I have a new category for my register of interesting things that have happened. This is in the "proof that the revolution is irrevocable" category. Boris Johnson beat Red Ken Livingston in the London mayoralty race. Once upon a time it took someone like Lady Thatcher to go out and beat Ken because he was considered to be a threat to civilization and abiding evidence of the constant communist inevitability. Conventional wisdom said he was hard to beat.
Boris Johnson beat him. While I respect certain things about Boris, one of them is not that he’s a political heavyweight. There’s hope for us all.
Now if we could only get the Europeans to come along at the same time. I’d also like to see the Americans buck their own leftward trend too, but you can’t have it all.
I give McCain a 50% chance of winning the election. It’s still chancy.
*****
George Stephanopoulos says if all economists are against an economic policy, it should be done. If that was their role, then the Democrats would have to rescind half their platform. I don’t think there is a single economist out there, except for some loony, who would agree with it. The Economist recently called Mr. Obama’s economic platform "disturbing".
*****
Some thoughts on the Hillary strategy. Since the Federal era, 11 presidents have not gotten their party’s nomination after less than two terms in office. Only one of those lost it, Chester Allen Arthur, an accident president. Every president other than that has left of his own accord, sometimes under the severe pressure.
What does this mean for Hillary? If, as it appears is going to happen, she doesn’t win the nomination and she doesn’t get the vice-presidential ticket there are two things that have to happen besides them surviving for another four years politically and that is either Obama has to turn out to be one of the worse presidents in history (if he wins) and either voluntarily leave or fail to get his nomination. In other words, Hillary will have to take the nomination away from an incumbent president. This hasn’t been done since Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan (against Presidents Ford and Carter). It seems almost certain that unless Obama resigns voluntarily that he’s not going to fail to get his party’s nomination after a first term. This is a very unlikely scenario.
I guess this means that the Clinton camp is praying for Obama to lose. That means that McCain is the next president. His presidency would have to be worse that George Bush Sr’s. And his term was pretty good. The US became the sole superpower in the world. The Wall fell. Domestically, it wasn’t so good and he went back on his tax pledge. But his failings were nothing compared to Carter’s.
Bill Clinton beat Bush in 1992 because of Ross Perot splitting the Republican vote. Those who agreed with Perot about Bush but couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Perot, voted Clinton. If only one if forty voters did that, Clinton got the margin he needed.
Can Hillary pull it off? It seems very unlikely. She can’t count on accidents or disasters.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Ma 28, 2008
Pandering is the word used to label the retail sales tax/gas holiday by Mr. Obama, especially because it hasn’t worked, but apparently raging against oil companies full-time and calling for winfall profit taxes that in the past have been no only not working but destructive is not pandering. It’s apparently noble. No one is pandering to anyone there by attacking oil companies, no, of course not.
Someone asked what Mrs. Obama was like. Let’s strip away the colour of her skin and consider her for what she and her husband are: they are about as liberal in outlook, instinct and attitude as any other Democrat. If you vote for them, you are going to get people who are that way. If you want more government, if you want more government in more things and in control of more things, if you want more government regulation, more taxes and more costs, then vote for them. They won’t put US interests first in dealing in international relations.
Bill O’Reilly said he didn’t know what Mrs. Obama’s attitude was towards life, liberty and happiness. Life s fine, but she’s for abortion. Liberty is great unless it’s for guns. Happiness is also fine, as long as it doesn’t involved excessive profits that should then be confiscated.
There are reasons to vote for Mr. Obama that are positive. If you’re very concerned about global warming, vote for him. But if you don’t like ethanol because of its effects on food prices, then don’t. If you want out of Iraq stat and you think that’s sane and appropriate, vote for him. Though he thinks "stat" is 18 months.
The fundamental problem the Democrats have is their track record. They haven’t won a presidential election against a sitting Republican president since 1976. They haven’t won a majority of the vote since then either. Ford wasn’t even elected to the presidency. Why should we think that the Obama campaign will do any better? Has higher voter registration meant a victory for any party? I don’t know. Statistically, as much as 25% might not vote for Obama because of disappointment over Clinton losing the nomination.
