Posts
I was originally planning on writing more about the Toronto mayoral race, but I hadn't fully decided who to support and my opinions kept changing.
It seems there is a culture war in the Toronto mayoral race between the two front-runners. The suburbanite, Rob Ford, vs the "Toronto Elite", George Smitherman. I am conflicted with who I want to win between the two. I agree with much of what Ford says about the waste and size of the city government, but it is hard to get on board when he constantly seems to trash many of the things that living in a big city so great. I agree with Smitherman on things that make cities great, but he also wants to grow the size of government.
I agree with Ford that grid lock is bad, but it seems Ford's vision is a city where everyone can drive and we don't have enough room for that in Toronto. I don't drive, yet I pay taxes too. Last weekend there was the Scotiabank Waterfront Marathon in Toronto and Ford said, "But I think we're using the roads one too many times and it's really frustrating for people trying to get in and out of the city." Not only does Ford show a lack of respect for sharing the roads with the taxpayers that may not drive, he also just started speaking without thinking first. In another article he suggested that the marathons could be held at parks, which really isn't possible according to all logic and marathon organizers.
The marathons themselves aren't the issue, but there are two main problems I have that this issue highlights. One, Ford seems like a moron. I seem to have faith that he isn't, but it is hard to argue against someone that makes this claim. Second , it just seems that Ford is trying to create a culture war with the dense downtown area against the suburban areas of the city. Well I live in downtown, I like walking, I like Kensington Market's pedestiran Sunday's, marathons, TIFF, Nuit Blanche, the pride parade and I even like lattes from 3rd wave coffee shops (screw Starbucks). It may be smart electorally for Ford to attack people like me, but it certainly isn't going to gain my support. Providing subsidized roads to surburban Toronto at the expense of downtown residents isn't actually fiscally conservative, no matter how many conservatives want to romanticize cars.
So this should mean I like Smitherman, right? Well, he was part of the biggest spending government in Ontario's history, E-Health scandal and the horrible Samsung deal. I think he generally cares about many of the things in the city I care about, but I think he has potential to be only marginally less bad than socialist David Miller.
Rosso Rossi seems like the only candidate that is the best of both worlds. He wants to cut the size of government, but he also doesn't seem to be against cities. Also, majority of the current council doesn't hate Rossi so he may actually be able to get stuff done if he were to win. So now, I am endorsing Rocco Rossi for mayor, regardless of how far back in the polls he may be. I sincerely hope that Rossi doesn't leave the race, no matter how hard The Star may push him to do so.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Forced unionization hurts the economy
The individual worker should be allowed to decide if they want to be part of a union or not. Forced unionization is ultimately bad for the economy, as a recent study by the Fraser Institute demonstrates:
Read More at the Financial Post
In a recently published Fraser Institute article, Richard Vedder, a professor of economics at Ohio University, summarized his research on the effects of worker-choice laws in the United States. He found an enormous migration into states with worker-choice laws from states without such laws. Specifically, from 2000 to 2009, approximately five million Americans moved from the 28 states without worker-choice laws to the 22 states with worker-choice laws. Prof. Vedder concludes that workers “flatly prefer a legal environment where the sale of their labour services is not constrained by laws requiring union dues payment.”
More importantly, Prof. Vedder finds that worker-choice states have higher rates of labour participation, lower unemployment rates, higher rates of economic growth and greater investment, even after controlling for a number of other factors such as tax burden, the level of education, the amount of land area, and population growth.
His research also estimates the impact of worker-choice laws on living standards, and finds that implementing a worker-choice law would increase a jurisdiction’s per person income by $2,800.
Several other studies buttress Prof. Vedder’s recent research. For example, Paul Kersey, in a study entitled “The Economic Effects of Right-to-Work Laws: 2007,” found that between 2001 and 2006, the economies of states that enacted worker-choice laws grew by 3.4% on average, compared to 2.6% in non-worker-choice states. Moreover, jobs grew by 1.2% annually in worker-choice states, while jobs in non-worker choice states grew by only 0.6% over the same period.
Read More at the Financial Post
Sun TV News not Fox News North
Heather Mallick writes that having a “Fox News North” is a “rancid idea.” She describes her personal, professional, and political dislike for Fox News in a long ranting column for the Toronto Star. She then uses her negative personal experiences with Fox News to demonstrate why the new station being introduced by Quebecor is such a horrifying idea.
