SURVEYS AND COMMON SENSE: Do consumer confidence or business confidence polls ever predict anything of any value or anything we didn't already know or that could not have been predicted some other way? I'm sure the answer is no. A survey would be interesting...
As for mortgage and subprime bailout laws, why is it that someone who was improvident with his/her money and spent unwisely and borrowed badly get a better deal now that things have gone wrong than those who have worked hard and have kept their credit rating? This sort of legislation punishes good behaviour and rewards bad behaviour.
NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY: Gordon Laxer, a professor of political economy at the University of Alberta, says that we are going to run out of natural gas reserves in 9.3 years. That's all we have left. In 1993, we were supposed to have 12 years of oil reserves left and 16 years of gas left. What happened? Until we remove the biggest restriction on the development of alternative fuel technology, such as capital gains taxes, there will not be the sort of development we need from the private sector. That's where the investment is for this sector. It won't be like the Manhattan project. We're not fighting the Nazis. We're fighting to get an oil contract from ourselves instead of tyrants and dictators. Not quite the same problem. So let's stop penalizing high-tech, innovation and research companies as they try to develop the very technology and alternatives that we need to move over to other energy sources.
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: The more people a representative has to represent, the less representative he/she becomes. If you look a the populations of three major democracies, the UK, the US and Canada. Since WWII, Britain's population has gone up roughly 10%. Its representation in Parliament has gone up about 5%. There are fewer MPs for people on average then there were before.
In the US, there are 435 Members of Congress (not including 100 Senators). During WWII, when the population was 50% smaller, the total was 529 (not including Hawaii and Alaska and including 100 Senators). But the population of the US has gone up 50% since then, so the average Congressman is representing twice as many people on average as his/her predecessor during WWII. While some states have declined in population, the likely figure is likely the same in most states.
The allotment of representatives is constitutionally fixed (since the 1960's) and the only reason the number of Members has increased is because of the admission of Hawaii and Alaska. There are more resources, technology and staff available now to a Congressman than there were in the 1960's. But he/she still represents twice as many people. And there are more committees to eat into his/her time.
In Canada, there were 264 Members of Parliament for nearly the first 100 years of Confederation. Our population did not affect how many members there were. In the 1970's there was a big redraw of the map and it added about 18 Members to our House and brought it up to 282. It was an unprecedented expansion of representation. We now have about 305 Members only 30 years later. We have therefore added about 10% of the original number of Members.
Our population, in the 1940's, was about 15 million. It's now twice that. The average Member is now representing about 80% more people than before. This is better than in the US, but not as good as in Britain. What's worse, a number of provinces are guaranteed a number of Members regardless of population. PEI has four and Quebec gets 75. Therefore, with the 30 year head start of the baby boom and shrinking populations in PEI and Quebec, the population is totally out of sync with its representation.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
JULY 3, 2008
BAD HOLLYWOOD, BAD BAD HOLLYWOOD:
It is unfortunate how so many times in these action movies, there has to be a blond face at the end with a come hither look who promises more to come. Sad trend. Have to keep those contractually obligated starlets employed in some way, I suppose.
AFRICA:
It’s amazing to me that when it comes to African affairs, apparently it’s leave it to the Africans when it’s time to intervene. This is destroying the continent. We have to help them with everything else from irrigation to innoculation. But when it comes to their governments who cause these problems in the first place, something that would truly help the people of Africa, we have to leave it to them.
This is a failed policy towards Western Africa. Non interventionism is copping out. Zimbabwe is a case in point. The protection of the people is an empty doctrine.
Millions of people have died over thousands of year to prove the principles of good government, liberty, law, business, trade and freedom. This means nothing at the UN where they continue to debate them, don’t apply them and show contempt for them. It’s like if someone went to the New England Journal of Medicine and tried to publish an article saying garlic is a cure for AIDS because all the other treatments are western concepts.
Dams aren’t made of concrete because it’s a western concept. We don’t dress astronauts in cardboard because someone from the west designed spacesuits. Some principles are timeless and universal regardless of where they came from. Many of us admire Confucius and don’t care if he came from the East.