A number of registered voters might not vote at all. This is especially important in light of the fact that many of these new voters are young people who don’t vote. Campus voters are traditionally unlikely to because they’re not residents. It’s an interesting conundrum. We won’t be able to tell until there is an actual election. Three million new registrants is an interesting figure because that was the margin of victory in the popular vote of Bush over Kerry in the last election.
*****
In Britain, it comes out that the closed circuit cameras they have around the country, 50,000 of them, may not be very useful for crime fighting. At best, they do serve as a deterrent. It’s hard to use them for prosecutions and maybe even impossible because of how much footage there is.
Don’t expect them to come down anytime soon or for even the Conservatives, for instance, to get rid them or the scary warrants act they have over there that allows local town counsels to go out and investigate you and tap you and do surveillance on you to see if you are letting you dog poop in the park and other "criminal matter". If George Orwell was alive today, he’d be shocked but also, perhaps, bemused.
Britons may never be slaves, but they sure as hell are being watched.
*****
Why doesn’t anyone say the obvious about this fringe element out there that voted against Ms. Clinton because she’s a woman and voting for Mr. Obama because he’s a man. There are probably some women who are doing that too. How many times have we heard about those surveys about news anchors who lost their jobs because they were getting older and especially because they were getting bad ratings even among female viewers.
*****
I’m struck during this Burmese crisis how no one says "where’s China?". This is another example of how lucky that government is. Time after time there is an episode that occurs, often involving another country, that highlights China’s bankruptcy as a regional statesman and leader. This country has said nothing and done nothing about this crisis when its influence would be enormous. It could have easily persuaded this regime to back down and allow the aid in. It doesn’t bode well for the Olympics.
*****
The latest person that I’ve decided it’s my sacred sovereign duty to despise and completely ignore is Céline Dion, Eurovision winner for… Switzerland. These people go to Davos, tell us we’re not paying enough taxes and we have to sacrifice and fight climate change while they sit in their tax shelters so they can get a Eurogong from their neighbours.
This is like our Governor-General who tells us we’re racist. We’re so racist that we send out best and brightest to fight and die for the rights of people all over the world who aren’t Canadian.
An old news segment on Canadian tv brought up an old Canadian political issue. This was the Coyne affair which is mostly forgotten now by most Canadians. This was the show-down between the Diefenbaker government and the governor of the Bank of Canada over monetary policy which resulted in the governor being forced to step down and the government being notoriously attacked for enacting the "Diefendollar" which at the time was a scandalous 92.5 cents on the American dollar. One of the economists on the panel was Jacques Parizeau. He seemed to think that Coyne had the right policy: the tightwad approach.
It’s fascinating that at the time, the Star men were viciously attacking Diefenbaker for having a defence and foreign policy that was not aggressive and militaristic enough and not strongly enough in favour of the US policy. The country’s fiscal house was not in order and relied to highly on economic stimulus. Five years later, they were singing the praises of a Liberal government that did exactly the same thing. Lament indeed.
Someone asked what Mrs. Obama was like. Let’s strip away the colour of her skin and consider her for what she and her husband are: they are about as liberal in outlook, instinct and attitude as any other Democrat. If you vote for them, you are going to get people who are that way. If you want more government, if you want more government in more things and in control of more things, if you want more government regulation, more taxes and more costs, then vote for them. They won’t put US interests first in dealing in international relations.
Bill O’Reilly said he didn’t know what Mrs. Obama’s attitude was towards life, liberty and happiness. Life s fine, but she’s for abortion. Liberty is great unless it’s for guns. Happiness is also fine, as long as it doesn’t involved excessive profits that should then be confiscated.
There are reasons to vote for Mr. Obama that are positive. If you’re very concerned about global warming, vote for him. But if you don’t like ethanol because of its effects on food prices, then don’t. If you want out of Iraq stat and you think that’s sane and appropriate, vote for him. Though he thinks "stat" is 18 months.
The fundamental problem the Democrats have is their track record. They haven’t won a presidential election against a sitting Republican president since 1976. They haven’t won a majority of the vote since then either. Ford wasn’t even elected to the presidency. Why should we think that the Obama campaign will do any better? Has higher voter registration meant a victory for any party? I don’t know. Statistically, as much as 25% might not vote for Obama because of disappointment over Clinton losing the nomination.
