This basically sums up why I found the wedding coverage annoying

Something to keep in mind on Monday

Sitting at a downtown Toronto bar called Volo with the woman I love, I hear a commotion at the table next to us. A man loudly declares, “I have to pay my bill now because if the NDP get elected on Monday we are all fucked...seriously if you have a RRSP you are fucked.”

Considering the likelihood of the sort of person who would read this blog being the same sort of person who would vote, I just thought you should keep these words in mind.

(Actually come to think about it we are fucked no matter who we vote for, but we are even more fucked with the NDP)

Canadian Taxpayer's Federation on party platforms

Federal Election 2011 Prediction

This being the last Friday before the 2011 Federal Election, it seems a good time to make my public prediction on the outcome:

CPC - 150 (38%)
Liberals - 61
NDP - 65
Bloc - 30
Other - 2

I base this on two assumptions.

1. NDP gains will come mostly out of the Bloc's hide.
2. Liberals will lose seats to both the Conservatives and NDP

I hope I am right...I have money running on this.

Globe & Mail endorsement of Stephen Harper: the issue of health care reform

The Globe & Mail’s endorsement of Stephen Harper is a fascinating read. First they make sure that the reader understands that the Globe’s heart is with the Liberal Party. If only the Liberals had performed better in this election the Globe would have supported them. Then the Globe dismisses the NDP as being unserious on the policy front. Finally the Globe gets around to admitting that they are supporting Stephen Harper.

The Globe praises Mr. Harper’s “bullheadedness” while warning that he should have greater respect for Parliament. The Globe lists the policies of the Conservative government that the Globe has supported over the years. Some of these policies are actually bad policies while others are good. But none of this is the fascinating part.

The fascinating portion of the article comes at the second last paragraph:

Even more determination will be needed to confront the sustainability of publicly funded health care in an aging society. Health care is suffering from chronic spending disease. If left unchecked, it could swallow as much as 31 cents of each new dollar in wealth created in Canada in the next 20 years. In spite of some unwise commitments he has made on subsidy increases to the provinces, Mr. Harper has the toughness and reformist instincts to push the provinces toward greater experimentation (in private delivery, for instance) and change.

Over the past year the Globe & Mail has demonstrated an increased focus on health care, a growing demand for reform, and a willingness to discuss great private sector involvement. In fact I would say that the Globe has taken this on as a defining issue of the paper, and thus I suspect that this paragraph says more about why the Globe is supporting the Conservatives than the rest of the article.

The irony being that the Conservatives have been distancing themselves from Mr. Harper’s “reformist instincts” for years. In this campaign the Liberals attacked him for being a closet health care reformist and Mr. Harper responded by strongly defending the Canada Health Act. The Globe’s endorsement seems to be based at least partially on the assumption that the Liberals are right and the Mr. Harper is lying.

Of all the leaders I would say that Mr. Harper is the most likely to initiate reform to the Canada Health Act, but I say this in the same way that I would say a turtle is faster than a snail. The chance that the Conservatives would show a willingness to even discuss this issue is very minuet.

So if I am right in my suspicion that this endorsement is mostly based on the health care file it may be a little naive. Still it is heartening to see that demands and openness for meaningful reform is more and more mainstream.

Keynes versus Hayek rap 2

"There is no it, we are the economy"

Phony spending cuts in the US

NDP a threat to national unity?

As the NDP rise in the polls we should be seriously considering the potential consequences of a stronger more influential New Democratic Party.

Adam Radwanski has an interesting piece in the Globe & Mail where he suggests that a NDP caucus dominated by soft-nationalists may be more dangerous to national unity in the long run than the BQ. His conclusion is based on some pretty fair assumptions but he misses the more obvious way that a strong and influential NDP is a threat to national unity. The threat is not in Quebec but in Alberta and the rest of Canada.

The NDP is hostile to the oil sands and NDP environmental and energy policies are likely to be most harmful to the Prairie Provinces. Barely a generation ago the Liberal Party’s National Energy Plan stirred up resentment and anger towards Central Canada. NDP policy is exactly what is needed for that resentment to be relighted and flamed into a full blown separatist movement.

