How big government inadvertently stifles enterprise.

The other day I was listening to the Current, a CBC Radio morning program. The documentary segment was titled The Philosophy of Pig. The producer/narrator interviewed a woman, Barbara Schaefer from the Ottawa area who had lost her job as an environmental policy advisor for the Federal Government. Rather than look for another job in her field she chose to become a pig farmer, running her own business. As a farmer Ms. Schaefer breeds and raises a rare heritage variety called the Large Black Pig in as natural a way as possible. Recently she has expanded her operation to other rare heritage breeds of cattle, chickens and ducks. Now this may seem rather unlikely but Ms. Schaefer explained that she enjoys the active life of a farmer over the sedentary life of a policy wonk. So she’s happy and productive, and likely far more productive as a farmer than she was at her government desk job.

The point of this is; here is a very well educated person using her energy and wit to produce a product that would likely not exist, thus creating wealth for herself, her family and the surrounding community from which she buys and sells various products and services. As a government worker she was technically in the employ of the taxpayer. Her salary was taken from government revenue and added to the size of the government. Presumably her creativity and talent were directed at supporting government policies and while she may have produced good work for her department, what was produced likely added little to the gross domestic product of Canada. Now I don’t mean that her government work was useless, it may in fact have had great impact on government policy when and if it was implemented. But as a farmer her efforts are often immediately obvious and her product, if it can be eventually sold, fulfils basic human needs.

Take this individual and multiply her by thousands, there are thousands of well educated government workers whose talent and creativity have been removed from private enterprise so that they can manage, conduct, administer, advice, coordinate, control, regulate, oversee, well you get the picture; these people are not in the private domain, they are governing. Of course most of these people are grateful they have a job and their government job likely has good pay and good perks, and they may even provide a necessary service. The issue that I have is there are too many government employees in too many government departments for me to believe that all their talents are being used efficiently and effectively. I think government is far too big; of course that’s another issue.
Imagine the economic impact on Canada if just a few thousand of these clever individuals were in Ms. Schaefer’s position, that is, in the private sector, the part of the economy that actually adds wealth to the country rather than in government where budgets and salaries are taken from redistributed collected taxes. Imagine the new products, new services, new investments, and new jobs created; it’s all good. Big government not only diverts huge sums of money from the private domain, but also diverts entrepreneurial talent. That cost is almost incalculable.

The Evidence for Evolution......yet again.

I was in a store yesterday and I spotted Richard Dawkins new book The Greatest Show on Earth. I was tempted to buy it but I have so many books to read now that I decided to wait. The book is subtitled The Evidence for Evolution, and the fact is I don't need to be convinced having taught the subject for many years. I'll get around to buying the book at some point - but the subtitle bothers me now.
The "evidence for evolution" is a commonly used chapter title in high school and university level textbooks throughout North America and probably around the world. The troubling part to me is that the evidence takes up a large amount of space in these books often at the expense of whats new and wonderful in the field at the time the book was published. I'm sure the Dawkins book has a lot of the latest information in it but don't you wonder why the evidence must be rehashed over and over again? Of course that's a rhetorical question, I know why. No other theory as well entrenched as evolution has such organized and vocal opposition. No other theory needs to rehash its origins in such great detail again and again. No other theory needs to rationalize its very existence as Dawkins' new book seems to be doing. Texts on modern atomic theory, the theory of flight, the heliocentric theory, Newton's Theory of Gravity and on and on give short shrift to origins and evidence. Newton's Theory of Gravity is still routinely taught in high school even though its been shown to be wrong, but because the math works at speeds not approaching the speed of light, its still taught. Everyone believes in atoms and molecules but the details of this theory are astoundingly complex and way beyond the comprehension of most people, but not a peep of opposition. The evidence for evolution is "over-freakin-whelming" and the theory is simple enough to be easily grasped by a high school junior student. Maybe that's the problem its too simple. Every week new evidence is reported, check out the new "missing link" flying reptile discovery announced this week.
In a few weeks we will mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species" Darwin's monumental explanation of the myriad varieties of life on Earth. Its time to examine that book's subtitle: by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That is what needs to be studied - that is one of the mechanisms of evolution, as for the evidence, its all around you, if you don't see it get the Dawkins book.