A number of registered voters might not vote at all. This is especially important in light of the fact that many of these new voters are young people who don’t vote. Campus voters are traditionally unlikely to because they’re not residents. It’s an interesting conundrum. We won’t be able to tell until there is an actual election. Three million new registrants is an interesting figure because that was the margin of victory in the popular vote of Bush over Kerry in the last election.
*****
In Britain, it comes out that the closed circuit cameras they have around the country, 50,000 of them, may not be very useful for crime fighting. At best, they do serve as a deterrent. It’s hard to use them for prosecutions and maybe even impossible because of how much footage there is.
Don’t expect them to come down anytime soon or for even the Conservatives, for instance, to get rid them or the scary warrants act they have over there that allows local town counsels to go out and investigate you and tap you and do surveillance on you to see if you are letting you dog poop in the park and other "criminal matter". If George Orwell was alive today, he’d be shocked but also, perhaps, bemused.
Britons may never be slaves, but they sure as hell are being watched.
*****
Why doesn’t anyone say the obvious about this fringe element out there that voted against Ms. Clinton because she’s a woman and voting for Mr. Obama because he’s a man. There are probably some women who are doing that too. How many times have we heard about those surveys about news anchors who lost their jobs because they were getting older and especially because they were getting bad ratings even among female viewers.
*****
I’m struck during this Burmese crisis how no one says "where’s China?". This is another example of how lucky that government is. Time after time there is an episode that occurs, often involving another country, that highlights China’s bankruptcy as a regional statesman and leader. This country has said nothing and done nothing about this crisis when its influence would be enormous. It could have easily persuaded this regime to back down and allow the aid in. It doesn’t bode well for the Olympics.
*****
The latest person that I’ve decided it’s my sacred sovereign duty to despise and completely ignore is Céline Dion, Eurovision winner for… Switzerland. These people go to Davos, tell us we’re not paying enough taxes and we have to sacrifice and fight climate change while they sit in their tax shelters so they can get a Eurogong from their neighbours.
This is like our Governor-General who tells us we’re racist. We’re so racist that we send out best and brightest to fight and die for the rights of people all over the world who aren’t Canadian.
An old news segment on Canadian tv brought up an old Canadian political issue. This was the Coyne affair which is mostly forgotten now by most Canadians. This was the show-down between the Diefenbaker government and the governor of the Bank of Canada over monetary policy which resulted in the governor being forced to step down and the government being notoriously attacked for enacting the "Diefendollar" which at the time was a scandalous 92.5 cents on the American dollar. One of the economists on the panel was Jacques Parizeau. He seemed to think that Coyne had the right policy: the tightwad approach.
It’s fascinating that at the time, the Star men were viciously attacking Diefenbaker for having a defence and foreign policy that was not aggressive and militaristic enough and not strongly enough in favour of the US policy. The country’s fiscal house was not in order and relied to highly on economic stimulus. Five years later, they were singing the praises of a Liberal government that did exactly the same thing. Lament indeed.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The March of the Democrats
Here’s my political utopia. The time when it comes that a black American will be able to vote Republican or Democrat, Obama or Clinton, without regard to race and entirely upon the basis of merit. I’d like to see that happen.
We didn’t think a lot of whites would vote for someone who is black, but it happened. Now, will blacks vote for a white person, even though the opponent is black and Democrat?
*****
For the Democrats, Obama’s winning with groups with the Democrats do well with isn’t surprising. He does well with blacks, young people, well educated people and a lot of the affluent. But Clinton is winning with the groups they need to win over. If they don’t get a respectable performance with these groups, the Democrats are going to lose. Obama does badly with these groups: Hispanics, the working class, the poor, small business owners, white men, older people and women.
These groups deserted the Democrats in their worst hours. They are Reagan Democrats. I don’t see how Obama is going to get them to vote for him. Clinton’s best argument is that he wins the groups the Democrats always get, even when someone like Dukakis or Kerry run. She wins the groups that they need to win, the groups that decide elections.
No one really talks about Obama swaying independents anymore. It’s not surprising since they are deserting him in droves, they’re participating less and are generally turned off by the whole cultural mean that was built up by the Wright and San Francisco controversies.
McCain is drawing better on independents better than either Clinton or Obama. Independents are very important in elections. They usually decide them for obvious reasons.