To pile on the opportunity to create resentment, the NDP more than any other federal party is interested in interfering with provincial policy. As Mr. Radwanski points out, Jack Layton may be hands off Quebec’s jurisdiction but every other province won’t get the same level of respect. In the mind of the NDP it is the federal government’s duty to lead the people of Canada into a better and more enlightened existence.

There is a reason that Canada is a federal state and it is not just because of Quebec. This is a diverse country both culturally and economically. Social and economic policy being directed from Ottawa simply will not work. Inevitably some provinces will be disadvantaged over others and resentment will foster. How long will it take for that resentment to grow and undermine national unity throughout the country?

A new dawn for the NDP?

This election has turned fascinating really quickly. The upsurge of the NDP especially in Quebec could be a new dawn for this old but untested federal party. We could be witnessing a reordering of Canada’s political parties as Bloc voters consider abandoning the socialistic nationalism of the BQ for the nationalistic socialism of the NDP.

It strikes me that this situation is somewhat familiar. In the recent British general election the Liberal-Democrats experienced a similar surge forward. At times it looked like they would even overtake the Labour Party as the official opposition. Although no one seriously discussed the possibility of the Liberal-Democrats leading a coalition there was plenty of pre-election talk about how crucial they would be in forming the next government.

Then Election Day came and the results were very disappointing for the Liberal-Democrats. It was the best showing for the party in decades and a triumph when you consider how close they had come to obliteration in the 80s. Still it was nowhere near the heights that the polls were giving them just days before the election.

As always it is pretty difficult/impossible to know what really happened, but the best that anyone can figure is that either people were not being completely honest to pollsters or Liberal Democrats just decided not to vote. Personally I find the former much more realistic than the latter. There was so much excitement around the Liberal Democrats I would suspect that supporters would be more motivated to actually vote.

So I think that the people surveyed were being dishonest. Not really dishonest to the person taking the survey but dishonest to themselves. Tired of the “same old political parties” some voters flirted with something new, but when it came time to vote old habits kicked in and they voted for something that was safe and familiar. A fed up Labour voter may have said that he/she will vote Liberal Democrat in disgust of Gordon Brown, but most of them actually voted Labour.

This is a lesson that the NDP should pay attention to because the attitudes of segments of the Canadian electorate mirror what was happening in the UK. I predict that although the NDP will get a breakthrough in Quebec the final results will be extremely disappointing for them.

We are witnessing a change in the federal party system but it is not a fundamental shift. There will be no new dawn for the NDP.

Conservatives attack the NDP

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have switched the coalition attack from the Liberal Party to the NDP. You would think that the Tories would be chearing as the Liberal Party falls to third space, but I would wager they are suddenly worried about their seats in British Columbia.



I doubt that this message will work as well against the NDP as it has against the Liberals. The Dippers never felt like they should be on the defencive about the coalition.

A twitter rebellion in Canada

Social media has proven itself a powerful tool to fight tyrants in Asia and Africa. Now here in Canada it may be used to defend free speech. According to this news article there is a movement on Twitter that would have people tweeting election results in violation of federal law.

The law is this: Don't publish election results before every polling station in the country closes. Not on the radio, not in the newspaper, and not on social media websites, Elections Canada reminded voters this week.

The idea behind the law is to prevent election results from the East influencing the decisions of people in the West.

Beyond just being a violation of free speech, it is disturbing to me that the federal government thinks that it should decide what should and should not influence voter decisions. If a western voter wants to know the electoral results in the East before they vote then that is their own business. Each voter should decide for them self what information he/she will use in making up his/her mind.

I do not see any justification for this law that is strong enough to justify the violation of free speech. In no way does broadcasting who won in a Newfoundland riding before voting ends in Vancouver violate the “harm principle.” I find this law to be unjust and I am pleased to see people using the tools of social media to resist such an unjust law.

Federal government appealling marijuana ruling

The Federal government will appeal the Ontario Superior Court ruling that struck down marijuana possession and production laws. I can hardly say that this is a surprise but I do hope that we can engage in an honest adult debate about Canada’s drug laws. Regardless of the outcome of this case Canada should take another look at marijuana prohibition.