But at the UN, real debate is replaced with hatred and hypocrisy. When we catch a state in the act, we shouldn’t consult with some of that state’s friends and allies to decide what to do with it. I guess it’s time for the US and the UK and perhaps France to do something real. The UN has failed yet again. What is the point of this organization anymore? Someone else can run its programs and probably do a better job.
It’s good to talk, but there’s a limit. At some point, something has to be done. The only thing not done against Mr. Mugabe (except very severe sanctions which would have hurt the people more than him) was military intervention, arrest and prosecution of Mr. Mugabe. Now there will be people around the world who will follow his inspiration to become just like him.
What would Winston do indeed. The lot of the tyrant should be a relic by now. Winston would be shocked that the UN doesn’t stand up for this principle. Even Nelson Mandela can’t comment against Mugabe.
It is unfortunate how so many times in these action movies, there has to be a blond face at the end with a come hither look who promises more to come. Sad trend. Have to keep those contractually obligated starlets employed in some way, I suppose.
AFRICA:
It’s amazing to me that when it comes to African affairs, apparently it’s leave it to the Africans when it’s time to intervene. This is destroying the continent. We have to help them with everything else from irrigation to innoculation. But when it comes to their governments who cause these problems in the first place, something that would truly help the people of Africa, we have to leave it to them.
This is a failed policy towards Western Africa. Non interventionism is copping out. Zimbabwe is a case in point. The protection of the people is an empty doctrine.
Millions of people have died over thousands of year to prove the principles of good government, liberty, law, business, trade and freedom. This means nothing at the UN where they continue to debate them, don’t apply them and show contempt for them. It’s like if someone went to the New England Journal of Medicine and tried to publish an article saying garlic is a cure for AIDS because all the other treatments are western concepts.
Dams aren’t made of concrete because it’s a western concept. We don’t dress astronauts in cardboard because someone from the west designed spacesuits. Some principles are timeless and universal regardless of where they came from. Many of us admire Confucius and don’t care if he came from the East.
But at the UN, real debate is replaced with hatred and hypocrisy. When we catch a state in the act, we shouldn’t consult with some of that state’s friends and allies to decide what to do with it. I guess it’s time for the US and the UK and perhaps France to do something real. The UN has failed yet again. What is the point of this organization anymore? Someone else can run its programs and probably do a better job.
It’s good to talk, but there’s a limit. At some point, something has to be done. The only thing not done against Mr. Mugabe (except very severe sanctions which would have hurt the people more than him) was military intervention, arrest and prosecution of Mr. Mugabe. Now there will be people around the world who will follow his inspiration to become just like him.
What would Winston do indeed. The lot of the tyrant should be a relic by now. Winston would be shocked that the UN doesn’t stand up for this principle. Even Nelson Mandela can’t comment against Mugabe.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
July 2, 2008
It’s typical that so few have pointed out another way to bring the oil price down would be to simply make developing countries charge what the price is for oil. Many of them, including Indonesia, China and Venezuela charge a thimble’s worth of the real price of oil to its people. The result is that they use far more of it than they should. The use of oil would go down if the real price was charged. In turn, demand would go down and the price would fall. Supply would become greater than demand rather than tightly higher.
We don’t hear our politicians talk about this at all. Venezuela is charging $5.00 a barrel for domestic use. It’s a small country, but when you see China and Indonesia subsidizing oil, it becomes a massive spur on demand that is created artificially by a government and unwelcome at this time.
Other ways to downsize the oil price: drill and explore more. Announce that you’re doing it. Go for coal and develop technologies to make it ever cleaner. Go to alternatives and announce the building of more nuclear reactors. Bring in tougher mileage standards. Insist that governments of emerging economies not bring in carbon taxes but make their people pay the real price of oil.
The best way to control inflation is not to loose monetarily. Friedman said that real inflation can only come from looser monetary policy. If that is still tight, strict and has good targets, then even a commodity shock like this will not create inflation of any real level like what we saw in the 1970s. Inflation remains barely 3% when we know that in the 1970s inflation was 10-15% in any given year. Unemployment was also in the double digits then. They called the whole mess stagflation.