It’s almost like the Democrats are on a suicide pact with Obama that they can’t get out of. It doesn’t mean that there might not be thoughtful super-delegates who may yet go with Clinton, but it’s very unlikely now and there are so few left that it might not matter.
Obama’s result in North Caroline was sufficiently impressive that the super-delegates he has will be intimidated into staying with him. Those results cannot be changed. They’re stuck with him.
I think a lot of people are deluded about Obama’s power as a candidate.
We didn’t think a lot of whites would vote for someone who is black, but it happened. Now, will blacks vote for a white person, even though the opponent is black and Democrat?
*****
For the Democrats, Obama’s winning with groups with the Democrats do well with isn’t surprising. He does well with blacks, young people, well educated people and a lot of the affluent. But Clinton is winning with the groups they need to win over. If they don’t get a respectable performance with these groups, the Democrats are going to lose. Obama does badly with these groups: Hispanics, the working class, the poor, small business owners, white men, older people and women.
These groups deserted the Democrats in their worst hours. They are Reagan Democrats. I don’t see how Obama is going to get them to vote for him. Clinton’s best argument is that he wins the groups the Democrats always get, even when someone like Dukakis or Kerry run. She wins the groups that they need to win, the groups that decide elections.
No one really talks about Obama swaying independents anymore. It’s not surprising since they are deserting him in droves, they’re participating less and are generally turned off by the whole cultural mean that was built up by the Wright and San Francisco controversies.
McCain is drawing better on independents better than either Clinton or Obama. Independents are very important in elections. They usually decide them for obvious reasons.
It’s almost like the Democrats are on a suicide pact with Obama that they can’t get out of. It doesn’t mean that there might not be thoughtful super-delegates who may yet go with Clinton, but it’s very unlikely now and there are so few left that it might not matter.
Obama’s result in North Caroline was sufficiently impressive that the super-delegates he has will be intimidated into staying with him. Those results cannot be changed. They’re stuck with him.
I think a lot of people are deluded about Obama’s power as a candidate.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Food and No Food
This is incredible! Canada have made a decision that is overwhelmingly good for the poor and the hungry of the world: untying our food aid to Canadian purchases. This allows agencies to buy the food from someone besides Canadian farmers.
If we were talking about this in any other context, we’d call it protectionism. But Stuart Wells from the National Farmers’ Union criticized, saying it would be hard to know if the food was going to the people who were supposed to get it or if the money would go to local farmers rather than brokers in the harbour.
Who cares? This is for food aid to people who are hungry. It’s not a competitive matter. The problem isn’t where the food comes from. We’re trying to get it to go to the right places. Securing the supply is an inherent problem in these situations.
Mr. Wells is all about protecting his market. It’s just plain greed. These farmers have stopped being businessmen and have long ago become wards of the state. They believe their entitled to a permanent subsidy for anything, including feeding people in a starvation crisis.
Mr. Wells also wants us to go to the WTO and suggest that it caused these foods crises. This is simply about farmers keeping a firm grip on the bottom line at the expense of anyone else, including their customers and those who need food.
The Americans do this too and have still not untied their aid. Bad Ag!
*****
How can anyone be surprised when the US government says that the Burmese government is incapable of caring for its own people. They never did before. They’ve chosen to abuse their people. We should intervene. It sickens me that aid agencies have to wait for visas just to go in and give food to starving people.
If we were talking about this in any other context, we’d call it protectionism. But Stuart Wells from the National Farmers’ Union criticized, saying it would be hard to know if the food was going to the people who were supposed to get it or if the money would go to local farmers rather than brokers in the harbour.
Who cares? This is for food aid to people who are hungry. It’s not a competitive matter. The problem isn’t where the food comes from. We’re trying to get it to go to the right places. Securing the supply is an inherent problem in these situations.
Mr. Wells is all about protecting his market. It’s just plain greed. These farmers have stopped being businessmen and have long ago become wards of the state. They believe their entitled to a permanent subsidy for anything, including feeding people in a starvation crisis.
Mr. Wells also wants us to go to the WTO and suggest that it caused these foods crises. This is simply about farmers keeping a firm grip on the bottom line at the expense of anyone else, including their customers and those who need food.
The Americans do this too and have still not untied their aid. Bad Ag!