Baraking News............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nqvyBTWis

Cashing in on the audacity of hype

No matter what you think of the United Nations whenever it functioned as a way to defuse world tensions and prevent or delay conflict it served a purpose for that moment. Late in October of 1956 Israel, France and Britain invaded Egyptian territory when Egypt announced it would nationalize and blockade the Suez Canal. Egypt was reacting to the withdrawal of funding to build the Aswan Dam when it recognized the new Communist regime in China at the expense of the Taiwanese. A Canadian diplomat, Lester B. Pearson, defused a potentially volatile situation by negotiating a withdrawal of the invading force replaced by a UN force (UNEF) led by "neutral" Canadian Troops. So began the "tradition" of Canadian Peacekeepers and because the Egyptians objected to the Union Jack on the Canadian Red Ensign Pearson eventually proposed a distinctive new Canadian Flag while he was Prime Minister of Canada in 1965. For his efforts in brokering a peace that reopened the Suez Canal during a dangerous time in the Cold War, Lester Pearson received the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize.
Today it was announced in Oslo that US President Barak Obama will be given the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. So how do his accomplishments compare to Lester Pearson? Well, Obama doesn't like nukes, but hasn't removed any from the American arsenal. Obama doesn't like war, but America has two wars going on with little chance of either ending any time soon. Obama doesn't like torture but Guantanamo Bay is still in business with no closure imminent. Obama doesn't like climate change because..........it's bad. Obama provides us with hope for a better future.......that's starting to get lame. What's he done exactly? Well Obama isn't Bush......maybe that warrants a prize.

eHealth - What is a Billion Dollars?

Just over a week ago I helped organize an information booth for the Ontario Libertarian Party at a large book fair in downtown Toronto. Our purpose was to publicise the party and solicit new members. We used a technique developed by The Advocates for Self-Government called Operation Politically Homeless where we asked passersby if they thought government was doing a good job. Depending on their answer we followed up with a short quiz to determine if the participant had libertarian leanings or not. From the few that did, we asked if they would like us to contact them. For us it was a productive day that gave us insights to the mood of a small select portion of the electorate. Of those people that consented to be interviewed roughly half were satisfied with government (typically we did not specify what level of government but we are Ontario-centric), the other half not so much. I think this degree of satisfaction (troubling to me) is likely a function of general apathy, ignorance and complacency. Most people don't really pay attention to government except during elections and then usually to the promises on the table rather than the record of the past. Of course that is part of the reason that governments grow larger, the promises invariably include new programs that allegedly benefit the taxpayer, spending increases and so must taxes. So when governments set out to save tax dollars by instituting efficiencies it sounds good but too often that's not what happens.
Ontario joined the other provinces and territories to create an Electronic Health Record (EHR) 10 years ago to streamline patient care across the country and save the Canadian health-care system $6 billion a year, a worthy goal. In Ontario the project was started by the Harris Tories and continued by the McGuinty Liberals and to this day Ontario lags most of the country in developing and implementing these EHRs. In a report released today, Auditor-General Jim McCarter concludes that "Ontario taxpayers have not received value for money for this $1-billion investment." The money was squandered. I find it hard to get my head around a billion dollars, that of course is to the advantage of the government, its just a number. In the current Great Recession it doesn't even sound like much considering all the bailouts that have occurred. But look at it this way, a billion dollars pays 10 000 people a $100 000 salary for one year - good salary. Or it pays 286 people a salary of $100 000 each for their entire 35 year working career. Or if you had a billion dollars in the bank at the current pitiful 1.05% interest rate (the daily rate today at the most popular Internet bank) you would make $10.5 million in interest a year, $875 000 a month! Oh, to dream! So now imagine this money frittered away by the Ontario government, just one of the many levels of government under whose jurisdiction your pockets are picked. Is it possible that the other levels of government are frittering away money? Do bears poop in the woods? Does the government do a good job?

Scientist duplicates Shroud of Turin "effect"

An Italian scientist financed by a group of atheists and agnostics claims to have reproduced the photographic effect seen on the Shroud of Turin the alleged burial cloth of Jesus. The Shroud was shown to be a fake 20 years ago when it was carbon-dated to the 13th century, but no one until now has reproduced the effect using techniques available back then. The controversy continues, but only in the minds of theists.

