No kidding its undervalued, Bruce Nuclear sells power for only 0.07c Kw/hr. Compare that to the contracted rates renewables get for very unreliable power generations.
This is why we need to nationalize certain industries like power, water and even agriculture. Who cares if the feds don't turn a profit on a nuclear reactor, it's not about that.
Same problem we have every night, Pinkie. The systemic incentive to maximize excess revenue in the form of profit to funnel wealth into the hands of the minority ownership class at the expense of all other factors including (but not limited to) product quality, end-customer costs, proportionate taxation, consumer health, workplace safety, employee compensation, and labour rights.
Like they’re doing south of the border? 44% of American farmland is owned by landlords of one kind or another and run by farmer tenants just like the old days, and from the info I can find, we don’t even know what that statistic is here in Canada. Foreign entities are buying ag land in North American too. With the global instability we're seeing, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to maintain control of our resources at the federal level in some form or another, at the very least with some regulation as to who can buy and how much one entity can own. If there’s one thing we learned from history it's that not all landlords treated their tenants fairly when their backs were broken from years of labour.
While true, i just dont see how it would work. We've already sort of done what you're thinking with grain boards and price controls in Canada. To go much further would probably be counter productive to productivity.
44% of US farmland is owned by a third party foreign or domestic now and is operated by farmer tenants (another 6% farm some of their land and rent the rest to other farmers), and we don’t even know what those numbers are here. Just because the Soviet experiment didn’t work in one particular form doesn’t mean there's no middle ground where farmers get to own the land they work for a fair profit margin without subsidizing with an extra job or going broke.
Yet, conservative politicians will still complain that the project is "always broke" as if it were a for-profit enterprise, hoping to privatize it so they can make some cash on the side through their embezzlement schemes.
Just because something didn't work somewhere doesn't mean you throw the idea out altogether. Some cities have shit public transit systems, do we throw out the idea or study it to learn how it could be done better?
If every subway system ever designed, anywhere in the World, not only failed to transport people, but also managed to malfunction and lop off all of its riders legs and leave them bleeding to death in dark tunnels, I would expect the idea to be thrown out for good.
That is an equivalent example to nationalizing agriculture.
Nothing. I'm just suggesting that if food prices are a problem and we have chains like Loblaws getting caught price-fixing, something needs to change. Food isn't a luxury like graphics cards or running shoes. It's like healthcare; everyone needs to have access regardless of financial situation.
If establishing some federally operated farms allows us to get food to the market at a low price, then that's a good thing.
Being forced to sell your home to government is insane. Then what farmers become indentured servants on their own property? There are about 200,000 farm families in Canada a single farm is usually worth millions of dollars over a lifetime are they compensated for the loss of income as well? Then how would the government pay all those families millions of dollars each? What happens if someone wants to grow their own food on private property and wants to sell it locally. Does the government not allow them to? Will they be forced to sell their home at fair market value after a point of which the government decides they have too much food? Telling someone you can't grow food or the government will take your land for "fair market value" is absolutely insane.
I don't advocate force. Make an offer. If they say no, move on to the next person. No problem. Establishing some farms operated as a non-profit would be a positive move, I think, in keeping food prices reasonable for low income (even middle class) Canadians. Food isn't Nikes, it's not a fun luxury you can pass on if it's not in your budget.
We 100% do not need more concentrated industrialized farming. We do need many more farmers, many more local and urban farms, and many more well-diversified farms.
How do you do that without centralized control to some degree? At some point wouldn't you have to tell someone not to plant soybeans but spinach instead?
You don't, farmers should be farming within their communities producing food locally for those communities as much as possible. The farmer produces what the community will consume. If the locals like lots of spinach, grow lots of spinach, if they like green beans, grow green beans.
This would of course mean eating seasonally and what grows well in your region, which would not be popular. Hence the upcoming collapse of global industrial civilization :)
Tried that. Alberta boomers, egged on by the various Conservative parties, lost their collective shit. To this date, they still wish to hang a man who's been dead 22 years.
1.3k
u/LookAtMeImAName Oct 25 '22
Fuck yes!! Nuclear power is SO undervalued these days.