*****
How can anyone be surprised when the US government says that the Burmese government is incapable of caring for its own people. They never did before. They’ve chosen to abuse their people. We should intervene. It sickens me that aid agencies have to wait for visas just to go in and give food to starving people.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
More bits and pieces
Who will stand up again and speak up against people like Susan Riley and Time Magazine who compare the fight against global warming and climate change to WWII and fighting the Nazis? It isn’t. It’s not the same thing. People aren’t being killed in the millions just for what they are.
Those who think that cheapen the sacrifice of people in the war. Shameful.
*****
In the Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rausch talks about incrementalism. It’s alright if it’s going to the right. Too often it’s going to the left. When did bringing in health care insurance in the US from any perspective ever represent anything less than a radical shift. Apparently it’s fine when incrementalism goes to the left, but when it goes to the right, it’s radical.
What does that make Reagan and Thatcher?
*****
The Clintons: He’s a little bit country, she’s a little bit rock and roll.
*****
History works in strange ways. If Churchill had not been in exactly the right place at the right time, he would have been bankrupted in the late 1930’s as his political enemies tried to do to him and tried to move him out of his seat.
Forget about all the other torturous things that would have happened to the world. But think about how he would have been remembered. Likely, a failed politician, a minor historian of some talent and another example of a Churchill gone wrong politically. Possibly remembered as a bigot because he wasn’t keen on India or an oppressor of the worker because of his actions during the General Strike in the 1920s. Perhaps unfair, but there it is.
It’s a slender thread between sainthood and irrelevance.
*****
It’s very strange to see McLeans’ complaining about our energy guzzling and our supposed low ranking environmentally against the rest of the world. Strange how we do worse than Finland, Norway and Sweden. And what about the UVic professor who says if everyone gets the American Dream, it’ll be a global disaster. Smug. Victoria is secure and rich and she would condemn people to poverty in the name of the environment. It’s the ultimate statement of declinism, only overshadowed by the other bizarre complaints that one of the things we should worry about is that our homes are three times as large as they were in the 1950’s. Last time I checked, that’s progress.
Whatever happened to the report in which we were told over and over again by everyone from the Globe and Mail to the CBC that we have only earned as much this year as we did in real terms in 1980. So what? We can do more with that money. That’s progress too. With the same money, our houses are three times as large.
Those who think that cheapen the sacrifice of people in the war. Shameful.
*****
In the Atlantic Monthly, Jonathan Rausch talks about incrementalism. It’s alright if it’s going to the right. Too often it’s going to the left. When did bringing in health care insurance in the US from any perspective ever represent anything less than a radical shift. Apparently it’s fine when incrementalism goes to the left, but when it goes to the right, it’s radical.
What does that make Reagan and Thatcher?
*****
The Clintons: He’s a little bit country, she’s a little bit rock and roll.
*****
History works in strange ways. If Churchill had not been in exactly the right place at the right time, he would have been bankrupted in the late 1930’s as his political enemies tried to do to him and tried to move him out of his seat.
Forget about all the other torturous things that would have happened to the world. But think about how he would have been remembered. Likely, a failed politician, a minor historian of some talent and another example of a Churchill gone wrong politically. Possibly remembered as a bigot because he wasn’t keen on India or an oppressor of the worker because of his actions during the General Strike in the 1920s. Perhaps unfair, but there it is.
It’s a slender thread between sainthood and irrelevance.
*****
It’s very strange to see McLeans’ complaining about our energy guzzling and our supposed low ranking environmentally against the rest of the world. Strange how we do worse than Finland, Norway and Sweden. And what about the UVic professor who says if everyone gets the American Dream, it’ll be a global disaster. Smug. Victoria is secure and rich and she would condemn people to poverty in the name of the environment. It’s the ultimate statement of declinism, only overshadowed by the other bizarre complaints that one of the things we should worry about is that our homes are three times as large as they were in the 1950’s. Last time I checked, that’s progress.
Whatever happened to the report in which we were told over and over again by everyone from the Globe and Mail to the CBC that we have only earned as much this year as we did in real terms in 1980. So what? We can do more with that money. That’s progress too. With the same money, our houses are three times as large.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Freedom of the Press
Mark Stein and McLeans’s have become the targets of persecution not by the police or CSIS but by the Human Rights Tribunals of Canada and British Columbia. Jack Layton has sent a letter of support not to Stein or McLean’s in support of freedom of the press, but in support of the Canadian Islamic Congress, according to its lawyer. Tommy Douglas and David Lewis would both be ashamed.
