparing our political situation to the middle east makes for a good story but little sense.

"If there were an actual Consumer demand for all those secondary manufactured aluminum items, and a way of making that Consumer demand an EFFECTIVE demand, they would be made."

All these *aluminum items* are in fact being manufactured ALREADY as there is a huge worldwide demand for them.

The point is not whether they ought to be made but WHERE they could be made instead so we can benefit here.

The suggestion was made that some of that manufacturing could be made next to an existing aluminum smelter. Instead of shipping the primary metal to Toronto, Kingston, Vancouver or whatever a finished product should be shipped instead.

The same applies to other industries. Canadian mines export copper concentrate overseas, for instance, when the copper tubing could easily be manufactured here and then exported as a higher value commodity.

However, it appears that the naysayers with their pessimism take the floor again, instead of those with new blood, new ideas, and a new vision for BC.

If one sets one's ambitions and limitations LOW enough, guess what the outcome will be?

Our competitors, full of new ideas and drive to succeed, are very happy.

We have all these pros and cons why we cant make create secondary industry., The fact is that the big corporations don’t give a shit about our community its all about profit.

The corporations have set up globalization and it doesn’t matter what we do we will remain “hewers of wood and carriers of water” as Peter has pointed out. We have been forced into competing in manufacturing with China and other countries where the wages are low.

In the meantime the large corporations are making there profits from our natural resources that we are giving to them and banking the profits. We can no longer close our borders to foreign competion. What we really need to do is limit profits that leave our country and reinvesting the rest in secondary industry.

And yes I am aware of the Asian Flew when the NDP were in power.
Cheers.

"It just doesnt work,so I suggest we go to plan Two(2)"

Let's have plan Two(2)! Can't hold my breath forever!

prince George:-"However, it appears that the naysayers with their pessimism take the floor again, instead of those with new blood, new ideas, and a new vision for BC.

If one sets one's ambitions and limitations LOW enough, guess what the outcome will be?

Our competitors, full of new ideas and drive to succeed, are very happy."
--------------------------------------------

That remains to be seen. Right now they (and China, particularly), are in the 'pioneering' stage of industrialisation.

They are still issuing credit in business 'costs' at a faster rate than they're redeeming it in 'prices' of goods and services for sale in their home market.

Soon, though, at the rate they're going, they are going to pass through this stage ~ when enough factories, shopping malls, infrastructure, etc. have been built. When the markets abroad for their manufactures begin to slow, and more countries move to restrict their imports to try to preserve employment in their own lands.

And then the economy that was fueled by their building of today will begin to falter as the deferred 'costs' of all that building have to be recovered from incomes derived from producing 'consumer' goods alone.

Inflation will set in, even more so than it already has, and it will be ever the more noticeable. Just as it became here in the early 1970's, when our decade long resource and dam building boom slowed down.

Yes, we let others decide what our eventual fate will be. Looks like Mr. Ewart's idea for a new vision doesn't find much support here.

Pity.

The first issue being the need for a new non partisan, non polarized useless wasteful centralized dictatorship government is to have the voters elect independent MLAs and MPs. I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but it would certainly be better than what we have.

The second debate being whether our province can diversify its economy and move from being a predominantly resource provider to other places. I believe that what socredible insists is actually theoretical nonsense. Beware of simple assumptions that it is a matter of black and white economics or profitable or not corporate explanations being genuine.

It is the macro economics which come from manipulating markets,supply chains and competition that will trump any micro aspect of a corporations agenda.

In this, the new real world, that simple supply demand forces and balances are being manipulated in every corner of the world by the biggest corporations and financiers...and in lockstep with naieve and/or corrupt governments.

The "first issue", foresight, is for people to decide just what it is they actually want the economy to do for them. And how their government can help them achieve what they desire. And in what priority.

I believe there are three choices. Not "theoretical nonsense" ones at all, but very practical ones. They are:-

(1.) To provide goods and services as first needed, and then desired, to all within that economy, in as efficent a manner as possible;

(2.) To provide maximum employment; or,

(3.)To provide maximum financial return.

What is that we really want?

I, myself, would choose number (1.). I think the other two choices are entirely secondary to the primary purpose contained in number (1.) You, and others, may disagree.

Lets say that you do. That you, for instance, would sooner have (2.), maximum employment. If this is the case, then every advancement in technology, mechanisation, and automation, is your mortal enemy.

Because, whether you realise it or not, the world is rapidly advancing towards putting more and more of those now working in it out of work.