Personally I think that the issue of access to marijuana as a medication is a distraction. The real issue is about individual responsibility and personal liberty. It is about not letting the government tell you what you can do to and with your own body. It is also about the severe damage that prohibition does on society through crime and lost economic opportunity.

That being said, if the court decides it will strike down probation for the sake of access to medication, I won’t complain.

The Human Right not to be offended

Comedian Guy Earle has lost his case and is being forced by the “Human Rights” Tribunal to give $22 000 for insulting someone at a comedy club. It is now a “human right” never to be offended.

Well I am offended by this verdict. I am offended that this case would have been thrown out of any just court of law but was carried forward by these government agents. I am offended that Guy’s free speech was not defended. I am offended that his judicial rights were violated throughout the process. And I am offended that something this obscene could happen in Canada, a land that holds up the mantle of freedom as a core value.

If I have a right not to be offended then the British Columbia HRT has violated my rights. They should expect to hear from my lawyer.

Michael Ignatieff versus Fraser Institute on Health Care

In an open letter Michael Ignatieff, among other things, demanded that Stephen Harper reject a study put forth by the Fraser Institute that recommends putting a five year moratorium on the Canada Health Act:

Will you join me and the Canadian Medical Association in unreservedly rejecting the recent report of the Fraser Institute which called for the federal government to stop enforcing the Canada Health Act?

What Dr. Ignatieff doesn’t mention is that the same study shows that Canada’s health care system is not sustainable. Provinces are now spending more than half of their money on health care and health care expenditure is still growing faster than revenue. So if Dr. Ignatieff thinks that the five year moratorium should be rejected, what alternative does he suggest?

It is interesting that the Liberals choose to cite the Canadian Medical Association, which is basically a lobby group for doctors. Although the CMA has been open in the past to discussing private health care, recently they have been advocating for vague reforms that would extend and slightly redefine the Canada Health Act.

Even so, the CMA does not disagree with the Fraser Institute that there is something wrong with the current system. Once again the question becomes what exactly can be done to make health care sustainable without bringing in the private sector?

Don’t let the sound of crickets drown out the response.

It is fine that Michael Ignatieff disagrees with the Fraser Institute, and it is also fine that he wants other people, such as Stephen Harper, to share his opinion. But if he is going to be critical then he should present real solutions.

Stop with the meaningless platitudes about the importance of health and tell the voters how you are going to make the system sustainable.

The Fraser Institute has offered its solution, what is yours?

Dissapointed in Sun News Network

This morning I flipped on the television as I got ready for work and I decided to give SNN’s morning show a try. The first news story that I heard was that Michael Ignatieff was somehow involved in the planning of the Iraq War. I immediately said, “yeah okay,” and turned off the television.

Later I read more about the story online and became even less convinced. The “debunking” provided by the Ottawa Citizen’s Glen McGregor confirmed my suspicion. This story is nothing but hype and hot air.

Of course Michael Ignatieff’s hands are not completely clean when it comes to the Iraq War. He did not just initially support the war; he laid down the intellectual and moral arguments that were later used by the Bush administration and Tony Blair to justify the war. The Iraq War if nothing else demonstrates the danger of Dr. Ignatieff’s “Duty to Protect.”

The Liberal leader has since said that he was wrong to support the Iraq War but he has never said that the Iraq War was morally or theoretically wrong. He merely claims that the war was badly executed, which suggests he would have supported it if it was a better ran war. Voters should ponder this before they decide to put Dr. Ignatieff in charge of Canada’s foreign policy.

Now let’s turn back to the Sun’s news report.

It is perfectly legitimate to question the Liberal leader’s hawkish foreign policy. It is not difficult to draw the lines between Michael Ignatieff’s ideas and war, murder, and torture. In fact no one has to draw the lines because Dr. Ignatieff has drawn them for us throughout his career.

But to claim that Dr. Ignatieff was somehow directly involved with the war planning is little more than a smear. There seems to be no attempt to fact check or get reaction quotes. The entire story is based on one solitary quote and a framing that makes it seem that Michael Ignatieff was the secret architect of the whole thing (or at least one of the architects).

