Don't share water with U.S

Nice to see the incessant clear cutting (especially on Native American/Crown lands) being acknowleged by Fast Eddie on the softwood lumber front...thanks Ed 'ol boy...and also for acknowledging the post *Kyoto Accordian* pollution rising north of the 49th...good admissions

...

Note to some brave anomymous above:

There's no such thing as "competitive advantage", because all forms of competition increase costs and economic competition is the worst waste of material and human resources. This can be calculated very easily, when one is using the correct physical, instead of phoney monetary figures.

Also, Canadian "productivity" is not below that of the US, because so called productivuty figures are outright fraud as are those of the GDP and growth.

The more we compete the poorer and sicker we'll get.

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

I'm not the same anon from above, I just didn't sign in.

My point was echoing PL's exactly: water *is* a strategic resource, listening to those who want pretend to treat it like any other commodity are kidding themselves, because it won't be once the power brokers get hold of it. So trading away the right to *treat it* like anything other than a political commodity in exchange for foreign market access or other tied politics is foolish. And that's what *will* happen with bulk water--no "free market", but a direct, government-supported subsidization of production in areas caught short by overconsumption, wastefulness or geographic reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "leverage", but I'm not sure I like the idea of using "leverage" just because we can--we don't like it when other power brokers do it to us (election time or otherwise).

Strategic resources can still be strategic without letting politicians, trade negotiators and other government market distorters (they call themselves "free traders" in on the action. You locate production near a resource, you manage it wisely, you're more competitive--natural as opposed to political leverage.

The reality of future water shortages (that would limit development) has yet to sink in to Arizonans. Only during the past few months, building construction seems to have dropped a little bit in the Phoenix and Prescott areas.

I guess it is (like in many places) unknown who should initiate addressing this issue: the State, the County where development is proposed, the municipality, one or other US Federal Agency, or (least likely) the private development industry). How one deals with the Colorado River Treaty between all the States that benefit from that particular river, also needs to be resolved. And by the way, even Mexico, because where the mighty Colorado crosses into that country south of Yuma AZ, is is only a piddly ditch with some brine from all the agricultural use.

And the drought in Arizona continues.....

"Note to some brave anomymous above:"

No timidity here Ed, just forgot to log in. I noted that in the follow-up.

"There's no such thing as "competitive advantage""

Sure there is. If a given production process requires a certain resource, and I locate the remaining means of production proximate to a decent supply of that resource, all other things being equal I should be able to produce a given output for a lower economic cost (in the true, not monetarist sense) than someone who decides to locate the remaining means of production in some remote location on the basis of some fiction such as a tax break and military-guarded public-tab infrastructure.

Your phoney-money insight comes into play when more-or-less fiat money or other political provocation is used to entice the producer into the desert, distorting real economic notions of "cheap" and "efficient" from what are basically thermodynamic properties into concepts more easily manipulated through lies, corruption and self-interest.

"Also, Canadian "productivity" is not below that of the US"

Yes, it is. Arguing with the validity of the metric itself is another thing, but using that contested measuring stick, it is.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a cooperative economy or "competitive" capitalist one here, if there are powers-that-be who decide (probably against the better judgement of engineers, and for reasons other than resource economy) to locate production far away from the source of inputs, the one who does the opposite and locates near the resource achieves a competitive advantage. This "bad fact" fuels politics of all varieties.

So, back to the practical: if we can achieve a competitive advantage by using our domestic resources wisely, why not? Or should we not be "competitive", and instead sign a NAFTA-oil-style agreement with the U.S. to guarantee them a proportional share of supply, shortages be damned and nearby, willing buyers forced to go wanting? I know that's not what you mean!

I doubt that any of you have ever been to Arizona or New Mexico, which is too bad for you. 
 
There was a big to do about the great lakes accord: 
 
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134774611372&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1134774611372&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795</a> 
 
To ease Canadian paranoia about “Their water”. Do you think it would be more cost effective to pipe water to Arizona from Canada or the Rocky mountain aquifer? 
 
This is just plain silly.. 
 
Tell you what, if it ever does come to needing fresh water that desperately, I promise we will just take it from >our side< of the great lakes… :-D

Look up the 35-40 year old NAWAPA plans of Parsons Engineering of Pasadena for the diversion of Alaskan and Canadian waters into a huge artificial lake in the Rocky Mountain Trench and from there pumping it East into the Midwestern States, and South to California and Mexico.