Douglas believed, for instance, that separatists deserved the protection of the law against the War Measures Act. He thought civil liberties were not something you picked and chose for people just because you liked them or not. It was precisely when speech was inconvenient and annoying and a little offensive that it was in need of protection the most in a free society. Mr. Layton forgot. Disgraceful.
The best you can say about Mr. Layton is that he is a vote-mongering politician like all the others. Even his own colleague, Robin Sears, understands how dangerous this situation is, especially regarding the Elections Canada issue. Other have forgotten about that because is concerns the Conservatives who got raided. I wonder how they would feel about being raided themselves.
These are attacks on our civil liberties that are occurring and just because the victims aren’t popular doesn’t make it anything less than an attack on all of us. People should understand that freedom of the press means a different thing in Canada than it does in Syria or Iran, and it has to be that way. The weeping press that sheds crocodile tears for terrorists can’t see it and loathesomely takes advantage and suggests that the election was not legitimate.
Douglas believed, for instance, that separatists deserved the protection of the law against the War Measures Act. He thought civil liberties were not something you picked and chose for people just because you liked them or not. It was precisely when speech was inconvenient and annoying and a little offensive that it was in need of protection the most in a free society. Mr. Layton forgot. Disgraceful.
The best you can say about Mr. Layton is that he is a vote-mongering politician like all the others. Even his own colleague, Robin Sears, understands how dangerous this situation is, especially regarding the Elections Canada issue. Other have forgotten about that because is concerns the Conservatives who got raided. I wonder how they would feel about being raided themselves.
These are attacks on our civil liberties that are occurring and just because the victims aren’t popular doesn’t make it anything less than an attack on all of us. People should understand that freedom of the press means a different thing in Canada than it does in Syria or Iran, and it has to be that way. The weeping press that sheds crocodile tears for terrorists can’t see it and loathesomely takes advantage and suggests that the election was not legitimate.
Monday, May 12, 2008
How things are better now.
Today’s interesting fact: the average American paid half the taxes, about $10,000.00 in federal taxes in 1965 that he/she pays now in inflation adjusted terms, which is now about $22,000.00. In 1941, 8% of the economy in the US went to federal taxes or collections. It’s now 18%.
The reality is that since 1965, they’ve brought in Medicare, Medicaid, pharmacare and the expansion of social security and that’s where the extra burden is coming from because tax rates actually fell for most Americans after that, especially for those people at the high end.
Under the old high tax rates that the rich had, the actual tax rate was far lower because there were far more deductions. Trump said he didn’t mind the 90% tax rate along with the old deductions. Nihilistic on his part, but a telling point.
Then there’s this unwillingness of politicians to confront the real problem of entitlements. These are unsecured liabilities. All the debt the US has incurred operating is secured by bonds and other financial instruments, but these programs are not. Until the US confronts that, its fiscal sanity may be in far more jeopardy. These programs will have to be deregulated and/or privatized so that most people who pay into them will not really get the defined public benefit from them. If they are going to get a benefit at all, it will be through their own private investment and effort. It is not only fiscally insane but also morally unjust and wrong to expect everyone to get the same benefit no matter what their means are.
They will have to de-universalize these programs. If a life insurance policy was set up for everyone who got the life insurance benefit no matter whether they died or not, that company who offered it would be bankrupted and would be charged with fraud and be unable to get market investment. Similarly, one should not get social insurance regardless of what your outcome is in life. If you retire rich and affluent, you should not get a social security payment or old age benefit. That should go to people who retire indolent and poor and genuinely asset-starved.
A sophisticated means test should be used to ensure that a person who has assets from other sources, such as real estate and the like, is not allowed to collect a benefit because of paper poverty. These are steps that have to be taken. Is there a sufficient supply of politicians brave enough to call for these changes before it is too late?
This third rail in politics stymies even popular politicians in both houses of Congress, like George Bush. If you propose something, it never goes anywhere or you get fried politically if you’re vulnerable. Those who don’t make proposals, are intimidated to find it in their interests not to change the status quo.