The problem with her logic is that it is called Sun TV News and not “Fox News North.” This new station has absolutely nothing to do with Fox News or Fox News’ parent company. So on what basis does Ms. Mallick assume that they are going to be exactly the same?
I think it is reasonable that we all wait to actually see the product before we judge it.
Ms. Mallick may be right, it could be rancid. But it could also introduce a new and valid voice to public debate in Canada. I do not understand how any fair minded person could view that as a bad thing.
The problem with her logic is that it is called Sun TV News and not “Fox News North.” This new station has absolutely nothing to do with Fox News or Fox News’ parent company. So on what basis does Ms. Mallick assume that they are going to be exactly the same?
I think it is reasonable that we all wait to actually see the product before we judge it.
Ms. Mallick may be right, it could be rancid. But it could also introduce a new and valid voice to public debate in Canada. I do not understand how any fair minded person could view that as a bad thing.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is the OECD insane?
The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) is saying that the global economic recovery is slowing down, but that there is no evidence of another looming recession. The international body is uncertain what is causing the slow down, but there is a fear that there may be an underlining weakness in the economy.
The OECD is proposing a possible solution if the weakness proves systemic:
“[I]f the slowdown reflects longer-lasting forces bearing down on activity, additional monetary stimulus may be needed in the form of quantitative easing and commitment to close-to-zero policy interest rates for a long period,” he said.
This brings me to the question on hand, is the OECD insane?
Basically what they are saying is that it is possible that the “stimulus” plan may not have worked, and in the event that it didn’t work they should do it again. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Really if the first trillions of dollars spent by the various governments didn’t do anything (and there is zero evidence that it did do anything) what makes the OECD think that the next trillion will be better?
OECD’s insanity goes deeper than this. Every industrialized country in the world is facing a financial crisis. Governments everywhere are trying to figure out how they can reduce their deficits before they become another Greece. Then here comes the OECD calling for even larger deficits.
The OECD tries to cover up this insanity by saying that new spending should only take place where this is “space,” but this is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. How much more debt can countries such as the UK or the US really afford? They can’t even afford the debt that they have now.
So I have to conclude that: yes, the OECD is indeed insane.
The OECD is proposing a possible solution if the weakness proves systemic:
“[I]f the slowdown reflects longer-lasting forces bearing down on activity, additional monetary stimulus may be needed in the form of quantitative easing and commitment to close-to-zero policy interest rates for a long period,” he said.
This brings me to the question on hand, is the OECD insane?
Basically what they are saying is that it is possible that the “stimulus” plan may not have worked, and in the event that it didn’t work they should do it again. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Really if the first trillions of dollars spent by the various governments didn’t do anything (and there is zero evidence that it did do anything) what makes the OECD think that the next trillion will be better?
OECD’s insanity goes deeper than this. Every industrialized country in the world is facing a financial crisis. Governments everywhere are trying to figure out how they can reduce their deficits before they become another Greece. Then here comes the OECD calling for even larger deficits.
The OECD tries to cover up this insanity by saying that new spending should only take place where this is “space,” but this is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. How much more debt can countries such as the UK or the US really afford? They can’t even afford the debt that they have now.
So I have to conclude that: yes, the OECD is indeed insane.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
If the UK was a business...
...I wouldn't invest in it.
From the Institute of Economic Affairs:
Looked at this way, the UK is effectively an enormous unfunded and effectively bankrupt pension scheme, with a large speculative holding in some banks and a sideline in running a small island state off the northern coast of France.
From the Institute of Economic Affairs:
Looked at this way, the UK is effectively an enormous unfunded and effectively bankrupt pension scheme, with a large speculative holding in some banks and a sideline in running a small island state off the northern coast of France.
Son of Bylaw zealot's victims on Rob Breakenridge's show
Monday, September 6, 2010
AG to provide evidence against ‘stimulus spending theory’
It is widely believed that Auditor General Shelia Fraser’s report will demonstrate that stimulus money was distributed on a political basis. This wouldn’t be a difficult conclusion to reach; the theoretical work was already done by a certain University of Calgary Masters student. Politicians will naturally favour their own supporters in their decisions. That is how governments come to power and stay in power.