Under the NAFTA, multinational agribiz corporations have already bought up millions of acres in Mexico, counting on these waters.

What such huge alterations would do to the balanced ecological systems and to world climate, nobody seems to talk about. I have a 15, or so, year old interview on VCR tape with the US proponents of this scheme, talking only about capitalization and job creation. There are also more plans, like the Grand Canal scheme for waters from Quebec etc. waiting in the shadows for an impoverished and desperate enough Canada, or the "right" Canadian government, to sell the country to these insane plans.

Which brings back the grand scheme of the Hitlerian empire for the draining of the Mediterranian with a dam across the Straits of Gibraltar and the diversion of the Nile and other rivers to cover the Quatar Depression in central Africa with a huge artificial, fresh water lake etc. etc.

Great minds, especially "wealth creators", think alike....

By the way, what the hell are those blasted B52s still flying every day over our heads for ? Looking for waters?

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

> By the way, what the hell are those blasted B52s still flying every day over our heads for ? 
 
Do you really want to know? 
 
Barksdale AFB, LA and Minot AFB, ND serve as B-52 Main Operating Bases (MOB). Training missions are flown from both MOBs. Barksdale AFB and Minot AFB normally supports 57 and 36 aircraft respectively on-station. 
 
If they're on a serious mission, you might see them from your piece of nowhere - <a href="http://tinyurl.com/983va">http://tinyurl.com/983va</a> 
 
Otherwise, y'know, they're probably out on training missions. 
 
In other words, don't worry, Ed. You just go on struggling to survive in your rural fantasyland (without enough water!) - just don't forget to take your pills...

>>Look up the 35-40 year old NAWAPA plans of Parsons Engineering of Pasadena <<

What does it tell you that a 38 year old plan has gone absolutely no where? There was a feasibility study done and a cost/benefit analysis and it proved to be as practical as building a bridge to Japan via the Aleutian Islands …. Another plan that was proposed back in your day.

You call them “insane plans” yourself. True, we do have a way of doing what other countries insist is impossible every so often, but there is no real need for this and if there were there are closer sources of fresh water for the south west.

I can’t believe how silly all this is. Why don’t you hoard your air as well. Maybe the yanks want rocks? “Quick! Hide the rocks!” Maybe the yanks want peanut brittle??? “Our brittle, peanut and otherwise shall stay in Canada! Our sovereignty depends on it and no warmongering Yankees shall have it or any other of our tasty peanut snacks!” How small can you get?

>> Which brings back the grand scheme of the Hitlerian empire<<<

You ought to know Schütze.

>> By the way, what the hell are those blasted B52s still flying every day over our heads for ?<<<

Too bad you can’t control the air traffic Ed, the sad fact is they are probably geese that you are shaking your fist at...

Hey pal, quit the all-Canadians-who-have-an-interest-in-bulk-water-trade-rules -are-nuts nonsense. It's not all some paranoid fantasy, the trade rules governing bulk fresh water were a negotiating point under NAFTA, and they have been a negotiating point and contested issue since. You aptly (I assume it was you, apologize if not) point out the issues in shared management on the great lakes, complete with an unfortunately stereotypical bargaining position ("if we need it, we'll take it, period"). We could stand to lose the big-bad-America nonsense in all this, though: this is between Canadians, their elected governments, and their appointed trade neogtiators.

Fact is, we did negotiate a distinctly non-market relationship regarding energy exports under NAFTA, and people (including the "free traders" who ended up with the short end of that stick) are worried about the same thing happening with water.

Downstream paranoia aside (pun intended), it is a real issue that ordinary people have a right to take an interest in, at least in a democratic state. Lack of perfect information on a subject doesn't make the subject fantasy.

Right, Ed? Remember the "MAI"? Doesn't exist, figment of the imagination, you people are paranoid, etc., etc., then "oops, you rabble weren't supposed to see that".

I don't usually engage in debates, or correspondence with "anonyms", but I fought against the MAI from the moment I heard about it on the ecol-econ list of the U of Colorado in Jan, '97.

It was the first, and so far the only, fully prepared international treaty knocked over by public opinion and the Net.

Hope it won't be the last...........

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

>>Do you really want to know? <<

Helping to defend North America...