That’s why it was particularly disgusting when someone like Paul Tsongas was told by Democrats like Schlessinger that he was in the wrong party for proposing efforts to preserve the fiscal soundness and probity of these programs. How could it be in the interests of social justice not to?
The comment was that our median income on average in Canada had not gone up since 1980, when it was $43-44,000.00 in real adjusted inflationary terms. This is what simplified dodo economics works like. All it sees is the cold statistical figure.
I’m not one of those who says statistics, damned lies and statistics. I certainly believe statistics are very instructive and useful. But you can’t tell me that $40,000.00 odd in 1980 could buy the same things it buys now.
For instances, how many computers did people own in 1980? Oh, wait, there were no home computers in 1980. The only ones who had them were governments, large public agencies or major corporations.
How can you measure the quality of life, standards of living and enjoyment of people in 1980 who, with that $40,000.00, couldn’t buy a computer as compared to someone today who can. Most people use part of their income for a computer or some part of computing technology in everyday living. That’s just one example.
How about kidney medicine? It’s doesn’t affect everyone, but in 1980 there was nothing you could do with that $40,000.00 to buy better kidney medicine. In those days, a problem with a kidney was practically a death sentence or it meant that you were going to have no functional life at all. Now, you can extrapolate this to all sorts of diseases, but this is a simple example of the change in medical technology. With that $40,000.00 today, a Canadian citizen has the power to change the dynamics of life with kidney disease, and this after having spent very little or nothing on the technology which was almost entirely developed in the US.
How about video games? That’s also related to computers, but how many were purchased in 1980? Quite a lot. There were Atari and Pong. But who thinks the TV video games we had then were anything like we have now. In fact, most kids didn’t have video games then. Having an Atari video system was a sign of wealth and prosperity. It meant you were affluent or rich. Today, you’d be laughed out of school if you said you had one of those. After all, everyone from Conrad Black’s grandkids to mine has a system and the games are far better than they were then. There was no amount of money even the richest kids could spend in 1980 to get a game like those we have now. How do you measure that in money?
Because the service sector is dominant in our economy now, one can’t suggest we all have Wal-Mart jobs. Does that include computer programming? That’s a service job too.
How about pools? When I was a kid, if you had a pool, you were rich and affluent. No one could spend part of their $40,000.00 in 1980 on a pool. There would have been no money left for food.
The government delivers far more for the lesser taxes we pay too. People are coming here from around the world because they want less money than others? It’s hard to start over for everyone, but it does get better over time. Look at our Vietnamese or Chinese families now.
The reality is that since 1965, they’ve brought in Medicare, Medicaid, pharmacare and the expansion of social security and that’s where the extra burden is coming from because tax rates actually fell for most Americans after that, especially for those people at the high end.
Under the old high tax rates that the rich had, the actual tax rate was far lower because there were far more deductions. Trump said he didn’t mind the 90% tax rate along with the old deductions. Nihilistic on his part, but a telling point.
Then there’s this unwillingness of politicians to confront the real problem of entitlements. These are unsecured liabilities. All the debt the US has incurred operating is secured by bonds and other financial instruments, but these programs are not. Until the US confronts that, its fiscal sanity may be in far more jeopardy. These programs will have to be deregulated and/or privatized so that most people who pay into them will not really get the defined public benefit from them. If they are going to get a benefit at all, it will be through their own private investment and effort. It is not only fiscally insane but also morally unjust and wrong to expect everyone to get the same benefit no matter what their means are.
They will have to de-universalize these programs. If a life insurance policy was set up for everyone who got the life insurance benefit no matter whether they died or not, that company who offered it would be bankrupted and would be charged with fraud and be unable to get market investment. Similarly, one should not get social insurance regardless of what your outcome is in life. If you retire rich and affluent, you should not get a social security payment or old age benefit. That should go to people who retire indolent and poor and genuinely asset-starved.
A sophisticated means test should be used to ensure that a person who has assets from other sources, such as real estate and the like, is not allowed to collect a benefit because of paper poverty. These are steps that have to be taken. Is there a sufficient supply of politicians brave enough to call for these changes before it is too late?
This third rail in politics stymies even popular politicians in both houses of Congress, like George Bush. If you propose something, it never goes anywhere or you get fried politically if you’re vulnerable. Those who don’t make proposals, are intimidated to find it in their interests not to change the status quo.