The opposition parties will make lots of political hay out of this report, and rightly so. But the reality is that they would have done the same thing. Perhaps to a lesser extent, or maybe even to a greater extent, but they would have certainly done the same. The problem is not with the particular party in power but in the system.
You can’t fix the system either. The root of the problem is human nature. Even if you try and be objective in your decisions you will likely subconsciously favour the person you like/supports you. There is a natural bias in every government, and changing the ruling party has only ever succeeded in changing the direction of the bias.
The solution is simple: do not give politicians or officials this much money to spend.
Power tends to corrupt, and the only true way to prevent corruption is not to give power. There is no evidence that the deficit spending helped the economy. All that it did was provide the government with an opportunity to redistribute our tax dollars to their supporters.
So instead of using the AG’s report to decry the shamefulness of the Conservative government, we should look at this report as one more piece of evidence that Canada’s experiment with ‘stimulus’ spending has failed.
The opposition parties will make lots of political hay out of this report, and rightly so. But the reality is that they would have done the same thing. Perhaps to a lesser extent, or maybe even to a greater extent, but they would have certainly done the same. The problem is not with the particular party in power but in the system.
You can’t fix the system either. The root of the problem is human nature. Even if you try and be objective in your decisions you will likely subconsciously favour the person you like/supports you. There is a natural bias in every government, and changing the ruling party has only ever succeeded in changing the direction of the bias.
The solution is simple: do not give politicians or officials this much money to spend.
Power tends to corrupt, and the only true way to prevent corruption is not to give power. There is no evidence that the deficit spending helped the economy. All that it did was provide the government with an opportunity to redistribute our tax dollars to their supporters.
So instead of using the AG’s report to decry the shamefulness of the Conservative government, we should look at this report as one more piece of evidence that Canada’s experiment with ‘stimulus’ spending has failed.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Michael Ignatieff on health care
Michael Ignatieff is smart guy. No matter what else you think of him or his policies, you cannot plausibly deny that he is extremely intelligent. So I am puzzled by his recent comments on health care reform.
Dr. Ignatieff says that he will make Health Care a priority for his hypothetical Liberal government. He also attacks Mr. Harper by saying, “"Four years of this Conservative government, we've really done nothing substantial on health care."
Maybe Dr. Ignatieff should take a second look at the Constitution Act. The federal government isn’t supposed to do anything on health care. That is a responsibility of the provinces. If he wants to make health care a priority maybe he should run to be premier not prime minister.
I find it bizarre that a leader of a liberal democracy is being attacked by the opposition for obeying the constitution.
I say again that Dr. Ignatieff is a smart man so I have to assume that he has some basic knowledge on how the Canadian federal system operates. This means that I have to also assume that is comments about health care are not really policy declarations but empty political rhetoric.
This assumption is reinforced by the nature of his proposals. Dr. Ignatieff starts off by saying the current system is unsustainable. Then he says that he won’t make any substantive change except for refocusing on preventative care. The idea being that it will lessen the health care demand which is straining the system.
Preventative care is good and all but it isn’t really a solution to the looming health care crisis. The population is aging and older people will always need more health care. How exactly do you prevent people from getting old?
So with no power to reform health care and no real reforms being proposed, Dr. Ignatieff thinks he can win the next election on health care rhetoric alone.
I think the Canadian people are smarter than that.
Dr. Ignatieff says that he will make Health Care a priority for his hypothetical Liberal government. He also attacks Mr. Harper by saying, “"Four years of this Conservative government, we've really done nothing substantial on health care."
Maybe Dr. Ignatieff should take a second look at the Constitution Act. The federal government isn’t supposed to do anything on health care. That is a responsibility of the provinces. If he wants to make health care a priority maybe he should run to be premier not prime minister.
I find it bizarre that a leader of a liberal democracy is being attacked by the opposition for obeying the constitution.
I say again that Dr. Ignatieff is a smart man so I have to assume that he has some basic knowledge on how the Canadian federal system operates. This means that I have to also assume that is comments about health care are not really policy declarations but empty political rhetoric.
This assumption is reinforced by the nature of his proposals. Dr. Ignatieff starts off by saying the current system is unsustainable. Then he says that he won’t make any substantive change except for refocusing on preventative care. The idea being that it will lessen the health care demand which is straining the system.