Supporters of SNN may say, “So what? CBC has been smearing Conservative leaders for generations now. So what if the Liberal Party now has to contend with a hostile media.”

You can think that if you want, but personally I find it disappointing.

3 reasons to legalize pot

Considering the today's date and the recent court case striking down laws prohibiting the position and production of marijuana. This seems like an appropriate video to post:

Conservative or Liberal: a political game

A friend of mine came up with a great game. All you have to do is find a quote from the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party describing the respective party's position on Canada's health care system. Then you get people to guess which party said which quote.

Here is a sample:

1. “While provinces are struggling with escalating costs, it’s far from clear that more money is the only solution. Governments must ensure we’re getting full value for the money already in the system.”

2. “We will work collaboratively with the provinces to renew the health accord and to continue reducing wait times. In our discussions we will emphasize the importance of accountability and results for Canadians.”

Which is Conservative and which is Liberal?

No looking it first, this is the honour system people.

Sun News versus CPAC on Health Care Reform

Mark Rovere of the Fraser Institute is interviewed by both Sun News and CPAC on FI's recent study of Canada's heath care system.

Here is the one from Sun News.

Here is the one from CPAC (you have to skip ahead about a tenth of the way).

You can decide yourself which interview is more interesting.

(Personally I think the CPAC interview is more informative but it is also longer)

Ayn Rand in the Classical Liberal Tradition

Note to Liberal Party: demonizing health care reform is destructive

Over the weekend the Liberal Party released an attack ad accusing the Conservatives of planning to cut spending to health care transfers. The attack is completely disingenuous. Stephen Harper has said many times that he plans on continuing the transfer deal that exists between the federal and provincial governments. In his younger days he may have toyed with the idea of health care reform but he has now firmly joined the multi-party consensus that the status quo is fine.

Of course the status quo is not fine. Today the Fraser Institute has released a study that shows that health care spending by the provinces has increased by 7.5% over the past 10 years while revenue has only increased by 5.7%. Both Ontario and Quebec dedicate to more than half of their expenditure to health care and four more provinces will join them by 2017. Thus it will become impossible to spend on other priorities while health care spending becomes increasingly unsustainable.

Despite the fact that health care is a provincial issue, the Federal Government needs to take leadership. This is not because the Feds will be better at managing health care, but because they have already taken too great a role in interfering with a provincial jurisdiction. It is the Canada Health Act that is preventing provinces from making reforms that could make health care sustainable while maintaining “universal access.” The Canada Health Act needs to be either scrapped or significantly overhauled before Canada’s system could ever become sustainable.

The Liberal attack ad demonstrates why this is politically impossible.

Even a party dedicated to the status quo is viciously attacked if there is even a whiff of a possibility that they wish to address the core problem of Canada’s health care system. Imagine what would happen to a political party that actually wanted to do something.

Many think that Mr. Harper’s St. Paul like conversion to the Canada Health Act is nothing more than a cynical calculation to gain power. Even if this is true, for practical considerations it is irrelevant. Stephen Harper has surrendered in the fight to save Canada’s health care system. It is politically impossible for him to even contemplate the idea of reform because despite being erroneous the attack ads may actually be working.

By using the health care system as the political equivalent of a mallet, the Liberal Party is destroying any chance of real dialogue on what is selected in polls as the number one issue for Canadians. Reform of the Canada Health Act is impossible as long as the mere whisper of change is used to demonize political opponents.

Noam Chomsky missing the point on the State-Corporation Complex

This is so fustrating to watch. Noam Chomsky is so close to coming to a key realization. Yes large corporations collude with the state to implement policy that is bad for the whole population. Yes large corporations have made an effort to achieve disporportional power in American politics.

None of that would be possible, however, if the federal government wasn't given such enourmous power in the economy to pick losers and winners. If Dr. Chomsky wants to blame someone he should blame FDR's New Deal.

3 steps to ending gridlock in Toronto

All of this could be applied to Toronto.

I need a drink

Update on the TMX-LSE merger

A government committee is apparently ready to recommend that the Ontario government allow the TMX-LSE merger, but with some yet unknown caveats. Without knowing the details of the report it is hard to know what to think about this, but it is heartening that the deal is not yet dead.