Yet another missing link in Human evolution

Tomorrow in the journal Science eleven papers by 47 authors from 10 countries will describe the analysis of a discovery made in 1992. That discovery may help solve the problem of how the ancestral line that led to humans split from the the line that led to chimpanzees for which there has been virtually no evidence until now. It may be that the newest creature, Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardi), which predates the widely know "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) by over one million years is in our lineage from the common ancestor between chimps and humans. The discovery made near where Lucy was found suggests that continued research in that part of Ethiopia could lead to that last common ancestor of humans and chimps. This also shows the deliberate slowness of scientific discovery, 17 years of research, peer review and debate before a joint announcement is made. Another missing link in the long list of missing links that creationists claim don't exist.

Rescuing the Rescuers

The economy is in recovery, the financial world has survived its greatest test since the 1930's, at least that's what all the pundits on most media outlets are proclaiming. I don't necessarily believe that history repeats itself, but I am suspicious of the sales pitch that we are getting right now (because there is still huge amounts of cash around the world sitting on the sidelines waiting for the second shoe to drop). In the Great Depression the first market crash was followed by a recovery of similar proportions to what has happened since March 2009. But government interventions in the 1930's prolonged that recovery resulting in World War II. We may now be in a similar situation. The market tinkerers especially in the United States will soon be required to unwind there positions without upsetting the applecart. All countries where market interventions were large will be doing the same thing, the trick is timing. Its hard to imagine the arrogance of these guys. Few of them foresaw the extent of the market crash in 2008, most "experts" predicted a short and shallow recession. Yet now, these same experts know exactly how to fix things and can predict the consequences of their actions. They are smarter than all the millions of investors around the world and everything will be fine. Yeah right!

In Canada, Prime Minister Harper issued a "stimulus report card" yesterday proclaiming that things are just hunky-dory and he's doing a wonderful job. Two recent articles in the Globe and Mail cast some doubt on the possibility that a recovery can be controlled. Preston Manning wonders how long it will take to recover from the stimulus, and Gwyn Morgan wonders why governments fail to learn from past mistakes. Free-market capitalism is not the cause of the financial crisis as Morgan points out, and has lately been popularized in a movie by Michael Moore. In fact, recent elections in Europe are not supporting socialist ideals as may be expected due to the Great Recession. Even in Canada polls show there is no rush to support the Liberals or NDP. Maybe people aren't fooled, maybe not. Are we out of the woods, or have we just come to a clearing in the forest? Time will tell.

The Growing Federal Parliament

A Bill in the Canadian Parliament will be introduced soon that will change the number of seats in the House of Commons from 308 to 342. All of the additional 34 seats will come from Ontario (21), Alberta (6) and British Columbia (7). The rest of the country remains unaffected. This change will go some of the way to repairing the gross underrepresentation of these provinces while at the same time bloating the size of parliament. An interesting article by Brian Lee Crowley called "How rep follows pop - and what it means for Quebec", discusses how this change may be the beginning of a Canadian transformation away from the socialist economic and social policies that have catered to Quebec for the past 50 years.

Casualty of the Toronto Garbage Strike

In a surprise announcement this morning the Mayor of Toronto David Miller, said he would not seek a third term. Citing family reasons for not running, Miller proclaimed that he had accomplished all he wanted to do to get Toronto on the right track. The political reality is that polls have shown him far behind possible other candidates which would make fund raising difficult with the election just over a year away. The garbage strike in the midst of the Great Recession showed everyone for a moment what it means to support union "rights" at the expense of taxpayer expectations. The disclosure yesterday of a $200 million error in the "sick bank" account (coincidence?) makes Miller look like he was hiding facts from everyone to favour the unions. Miller will serve out the rest of his term as a lame duck, possibly positioning himself for Michael Bryant's old job as CEO of Invest Toronto which he has taken over. Doing two jobs by a lame duck, isn't bureaucracy wonderful?

Anthropogenic Global Warming: Who put the hype in hypothesis?