Most governments get this. We’re not close to that. The misery index is barely at 9%. In the 1970s it was usually in the 20% range.
The dirty secret of the carbon tax the Liberals are proposing is that it will not see its revenues drop after being added because of reduced use of carbon. In fact, it will go up and there will be more revenues from it. It will not regulate or restrict emissions. Heating oil and gas, which it will tax, are things people need. People don’t have a choice about using some of these things, especially if the weather is extreme or they need to go on a business trip. Look at the GST. It was not only considered to be revenue neutral but no one believed it would become the staple for revenue generation that it is now. That’s probably why it’s such a good idea. It will switch us over to consumption taxes in a real way. But will the income tax reduction be similar?
A clue to the Liberal intentions on this lies in the fact that except for an auditor-general’s slap on the wrist, if it does gather in more revenue than it actually returned in tax cuts, there would be no sanction or punishment for the government. Much like the GST, it could be a money spinner. No one holds the federal government (even the Liberals who promised to get rid of it) now that the GST is spinning so much revenue that it balances our budgets.
ZIMBABWE: It’s not colonialism to invade this country. Are we willing to sacrifice this entire country because we feel guilty about what we did or didn’t do in Africa in the past? Why is this different from Sierra Leone? Such hypocrisy. It’s just murder now. I guess at least Zimbabwe isn’t a "failed" state. There is a government, of sorts, that is evidently strong enough to beat the crap out of its own people.
Look at Burma and North Korea. Expect Zimbabwe to imitate the model. Expect others if we don’t intervene there.
We don’t hear our politicians talk about this at all. Venezuela is charging $5.00 a barrel for domestic use. It’s a small country, but when you see China and Indonesia subsidizing oil, it becomes a massive spur on demand that is created artificially by a government and unwelcome at this time.
Other ways to downsize the oil price: drill and explore more. Announce that you’re doing it. Go for coal and develop technologies to make it ever cleaner. Go to alternatives and announce the building of more nuclear reactors. Bring in tougher mileage standards. Insist that governments of emerging economies not bring in carbon taxes but make their people pay the real price of oil.
The best way to control inflation is not to loose monetarily. Friedman said that real inflation can only come from looser monetary policy. If that is still tight, strict and has good targets, then even a commodity shock like this will not create inflation of any real level like what we saw in the 1970s. Inflation remains barely 3% when we know that in the 1970s inflation was 10-15% in any given year. Unemployment was also in the double digits then. They called the whole mess stagflation.
Most governments get this. We’re not close to that. The misery index is barely at 9%. In the 1970s it was usually in the 20% range.
The dirty secret of the carbon tax the Liberals are proposing is that it will not see its revenues drop after being added because of reduced use of carbon. In fact, it will go up and there will be more revenues from it. It will not regulate or restrict emissions. Heating oil and gas, which it will tax, are things people need. People don’t have a choice about using some of these things, especially if the weather is extreme or they need to go on a business trip. Look at the GST. It was not only considered to be revenue neutral but no one believed it would become the staple for revenue generation that it is now. That’s probably why it’s such a good idea. It will switch us over to consumption taxes in a real way. But will the income tax reduction be similar?
A clue to the Liberal intentions on this lies in the fact that except for an auditor-general’s slap on the wrist, if it does gather in more revenue than it actually returned in tax cuts, there would be no sanction or punishment for the government. Much like the GST, it could be a money spinner. No one holds the federal government (even the Liberals who promised to get rid of it) now that the GST is spinning so much revenue that it balances our budgets.
ZIMBABWE: It’s not colonialism to invade this country. Are we willing to sacrifice this entire country because we feel guilty about what we did or didn’t do in Africa in the past? Why is this different from Sierra Leone? Such hypocrisy. It’s just murder now. I guess at least Zimbabwe isn’t a "failed" state. There is a government, of sorts, that is evidently strong enough to beat the crap out of its own people.
Look at Burma and North Korea. Expect Zimbabwe to imitate the model. Expect others if we don’t intervene there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)