You can view this as a curse, or a blessing, depending on your point of view.

If you believe, as many do, that the highest end man can achieve is endless drudgery, and that we should, "Let no man eat who has not first worked", you'll naturally view it as a curse.

If you're of a more 'practical' nature, you'll recognise that the only difference between the misery of increasing 'unemployment' and the pleasure of increasing 'leisure' is that the former affects one's INCOME, and the latter does not.

You'll also recognise that there is a signifigant difference between "leisure" and "idleness". Most of the world's great inventions owe their development to the fact that someone had some "leisure" time to pursue their development. "Idleness" is, for the most part, simply a waste of time. Some are naturally wasteful. That's human nature.

100 years ago it took a full 50% of the western world's working population engaged full time in agriculture to produce enough food to feed themselves and everyone else. Today, it's less than 3%, and still falling. And there's more food, to feed more mouths, than there ever has been in all of recorded history!

You can look at virtually any other industry and see exactly the same thing. There has been such a rise in 'productivity' that we could safely say, for all practical purposes, we've solved the problem of PRODUCTION that dogged the world for so much of its history. And solved it long ago.

We don't even USE all the productive capacity we've already built. Only 86% of it, at its 'rated capacity' on average, in Canada, in a period of economic BOOM!

In a more 'normal' period, even less than that. Yet we want to add even MORE to it? Why?

Because we need what it's going to produce, when we can't even sell ALL that we're currently able to produce? How come?

Where is its principal value in adding to an overall capacity that's already suffering from repeated periods of "idleness"? In being able to produce still MORE again? Or in the FACT that we think we need an EXCUSE to pay out some incomes to build MORE 'plant' just so we CAN more fully access that which already exists or could readily be made with the 'plant' we already have, only we otherwise couldn't afford?

Today's problem is no longer that of Production, but rather one of DISTRIBUTION. And the agency of Distribution is MONEY. And if we're bent on solely distributing 'money' through 'employment' in a world with continually decreasing employment, we're on a one way road to both financial and physical disaster.

To leave all that, for a time. Many people talk about "value adding" aluminum, or forest products, or other commodities. And I would contend where that CAN be done, with the rules and conventions of accounting as they are, it WILL be done. We are just as entrepreneurial a people as any other.

My own experience has been in the field of forest products manufacture. And it is very easy to see what is successful in the "value added" field there, and what is not.

Two things come readily to mind. First, if you're going to "value add" what is going to become a 'commodity' product, sold into a broad market, you'd better start with something that doesn't have very much 'value' in it in the first place.

Finger-jointed dimension lumber manufactured from fall-down items, trimmings, etc., is one example. That works.

But what doesn't work is when you try to 'commoditise' something which is currently a low-volume 'specialty' product that's made from lumber that already has a much higher value. In such instances, all that'll often really be added is "cost". Cost that can't be fully recovered in "price".

And the further the process is taken, the greater the risk that any falldown will lead to a great deal of "value" being "subtracted", rather than "added".

This is NOT "theoretical nonsense", foresight, it is based on actual, first-hand experience. Where it was MY dollar that was on the line, and MY Assets that we're pledged as collateral for bank financing, and MY name on the 'Personal Guarantee' that voids the 'limited liability' of the corporate structure when dealing with Banks.

I would say, in closing, that it would be lovely if we could elect "independents" as MLAs. People who were truly OUR "representatives" first, if they COULD be that, rather than having to hold a prior loyalty to their Party, or its Leader. The problem, as I see it, is that they soon WOULDN'T be that. The same kind of "economic" pressure that's brought to bear on MLAs now, and all of us, now, would be brought to bear on these people, too. And they'd cave to it. Because they know no better. Such is the power of $-sign 'figures' over actual 'facts'.

foresight:-"Beware of simple assumptions that it is a matter of black and white economics or profitable or not corporate explanations being genuine."
------------------------------------------

It's not so much a case of "black and white economics" at the 'micro' level of the economy, foresight, but rather "black and red ink" accounting. Economists predict. Like the weathermen. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But the real decisions on whether something will be done or not, or continue or stop, are based on the present rules and conventions of accounting. And economists and accountants don't speak the same language.
------------------------------------------

foresight:- "It is the macro economics which come from manipulating markets,supply chains and competition that will trump any micro aspect of a corporations agenda."
-------------------------------------------