Preventative care is good and all but it isn’t really a solution to the looming health care crisis. The population is aging and older people will always need more health care. How exactly do you prevent people from getting old?
So with no power to reform health care and no real reforms being proposed, Dr. Ignatieff thinks he can win the next election on health care rhetoric alone.
I think the Canadian people are smarter than that.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Drinking and smoking as a patriotic act
Russian Minister of Finance calls for patriotic action from the Russian people. He calls upon them to drink and smoke more so that the government can receive more taxes:
Speaking as the Russian government announces plan to raise duty on alcohol and cigarettes, Alexei Kudrin said that by smoking a pack, “you are giving more to help solve social problems such as boosting demographics, developing other social services and upholding birth rates”.
“People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state,” he told the Interfax news agency.
I suspect that the average Russian on the street will answer this particular call to arms with an ole “Ready, aye ready.”
Speaking as the Russian government announces plan to raise duty on alcohol and cigarettes, Alexei Kudrin said that by smoking a pack, “you are giving more to help solve social problems such as boosting demographics, developing other social services and upholding birth rates”.
“People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state,” he told the Interfax news agency.
I suspect that the average Russian on the street will answer this particular call to arms with an ole “Ready, aye ready.”
Family to be bankrupted for hosting a barbecue
Every year the Jaworski family host a weekend of barbecue and lectures. People come from all around the world to hang out in their backyard and discuss and celebrate the principle of freedom. The Jaworskis have cause to know the importance of freedom, they fled communism to find liberty here in Canada. So in memory of their former oppression they help their son host the aptly named Liberty Summer Seminar.
As many of you already know the Jaworski family is being fined $50 000 for hosting the Liberty Summer Seminar. The by-law official is accusing them of holding a commercial conference center outside of the permitted zone. The idea that LSS is a commercial event is absurd. Considering the caliber of speakers that they attract and the relatively low cost of attending, I doubt they have ever made a profit.
So to bankrupt these honest and hard working people (I have met them several times) on such a flimsy claim that the LSS is somehow commercial is arbitrary and cruel. The bylaw officer that charged the family did not even have the courtesy to talk to either of the Jaworski parents or even one of the event’s organizers.
The local mayor suggested that the Jaworskis “[…] have a discussion with the bylaw officer, sort of like beg for forgiveness, say ‘I didn’t realize’. Or they can work it out with lawyers.” If the bylaw officer was not willing to talk to them before he charged them, why would he behave reasonably now? Also what kind of free society gives people the choice between begging some petty official to forgive them for using their own land to host a barbecue and going bankrupt?
The mayor is trying to stay out of the incident, and I agree with the general principle that politicians should not interfere with legal proceedings. But this is such a clear case of the misuse of bylaws. No reasonable person would think that bankruptcy is an appropriate punishment for hosting a barbecue. I hope that the mayor takes a moment to reconsider not only his position but what exactly his duty is to his constituents.
As many of you already know the Jaworski family is being fined $50 000 for hosting the Liberty Summer Seminar. The by-law official is accusing them of holding a commercial conference center outside of the permitted zone. The idea that LSS is a commercial event is absurd. Considering the caliber of speakers that they attract and the relatively low cost of attending, I doubt they have ever made a profit.
So to bankrupt these honest and hard working people (I have met them several times) on such a flimsy claim that the LSS is somehow commercial is arbitrary and cruel. The bylaw officer that charged the family did not even have the courtesy to talk to either of the Jaworski parents or even one of the event’s organizers.
The local mayor suggested that the Jaworskis “[…] have a discussion with the bylaw officer, sort of like beg for forgiveness, say ‘I didn’t realize’. Or they can work it out with lawyers.” If the bylaw officer was not willing to talk to them before he charged them, why would he behave reasonably now? Also what kind of free society gives people the choice between begging some petty official to forgive them for using their own land to host a barbecue and going bankrupt?
The mayor is trying to stay out of the incident, and I agree with the general principle that politicians should not interfere with legal proceedings. But this is such a clear case of the misuse of bylaws. No reasonable person would think that bankruptcy is an appropriate punishment for hosting a barbecue. I hope that the mayor takes a moment to reconsider not only his position but what exactly his duty is to his constituents.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Minimum alchohol price will not prevent Scottish alchoholism
There is an ongoing debate in Scotland on how to curb alcoholism among the Scottish people. The governing party, the Scottish National Party, is proposing to enforce a 45p per unit minimum price on alcoholic products. Apparently the number 45p is very scientific; the Scottish Government is claiming that this minimum will lead to 50 fewer deaths and 1200 fewer hospital emissions.