That’s why it was particularly disgusting when someone like Paul Tsongas was told by Democrats like Schlessinger that he was in the wrong party for proposing efforts to preserve the fiscal soundness and probity of these programs. How could it be in the interests of social justice not to?
The comment was that our median income on average in Canada had not gone up since 1980, when it was $43-44,000.00 in real adjusted inflationary terms. This is what simplified dodo economics works like. All it sees is the cold statistical figure.
I’m not one of those who says statistics, damned lies and statistics. I certainly believe statistics are very instructive and useful. But you can’t tell me that $40,000.00 odd in 1980 could buy the same things it buys now.
For instances, how many computers did people own in 1980? Oh, wait, there were no home computers in 1980. The only ones who had them were governments, large public agencies or major corporations.
How can you measure the quality of life, standards of living and enjoyment of people in 1980 who, with that $40,000.00, couldn’t buy a computer as compared to someone today who can. Most people use part of their income for a computer or some part of computing technology in everyday living. That’s just one example.
How about kidney medicine? It’s doesn’t affect everyone, but in 1980 there was nothing you could do with that $40,000.00 to buy better kidney medicine. In those days, a problem with a kidney was practically a death sentence or it meant that you were going to have no functional life at all. Now, you can extrapolate this to all sorts of diseases, but this is a simple example of the change in medical technology. With that $40,000.00 today, a Canadian citizen has the power to change the dynamics of life with kidney disease, and this after having spent very little or nothing on the technology which was almost entirely developed in the US.
How about video games? That’s also related to computers, but how many were purchased in 1980? Quite a lot. There were Atari and Pong. But who thinks the TV video games we had then were anything like we have now. In fact, most kids didn’t have video games then. Having an Atari video system was a sign of wealth and prosperity. It meant you were affluent or rich. Today, you’d be laughed out of school if you said you had one of those. After all, everyone from Conrad Black’s grandkids to mine has a system and the games are far better than they were then. There was no amount of money even the richest kids could spend in 1980 to get a game like those we have now. How do you measure that in money?
Because the service sector is dominant in our economy now, one can’t suggest we all have Wal-Mart jobs. Does that include computer programming? That’s a service job too.
How about pools? When I was a kid, if you had a pool, you were rich and affluent. No one could spend part of their $40,000.00 in 1980 on a pool. There would have been no money left for food.
The government delivers far more for the lesser taxes we pay too. People are coming here from around the world because they want less money than others? It’s hard to start over for everyone, but it does get better over time. Look at our Vietnamese or Chinese families now.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ontario wanting to become have-not?
Do I believe it is inevitable that our province will become a have-not? No. I think the first thing the province should to is give everyone a rebate for any capital gains tax that was paid federally and then flatten income taxes completely. In the meantime, it could get rid of marketing boards, liquor boards and everything else that distorts, twists and oppresses our economy and makes it less profitable, efficient and job full. Go and unleash this economy.
Ontario has all sorts of natural trade and commerce advantages. Take advantage of them. Take the lead on opening up the province for trade with the rest of the country. Unilaterally remove all barriers to trade. Fight hard for the single market for commodities and stocks and, above all, take away the burdens on the economy of government overspending, the monopolization of health and education and subsidy of money-losing businesses. Get rid of regulations and costs that make good businesses run away.
Tell the mayor of Toronto to implement his own commission’s recommendations about how to make Toronto more efficient before either the province or the city goes to Ottawa to beg for assistance. Get your house in order.
There is no way or reason why our province should ever be have-not. Give it the chance to go out there and work.
This might be an agenda for the Conservative Party of Ontario if it is interested.
Ontario has all sorts of natural trade and commerce advantages. Take advantage of them. Take the lead on opening up the province for trade with the rest of the country. Unilaterally remove all barriers to trade. Fight hard for the single market for commodities and stocks and, above all, take away the burdens on the economy of government overspending, the monopolization of health and education and subsidy of money-losing businesses. Get rid of regulations and costs that make good businesses run away.
Tell the mayor of Toronto to implement his own commission’s recommendations about how to make Toronto more efficient before either the province or the city goes to Ottawa to beg for assistance. Get your house in order.
There is no way or reason why our province should ever be have-not. Give it the chance to go out there and work.
This might be an agenda for the Conservative Party of Ontario if it is interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)