Yes, I believe that's quite true. Right now, we have Bank and Financier control of 'credit'. Some call for that to be replaced by Government control of 'credit'. Others by Producer control of 'credit'. What's really necessary is to have CONSUMER control of 'credit'. For we, of necessity, are ALL Consumers. The productive and financial systems exist to serve and facilitate our needs and desires for personal consumption. Today, our problem isn't primarily a 'production' problem anymore, it's a 'distribution' one.
-------------------------------------------

foresight:-"In this, the new real world, that simple supply demand forces and balances are being manipulated in every corner of the world by the biggest corporations and financiers...and in lockstep with naieve and/or corrupt governments."
------------------------------------------
Absolutely. If you have the exclusive power to literally create money, and claim 'ownership' of your creation, then so long as 'money' is an "effective demand" for goods and services, you can use it to claim 'ownership' of those goods and services, too. That's NOT what banking was set up for, but that's how it can be used. And no doubt is being used. To what ends? Profit? Perhaps, but far more likely POWER.

This ability, carried to the lengths it is now being carried, can be used to topple governments. As we're witnessing now, throughout the Middle East, and may see elsewhere.

The people in the countries affected honestly believe they are effecting change by replacing the guyand his mob at the top, with a new guy and different mob at the top. They may even eventually get to "vote" him in.

But have rising food prices, which sparked most of the current unrest that's boiled over into open revolt COME DOWN to an affordable level again by changing the 'personages' at the top? Or are they just as high under the new Leader, who can now blame that on the old one?

The ONLY way that's ever going to be beaten is to re-relate the "physical" realities of supply and demand with a "financial" system that properly REFLECTS those realities. To do that we need to have CONSUMER control of 'credit' ~ something that will be far less hard to actually achieve than it ever will be to convince most people it could be achieved.

You seem to be enchanted with some form of collectivism, be it economic, social or political, or a generous blending of two or all three.

These concepts are not new, various combinations of these have been tried and found to be unworkable, because while attempting to eliminate some extremes they always create other intolerable extremes.

Human beings are not put together like robots on an assembly line. Each human being is unique and what one human being finds very desirable another human being may think of as totally undesirable. The values and customs of one society may differ to a great degree from those of another society.

One can try to forcefully mandate, control, manipulate and order everything to reduce it to some idealistic common denominator - good luck, it can not be done.

A hint: The writings of Ludwig Van Mises for instance are quite informative.

You seem to be enchanted with some form of collectivism, be it economic, social or political, or a generous blending of two or all three.

These concepts are not new, various combinations of these have been tried and found to be unworkable, because while attempting to eliminate some extremes they always create other intolerable extremes.

Human beings are not put together like robots on an assembly line. Each human being is unique and what one human being finds very desirable another human being may think of as totally undesirable. The values and customs of one society may differ to a great degree from those of another society.

One can try to forcefully mandate, control, manipulate and order everything to reduce it to some idealistic common denominator - good luck, it can not be done.

A hint: The writings of Ludwig Van Mises for instance are quite informative.

Yes "PrinceGeorge" I am enchanted with the notion that the longterm wellbeing of people and our earth is more important than the short and longterm wellbeing of a political party or a group of select corporations.

I am also confident and enchanted that the concepts that socredible insists are fundamentally obsolete in the real world. That in that believing it is simply a matter of selecting one of the three listed options proposed (in isolation from all the other realities involved) will certainly lead to worsening disasters on a local and global scale.
The people in the western world have the most to loose and it is idiotic to believe that we can sustain our standards of living by shifting more control to others who are aggressively acquiring what they want.

A little hint PG; Countries such as China are a social/political collective as well as an economic superpower which if allowed will dominate ownership and control of virtually every available resource. The key is when the tipping point will be reached and irreversible imbalance of power.., economic and military might will ensure that their wants be met.

Sorry foresight, my comment was directed not at you.

My fault entirely. I should have identified it more clear. I fully agree with both your comments. My (double, don't know why) post was a reply to the lengthy last post of socredible of March 11 2011 8:08 AM.

Ludwig von Mises is a "gold bug", Prince George. Like Ron Paul. They see 'money' as primarily a 'commodity' that other commodities can be related to. As a 'measure' or 'standard' of value. In my opinion, that idea is totally obsolete. Modern money is NOT, nor can it ever be, primarily a 'standard' of value. It is "effective demand" for goods and services. It facilitates Production, and moves it through into Consumption.

None of the things that you accuse me of wanting are what I want at all, and I am NOT "enchanted" by any "collective". We are ALL 'individuals', and what is desired by each of us as individuals is likely to be as varied as each of us is from one another.