The unconstitutional war in Libya

Gene Healy has posted this blog post over at Cato@liberty. In it Mr. Healy points out several flaws to the Obama administration's legal defense of the war in Libya. The most important of these flaws is the claim that precedent allows the President to unilaterally go to war without Congress' approval.

But even had that not been the case, what would past practice add to the argument for presidential power? Anyone who sets up a written Constitution recognizes the possibility that the political branches might violate the original agreement. If those violations instead become, as OLC suggests they should, evidence of the “two political branches’ practical understanding”–indicative of constitutional meaning itself–then we have problems that go beyond our current difficulties with constitutional war powers. If misbehavior by the political branches alters the meaning of the constitutional text, then the administrative state is perfectly constitutional, bridges to nowhere are A-OK under the General Welfare clauss, and mandating low-flow toilets is an acceptable exercise of Congress’s regulatory power under our miraculously “glossy” Constitution.

I encourage you to read the whole post. It will make you weep for the American constitution.

University students hanging out with taxpayer's money

There is a lot of truth in both of these videos:





University and College should be places were people educate themselves or gain skills they need to succeed in their chosen profession. It should not be a place for young people to just hang out on the taxpayer's dime.

Restrictions on medical marijuana unconstitutional

Yesterday was a historic day, and not because of the Leader's debate.

Spending must be cut to eliminate the deficit

The deficit is one of the most important long term policy issues facing the federal government. Each of the major political parties has promised to end the deficit within five years, but they are also each proposing fundamentally the same flawed plan. I have zero faith that this plan will work and I am nearly certain that we will still be in deficit in 2016.

The plan that each party is proposing is basically this: restrain spending increases and eventually increased revenues from a recovered economy will eliminate the deficit.

This plan has two flaws.

The first flaw is that spending increases are notoriously difficult to restrain. If there is a difference in the three party’s plans, the difference is in how much they are willing to restrain spending. The Conservatives are the most conservative on spending increases, even going as far as putting off some promises until after the deficit is eliminated. Still the Conservatives have already found themselves pressured to spend an extra couple of billion in Quebec.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper claims to be sure that the extra $2 billion won’t have a large impact on the deficit. Perhaps he is right, but a billion here and a billion there, eventually it adds up to some real money. If the Conservatives can’t hold the line a mere week after promising to do so, do you really expect them to hold the line for the next five years?

To be fair the Conservative Party is promising to cut $4 billion. This is a good start but with a $30 billion deficit the Conservatives are still just basically hoping that revenue growth will get them out of deficit.

It is not just the Conservatives; every political party is vulnerable to pressure to increase spending. Every special interest group is certain to argue that they should be the exception. They will claim that their cause is important, vital, or urgent enough to demand spending now. Each political party is particularly vulnerable to certain groups, and so each party is going to have a hell of a time restraining government spending.

The second problem is that every party assumes that the recovery will be strong and hiccup free. Considering the warning clouds now hovering above the housing market, this assumption is incredibly flawed and potentially dangerous. Even if the government does restrain spending there is no guarantee that revenue will catch up to spending.

Basically the plan of each political party comes down to crossing one’s fingers and hoping that the deficit just goes away.

This strategy of denial was tried throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, and it didn’t work. It wasn’t until governments at all levels stepped up and became willing to make tough decisions that the deficit was successfully defeated.

Ultimately to bring the country back into surplus significant spending has to be cut.

Leader's debate drinking game 2011

What would a leader’s debate be without a drinking game?

Due to the one on one format this is a particularly difficult game to construct. As everyone knows a good drinking game has players drinking consistently throughout the game. The problem is that a rule that includes something that Jack Layton would say wouldn’t apply to the parts of the debate that Mr. Layton isn’t participating in.

So to solve the problem, I have actually created 6 mini-games along with a few general rules that should apply throughout the game.

General Rules

• Drink every time someone mentions the middle class and/or families.
• Drink every time someone mentions coalition (either denying or accusing).
• Drink twice every time someone mentions the contempt of Parliament ruling.
• Drink every time someone brings up an ethical issue.