How exactly did they come up with those numbers?
I picture some academic or civil servant somewhere with a calculator (“Okay so if we make it 40p we will only save 35 lives, but with an extra 5p we can save 50 lives!”). Do they honestly think that human beings work that way? Do they really think that if they pull one lever or push a button they can direct society?
I have news for the Scottish nationalists; Scottish people love to get drunk.
This isn’t just a stereotype. I recently lived above a bar in Scotland. Believe me when I say that the Scottish people love to get drunk. There is absolutely no way that a price floor will make a difference.
How do I know that for sure?
Because it has never worked anywhere else no matter where or when it has been tried.
The opposition parties say that all this measure will do is hurt the lower income responsible drinkers, and they are right. Someone who drinks more lightly may be less inclined to pay more, but someone who loves to get drunk will get drunk regardless of how much money they have to spend.
Society and individuals just simply cannot be engineered.
How exactly did they come up with those numbers?
I picture some academic or civil servant somewhere with a calculator (“Okay so if we make it 40p we will only save 35 lives, but with an extra 5p we can save 50 lives!”). Do they honestly think that human beings work that way? Do they really think that if they pull one lever or push a button they can direct society?
I have news for the Scottish nationalists; Scottish people love to get drunk.
This isn’t just a stereotype. I recently lived above a bar in Scotland. Believe me when I say that the Scottish people love to get drunk. There is absolutely no way that a price floor will make a difference.
How do I know that for sure?
Because it has never worked anywhere else no matter where or when it has been tried.
The opposition parties say that all this measure will do is hurt the lower income responsible drinkers, and they are right. Someone who drinks more lightly may be less inclined to pay more, but someone who loves to get drunk will get drunk regardless of how much money they have to spend.
Society and individuals just simply cannot be engineered.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Natives should support property rights
Some native chiefs are worried that the government’s goal is to bring property rights to the native reserves. So far the limited amount of property rights that has been introduced to some reserves has led to marked improvements in the reserve’s economy and standard of living. So why on Earth would the native leadership oppose something that is improving the lives of their people?
Their publicized reasoning is that property rights would ultimately lead to assimilation. They are keen to protect their ‘traditional way of life,’ but a tradition is only as good as it is beneficial to the people. A tradition that impoverishes is a tradition that is better off being gotten rid of.
So what exactly would allowing property rights mean for natives? It would mean that natives living on reserves can join the mainstream of economic life. It will give them an opportunity to escape the endless cycle of poverty that has captured native families for generations. It will mean a better life.
Is it fair to call this assimilation?
Invoking the term assimilation is a powerful rhetorical tool for native leaders. It reminds both natives and non-natives of some of the harshest most tyrannical actions of the Crown. Canada has a sad history in its treatment of native peoples.
But bringing property rights to the reserves is not the same thing as trying to stomp out a language or a religion. It brings more freedom to natives not less. So in this case it is native tradition not the government that is acting the tyrant.
And it is time that those who live on native reserves overthrow that tyrant.
Their publicized reasoning is that property rights would ultimately lead to assimilation. They are keen to protect their ‘traditional way of life,’ but a tradition is only as good as it is beneficial to the people. A tradition that impoverishes is a tradition that is better off being gotten rid of.
So what exactly would allowing property rights mean for natives? It would mean that natives living on reserves can join the mainstream of economic life. It will give them an opportunity to escape the endless cycle of poverty that has captured native families for generations. It will mean a better life.
Is it fair to call this assimilation?
Invoking the term assimilation is a powerful rhetorical tool for native leaders. It reminds both natives and non-natives of some of the harshest most tyrannical actions of the Crown. Canada has a sad history in its treatment of native peoples.
But bringing property rights to the reserves is not the same thing as trying to stomp out a language or a religion. It brings more freedom to natives not less. So in this case it is native tradition not the government that is acting the tyrant.
And it is time that those who live on native reserves overthrow that tyrant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)