;-)

>>all-Canadians-who-have-an-interest-in-bulk-water-trade-rules -are-nuts nonsense. <<

Not >ALL< of them... The ones that think we are going to suck Canada dry to bring water to the southwest when there is water a lot closer.. maybe.. The ones doing an end zone dance at the prospect of “letting us drink Coca Cola…” You and I will be calling a pine box home long before the USA experiences anything remotely resembling a systemic water shortage. A world wide pandemic or war is just as likely to come along and ease the “demand”.

>> it is a real issue that ordinary people have a right to take an interest in, at least in a democratic state<<

Be interested away! Have at it!

The thing is, like so many other issues, some people have already decided what the outcome should be based on their bigoted framework. It doesn’t matter what the facts are or even if we want it… Look at the title: “Don't share water with U.S”.

What if we took that outlook on everything, regardless of whether or not it made any sense?

Don’t share jobs with Canadians! Don’t share technology with Canadians! Don’t share anything with the Canadians… Waah Waah Waah.

Wouldn’t that be kind of petty and small of us? Especially if you weren’t even asking for something that we have tons of?

>> Lack of perfect information on a subject doesn't make the subject fantasy.<<

Agreed, it doesn't make it reality either.

>>Nice to see the incessant clear cutting (especially on Native American/Crown lands) being acknowleged by Fast Eddie on the softwood lumber front..<<<

I was going to hop on that as well, but what the hell. It would be fun to watch him go if he weren’t so resentful. Going on about the thermodynamics of economics and aerodynamics of biology and that easily repairable the hole in the side of the SS Minnow that prevented those 7 stranded castaways from getting off Gilligan’s Island proving that Mrs. Howell was a Mossad spy and the old days with Eva Braun at the eagles nest and..........

I think, the problem here is the misuse and misunderstandings of concepts and words, forced on us by generations of brainwash.

I'm a great believer in locally based industries using local materials and workers for local use. "Consumption" in modern economic jargon. I've been fighting on this front here in BC for 50 years and have the paper trail to prove it.

That's not competition, but the efficient use of resources and human talents. In other words, when we can reduce resource and energy inputs it is efficiency that equals cooperation with the environment and human rights. Not competition.

Look up the writings of the American statistician economist E. Deming, the guy who pulled up the Japanese economy from ruins. He proved it mathematically that economic competition is counter productive.

This is why I'm talking about the present misuse of the word "competition", which allegedly is supposed to "lower costs", but in reality its purpose is to "eliminate competition" J.K. Galbraith's words, and increase profits.

I was in business in Vancouver for 22 years, when there were several small producers, like myself, building fine custom furniture. Technically, we were in competition, but in reality, we were always welcome in each others' shops, exchanged hardware and information on bad customers, borrowed tools from each other and fixed a few prices. This, to me was the ideal setup, just as I'm in "competition" with my cattle producing neighbours, but just yesterday we had some over here helping to deworm our small herd, and if they need our help, we're there.

My ideal is the old European guild system of competition for excellence, at the same time making sure that no idiot comes along and cuts prices, ruining himself and everybody else. I knew people in Vancouver, who were cutting prices, putting themselves and others out of business, sometimes 2-3 times in row. Sometimes the same outfit opening up with a new name the next day, then going broke in 6 months, stealing from suppliers, workers and customers, meanwhile ruining other businesses. To an economist this is called "competition", I call it criminal idiocy.

As far productivity is concerned, it should be measured, again, on the basis of quality with the lowest resource inputs, and not the destitution of workers, while some getting rich on their sufferings.

My definition of real competition is " The search for excellence under controlled conditions and the neutral protection of life and property" on the other hand "Monetary competition, war and crime are the forced acquisition of benefits and properties against the owners' will"

However, all competition increases costs and inputs, and even in sporting competition the costs are going sky high. The training of an Olympic athlete today is probably 10, or 100 times more expensive than it was 50 years ago. Both in resources and in money. For what ? For fractions of seconds ?

I know about sports, as I took part in a few, a couple of them internationally and have been nominated to a Canadian Hall of Fame. But today I wouldn't even cross a street with a free ticket to look at any Olympic event, as, because of the huge cost increases, they're nothing more than corporations competing against each other.

The presently accepted concepts of economic competition and kills people by the millions every year and to hell with that and the people who promote it.

So, I think, before we get into arguments over the issue, we should define exactly what we're talking about, as the words of neoclassical economists are not worth the paper they're written on.

Ed Deak, Big Lake. BC.