A blog by Peter Foster in the National Post (Full Comment) caught my eye this week. I have studied and taught science for more than 35 years so I am well familiar with the Scientific Method and how it is used. Mr. Foster's comments on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pretty much says it all for me.
I have no doubt that Global Warming is occurring or has occurred, otherwise I'd be writing this from under at least 1000 metres of ice that passed through these parts during the last Ice Age. The ice is gone, so it must have melted because of rising temperatures whose cause has yet to be determined, but it wasn't us. In fact the melting continues and has now reached Canada's most northern outposts including Arctic waters. As well, glaciers and ice sheets around the world seem to be shrinking, and yes it is possible that certain gases released by human activity have accelerated this melting; that is the hypothesis that underlies AGW. Make no mistake, it is still an hypothesis. In science an hypothesis is not a fact or even a theory. To use an hypothesis to make predictions, extrapolate consequences or anything else is bad science and of course that is the basis of the general belief that AGW will lead to global catastrophe. A tenuous cause predicts catastrophic events that are accepted by a consensus of scientists and politicians. The effect is accepted before the cause is proven. Why governments and many scientists have acceded to this idea with apparently little dissension is discussed in Mr. Foster's article but no real explanation is provided. Here is where I must show how utterly cynical I am. If you were a scientist working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) it is not in your self interest to question the need for your employment. If you are in government and you can expand your power to include huge amounts of money and influence it is not in your self interest to question the authority of the IPCC.

All science always operates under varying degrees of uncertainty, even the simplest weather forecast is couched in terms of probability of this or that happening. Weather prediction is a science because as more data is gathered the degree of uncertainty is diminished and weather events can be predicted with reasonable accuracy in the short term. Climate prediction is very different. Although our computer climate models show temperature increases in the future with potentially catastrophic effects, the models and the very computers themselves are so new that the accuracy of their predictions is questionable at best compared to currently used weather models. With that level of certainty is it wise to spend billions or more to mitigate a situation that may not happen? Then why do it? Self interest - but not yours.

What are the entitlements of Canadian Citizenship?

What are the entitlements of Canadian Citizenship if one is detained or in trouble in a foreign country? A good question given recent news of the Somali-born Canadian who was "detained" by Kenyan authorities for 3 months. Not only did Canadian authorities ignore her pleas for help they actually invalidated her valid Passport. Why didn't Canadian authorities investigate the valid Passport she carried? Was it stolen? The women had a pocket full of other Canadian ID; was that not worthy of investigation? Is this a case of racial discrimination? One might expect Canadian Border Services to consider such a case as worthy of further investigation, at least check out her story and do the minimal due diligence. Instead she was ignored. Fortunately for her, an extraordinary genetic test showed her to be the person described in the Passport and a remedy for her plight exists in Canadian law, she is suing Canada for $2.5 million and an apology. This case highlights our government in action (no pun intented) for all to see. Is the government obliged to protect its citizens and if not what other purpose does it serve? Hmmm.....good question.

Religion losing its grip on America

America is becoming more secular....slowly. In a survey released by Trinity College of Hartford: the ARIS 2008 the headline in part is "Non-religious on the Rise". Finally!

Charter Cities

In recent years Cuba has been a destination for many Canadians to escape the winter. For me the politics of that place for the past 50 years is a turnoff and I'm not a fan of sun and surf anyway. But a small and problematic part of that island is run by Americans, Guantánamo Bay, may become a bargaining chip in Obama's overtures to Latin America. If the Cuban ruler, the younger Castro or whoever takes over, has any smarts they may opt for an idea put forth by economist Paul Romer. Romer unveils a bold idea: "charter cities," city-scale administrative zones governed by a coalition of nations. Could Guantánamo Bay become the next Hong Kong? Watch:

Government bailouts and Moral Hazard

Another great column today by Gwyn Morgan in the Globe and Mail titled: Bailouts and the nasty consequences of 'moral hazard'. It points the finger at the cause of the financial mess that started in the U.S. and then proceeds to explain how "they gets us coming, and they gets us going." Morgan rehashes much of what has already been said, but he is more lucid and speaks with the authority of a Canadian business person and says it far better than I could. Do yourself a favour and read it.