Harper versus Duceppe

• Drink every time that the Quebec arena is mentioned.

Ignatieff versus Layton

• Drink every time one of them suggests that they are the only one that can truly stop Harper.

Harper versus Ignatieff

• Drink every time that Ignatieff mentions either prisons or fighter jets.

Duceppe versus Layton

• Drink every time that one of them finds a way to attack Harper.

Ignatieff versus Duceppe

• Drink every time either of them calls Quebec a nation.

Layton versus Harper

• Drink every time that Layton tries to characterize Harper as being extremely right-wing/conservative.

Remember drink responsibly and have fun!

(The debate will begin at 7pm)

The Libertarian Party platform

John Shaw of the Libertarian Party is given an opportunity by the National Post to describe his party’s platform:

The Libertarian approach is different. We do not promise to endlessly expand spending and impose new restrictions on personal action. Our goal is to leave Canadians as much responsibility for their lives as possible. Given the challenge of taming the leviathan of big government, we aim to return control to the individual as fast as practicable with the least dislocation to society. We are not anarchists, as some label us, but we do propose that much of what is currently done by government does not -or should not -be done only by government. The Libertarian platform includes:

(In my words)

1. Ending the war on drugs
2. Ending military adventurism through NATO and ensuring that our military is used for purely defensive purposes.
3. Add a “None of the Above” option to the ballot.
4. Add property rights to the constitution.
5. Reduce federal transfers to 2004 level in four years.

This is a fantastic platform that should be seriously considered by every political party. Just one of these reforms will be a significant improvement to our current state of affairs. Furthermore, and this may surprise some, each of these suggestions are relatively moderate:

1. It was not that long ago that Parliament was seriously debating a bill to decriminalize marijuana, which would effectively end at least part of the War on Drugs. Canadians should return to a fruitful discussion on the value of prohibition.
2. Turning NATO into a defensive treaty is simply returning it to its original purpose. NATO was never meant to police the world and ultimately it is not very good at it.
3. Adding a NOTA option does not represent a radical change to our electoral system. It does, however, give voice to Canadians who do not feel like any of the major political parties represent their views. Allowing people to check off NOTA will send a signal to political parties that at least some Canadians are unhappy with their choices.
4. Canada is one of the few countries in the Western world that does not have constitutionally protected property rights. Surely you cannot argue that this is a radical proposal.
5. This may be the most radical proposal on the list, but it is shameful that this could be considered radical. In 2004 the federal government and most provincial governments were in surplus. Surely 2004 level of spending isn’t out of our reach.

As moderate as these proposals are, they each move Canada back towards the right direction. I encourage anyone living in a riding with a Libertarian candidate to show your support!

I now know who I will be voting for

In this 2011 federal election, I urge all my fellow citizens to vote Summer:

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Do you hear that? A spending problem not a revenue problem. That can be echoed in pretty much every capital in the western world.

To be fair to Canada's politicians, they seem to realize this. No political party is proposing a massive tax increase. Even the Liberal's 18% corporate tax does not represent an enormous increase. It certainly is not being proposed as being sufficient to end the deficit.

Still we haven't had a real discussion about how to grapple with the spending problem. The consensus between the parties is that if we hold the line on spending and revenue will eventually catch up. This is not politically realistic. Political parties will always be facing pressure to increase spending. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to ignore that pressure.

It is far better to target the spending problem head on. In the way that the Liberal government did in the 90s.

Why I hope Harper doesn't get his majority

On Tuesday my fellow Volunteer blogger, Terrence Watson, wrote that he hopes that the Conservatives win a majority government. His reasoning was this:

Because the disappointed cries of partisan knobs on both the left and the right is sweet music to my ears.

The left will be disappointed when the Conservatives don’t build any concentration camps for gays, disabled people, and those whose names begin with the letter “L”.

The right will be disappointed when the Conservatives fail to act like conservatives.

As enjoyable as it would be to watch partisans try and justify their fear mongering/irrational hope, Terrance should consider the greater consequence. Stephen Harper has vowed to combine all the god awful “tough on crime” bills into a single “omnibus” bill if he has a majority.

I won’t credit the opposition party in slowing down the government’s wrong headed and ignorant plunge into criminal justice policies that have consistently failed in the United State. Both the Liberals and the NDP have been at times enablers in what has to be one of the worst policy shifts of the Conservative ran government. Cowed by the threat of being accused of being “soft on crime” the opposition has been completely ineffective in opposing the government’s crime bills.

Still, the inherent instability of the minority Parliament has forced the Conservative government to reintroduce elements of its crime agenda again and again. Elections and prorogation have been more effective at slowing the Tory’s dumb-on-crime agenda than the opposition.
In a Conservative majority government all hope of slowing or stopping the inevitable disaster of these policies will evaporate.

I agree with Terrence that I do not expect the Conservative government to behave any different if they got a majority or a minority (at least not in terms of policy). So my hope is that the Conservatives remain stuck in a minority Parliament, because at least then there is a hope of restraining them.

Canadian Taxpayer Federation on tax cutting Dippers

Economic nationalism will make you poor

There is a key point made in the following Reason video. That is that China manufacturing trinkets does not actually take jobs away. In reality it frees up resources (human and otherwise) to do other things. Ultimately this creates wealth.

.

As the Globe and Mail points out, economic nationalism is creeping back into Canada's public debate. Policy makers and politicians should wake up to the fact that the economy is not a zero sum game. Canada does not suffer when China sells us trinkets nor do we suffer when Australian companies buy our companies. At the end of the day we all benefit by the increased efficiency and productivity that free trade brings.

The Globe & Mail pseudo-academic analysis on corporate tax cuts

The Globe & Mail has released an “analysis” that supposedly demonstrates that “Corporate tax cuts don't spur growth…”The Globe & Mail, however, only uses two measure both of which are immaterial.

The first measure is investment in machinery and equipment as a percentage of GDP:

But an analysis of Statistics Canada figures by The Globe and Mail reveals that the rate of investment in machinery and equipment has declined in lockstep with falling corporate tax rates over the past decade.

First of all, capital investment does not by itself measure a firm’s job creation. It could be included on a list of measures but on its own it is pretty meaningless. So what if a law firm didn’t buy new equipment? They still could have hired 1 000 new lawyers. The Globe & Mail would completely fail to capture that job growth in its analysis.

Second of all, even if capital investment could stand alone as a measure of job growth, calculating it as a percentage of GDP would sap it of all meaning. GDP is not a constant variable, and it can easily go up and down over a long period of time. Showing that capital investment has declined as a percentage of GDP therefore tells you nothing about any change in the actual amount of capital investment. What if GDP had been increasing at a faster rate than capital investment? Even though capital investment has increased it would decrease in relation to GDP. You can’t possibly draw any conclusions about the affect of tax cuts on job creation based on such ambiguous data.

The second measure is even more irrelevant:

At the same time, the analysis shows, businesses have added $83-billion to their cash reserves since the onset of the recession in 2008.

It has long been observed that individuals and firms tend to increase their savings and decrease their investment during a recession. This behaviour is not only perfectly reasonable, it is also essential to the eventual recovery (as people eventually use their “hoarded” capital to invest in new economic opportunities). I don’t see how tax cuts play any role in this, except perhaps by increasing the possible savings and thus making stronger the eventual recovery.

Later on in the article I linked, the Globe & Mail admits that “the reality is there are no easy answers when it comes to measuring the impact tax rates have on job creation.” This is true so far as it is difficult to measure the impact of almost anything in the economy. You cannot hold the variables constant and so you cannot isolate a single factor. Economists have to use a whole host of different measures and are constantly debating about which are the most important indicators.

This leads me to wonder why the Globe & Mail bothered to make such an amateurish attempt. The only explanation that I can come up with is that they are soap boxing for the Liberal Party. By claiming that lower corporate taxes does not create jobs the Globe & Mail is attempting to convince the public that Liberal Party’s corporate tax policy is superior. I find the Globe & Mail analysis to be disingenuous and highly partisan.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why you might support an 18% rate over a 15% rate. The Globe & Mail, if they feel they must, can easily make such a case without resorting to pseudo-academic analysis like this one.

*Update 1pm*

Another article in the Globe & Mail pointed out other problems with this analysis.

New Conservative ad similar to Republican ad...so?

The Liberals are complaining that a recent Conservative ad is too similar to an ad done in the United States? So what? Campaigns learn from other campaigns all the time. Either the ad speaks to you or not. Personally it makes me want to go to a movie more than vote Conservative.

John Strossel and the Students for Liberty

Do you feel like both conservatives and liberals got it wrong? Are you sick of government always telling you what to do? Did your parents give you Atlas Shrugged for your 14th birthday?

If so, check out Students for Liberty.

Canadian Taxpayer's Federation on the New Brunswick budget

Jack Layton is wrong: CPP is a tax

In defending his proposal to increase the contributions and payouts of the CPP, Jack Layton claimed that it wasn’t the same thing as a tax increase. Mr. Layton clearly doesn’t understand what a tax is, and so I will put it in terms that he might be able to comprehend.

What do you call it when a citizen is forced by the government to pay for a service that he or she may or may not want? You call it a tax.

Are you forced by the government to contribute to a pension plan that you may or may not want? Yes you are, and therefore it is a tax.

Jack Layton compared CPP contributions to putting money into a RRSP. The core difference, however, is that you voluntarily put money into a RRSP. It is an important distinction and it disturbs me greatly that Mr. Layton doesn’t grasp it.

The risks and costs of the CPP are always understated by its proponents, and I for one would rather keep the money I am forced to contribute to invest for myself. I could make my own choices about how to save for retirement and live by the consequences of my own decisions. Instead I am compelled to have my money managed by people that I neither know nor trust.

The NDP can argue that CPP is superior to voluntary retirement savings if they like, but they shouldn’t be pissing on Canadians and telling them that it is rain.

Law of supply and demand, in Haiku

Stephen Harper: Tax credits and chess playing

I have finally figured it out. With the latest round of promised tax credits, I finally understand the strategy behind endlessly complicating the tax code. The cynic in me once believed that it was nothing but a ploy to buy votes. I thought that it was but a way to increase expenditure without looking like expenditure is being increased. Now I see the truth.

This is a deep laid plan to completely eliminate tax credits from our tax code.

Consider for a moment, what is the biggest political barrier to getting rid of a tax credit? The people who directly benefit from that credit of course! The people that benefit would say that it is unfair to end the credit because they are losing out. But if EVERYONE gets tax credits then you can’t say that it is unfair, can you!

This is the plan: the Conservative Party will expand tax credits piece by piece, little by little. Before you know it the tax code will be a complete mess of exceptions and individualized rules. Every citizen will be so confused that they will each require an accounting degree just to figure out which credits they are eligible for. Then once everyone has their own personal tax rate, Stephen Harper will come out and say that to balance the budget they must get rid of all tax credits.

Wow, Stephen Harper must be an excellent chess player!

Rick Mercer on the Arena funding promise

The Liberal Party is seriously going out of their way to make me dislike them. My only hope now is that they are not going to do any of the things that they are promising.

A Conservative and NDP coalition?

The Conservatives yesterday released an ad once again pounding away at the core message of their campaign, the Liberals, NDP, and BQ are secretly planning a coalition. As new evidence of this conspiracy they have pointed to a NDP candidate that recently dropped out and supported the Liberal candidate. The logic is that there is clearly a high level agreement of non-aggression because one member of the party decided not to run.



If this logic holds then it should hold the recent NDP candidate that defected to the Conservatives. Come out with it Mr. Harper, what secret deals have you made with Jack Layton?

Of course the logic doesn’t hold. In neither case was the leadership aware that the candidate was considering supporting the other party. Also it doesn’t look like there were cross party discussions at any level in either case. The evidence of a Conservative-NDP conspiracy is just as strong as that of a Liberal-NDO conspiracy. And that evidence is zip.

It is immensely frustrating to watch the Conservatives bend the truth like this. Rarely do they outright lie but they suggest possibilities that most reasonable people, upon reflection, will know is bull. I really wish that the Conservatives had the confidence to present their ideas without lacing it with so much crap.

A hero's welcome

I love dogs.