According to George Jonas that is what governments do "create economic niches"; he goes on to say: "criminalizing conduct makes it pay" in his recent The National Post op-ed.
The Post is running a five-part-series on the sale of "illegal" cigarettes by members of First Nations (natives) groups in Canada. Jonas points out that a black market in cigarettes does not exist....."That's the first thing to know about it. Markets are colourless. "Black market" is what the authorities call whatever segment of the free market they want to restrict for whatever reason." I'm the last person you would expect to defend cigarette smoking or any other kind of addictive habit, but sometimes freedom means 'letting go' and allowing some behaviours to go on as long as they only affect the user. This is such a case, and Jonas's column is worthy of your time.
Municipal politics in this country is typically boring. Not this year in Toronto! The campaigning seems interminably long compared to what happens at the provincial or federal level. At those upper levels, campaigns have been legislated down to just 4 weeks or so. This way the incumbent party can't screw-up too badly and they may be able to finagle another victory.
Not in municipal politics, the Toronto campaign has been in going full-bore (no pun intended) at least three months now and there is still a month to go. In this particular year that is the best thing about it.
One unlikely candidate, Councillor Rob Ford, has emerged with a substantial lead if polls can be believed. He has almost twice the percentage in favour as his closest opponent. Even I like him, sort of.
Toronto has the reputation of voting federally for union-friendly statist politicians. Liberals or New Democrats get elected throughout most Toronto ridings. Even the last mayor and council were big government types and of course their big spending ways have created a huge debt problem for the city during a bad economic downturn.
The current Mayor Miller is known for "negotiating" juicy contracts with unions (like garbage workers), adding all sorts of annoying surcharges for the privilege living in the city and slapping red-tape on anything that looks like progress. Wisely, Miller has decided not to run again because the pendulum is swinging the other way.
The new mantra is responsible government, ('cause they have been irresponsible up until now) even so some candidates insist union jobs should be saved, tunnels should be built for cars to travel unimpeded, transit should be improved and every pot should have a chicken in it.
Ford has a better idea. He is the only one suggesting that cuts need to be made in the size of government. He's still a big government guy (and he's big too) a union-unfriendly statist politician, so I'm not that excited. But the length of the campaign has focused those voters who are paying attention on costs and size of government. That may be why Ford is popular, but it's early days yet.
Neil Reynolds highlights George Mason University and it's surprising basketball team. More importantly he uses that example to take a kick at Keynes and chalk up one for the Austrian School. Have a look here.
The first few weeks of September have always been a special time for me. As a student, these were the beginning days of a new school year. As a teacher, same thing but from a totally different perspective and with totally different challenges.
In Canada, education is the responsibility of the provincial governments, and because I taught in just one province for 35 years I'll try to restrict my remarks to it, Ontario.
The people here have an unwarranted smugness in their belief that we have a pretty good system of education, after all todays adults by-and-large are products of that system, so it must be good. Of course it really is difficult to distinguish Ontario from any other jurisdiction because education has become the responsibility of the local government. Across Canada and the United States the vast majority of students were taught within the "public elementary or secondary" system and the similarities, unfortunately, are greater than the differences.
Ever wonder why government controls education yet allows people to fend for themselves when it comes to really big things like clothing, food and shelter? Aren't those a little more important (I don't want to give the statists any ideas) than readin' ritin' an' rithmetic? Do you think the reason has anything to do with control? Thats right control and indoctrination. I hope I'm not starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I'm very far from that believe me, and I don't really believe governments are that effective in our democratic system. No, public education in Canada began with the one group that is that effective and diabolical enough to want control and indoctrination: the church.
The earliest Canadian schools were instituted by the local priesthood like the Jesuits in New France, which later became Lower Canada and then Quebec. That model was used in Upper Canada (now Ontario) where Egerton Ryerson realized that the Jesuit's success could be translated to a more secular state-controlled school system. Ryerson saw this as one way to assimilate the immigrant hordes, the alien elements that had just arrived, into the ways of their new country. That model is the foundation of the Canadian system of education: control the curriculum and mould (if you can) the population throughout their formative years.
If you don't believe that, consider the Residential schools that "moulded" First Nations children to be fine upstanding Canadian citizens. The unacknowledged purpose of those facilities was to effectively "kill the Indian in the child". We are still dealing with the mess that experiment has left behind.
That's not the only vestige of our earlier history that still affects us in Ontario today. Ontario supports a Roman Catholic school system with public tax money to the exclusion of all other religions. Some will argue that is a constitutional responsibility, but that does not make it fair or reasonable. A recent election (2007) during which taxpayers support for all religious schools was an issue was soundly defeated. So Ontarians don't like the blending of church and school, yet they tolerate the Catholic incongruity.
Education is the number two largest component of the Ontario budget (next to Health Care) and each year Education costs seem to rise without any marked improvement in outcomes. The Fraser Institute produces report cards for Ontario schools based on standardized tests given to students in particular grades. The results are mediocre at best for both Elementary and Secondary schools with little or no improvement given the budget increases. These Fraser Report Cards have become a bone of contention for the teacher's unions, because it exposes their inadequacy. One union actually wants to stop giving the standardized tests because they emphasize literacy and numeracy to the exclusion of other parts of the curriculum, imagine that.
Premier Dalton McGuinty seems to be proud of his record of increasing education spending with such things as all day kindergarten. McGuinty thinks that earlier education somehow improves later outcomes. While that seems to be intuitively correct, there is little evidence to support it from other jurisdictions that have tried.
Ultimately the problem in education as is true in so many so-called government responsibilities, boils down to choice. If "choice" works in food, clothing, housing and so many other areas of our lives, why would it not work in education? Why must there be one official curriculum in Ontario? Why must all parents (and taxpayers) support the one school system with their tax money? Why must parents who send children to private schools pay twice?
Here is another view, a more libertarian view. Try and have a good school year.
That's what it says, did you know there was a contest? Hell yeah!
I found this by accident, those of you who are being fleeced on an instalment basis by the CRA, the Sept. 15th deadline is coming up fast! I found this "clever" video by accident. The CRA is actually enlisting citizens to help them write and distribute propaganda (Herr Goebbels would not approve). I've included below the YouTube video (about an evil barber) that was the First Place English winner! If you want to tell CRA how much you enjoyed this video why not click this link and choose "like or dislike". Tell your friends, spread the link, the CRA loves you and wants your money.
Ontario residents may have noticed that their electricity provider has increased the per kilowatt-hour rates for use. One cause of the increases can be traced to a report published by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) in March 2008 (Eliminating Subsidies and Moving to Full Cost Electricity Pricing by Jack Gibbons) suggesting that subsidies to the production of electricity of almost $8-billion annually should be eliminated over a ten year period (at 3.5% per year) to bring Ontario more in line with other jurisdictions in North America. Subsidies became policy because it gave Ontario a “competitive advantage”. As in any economic situation that only looks at one side of an issue, that “competitive advantage” is coming back to bite Ontarians. The genius that created the subsidies neglected to consider that they might discourage energy conservation and investment in small-scale generation, and they have. The article from OCAA also points to a resulting “productivity gap” between Ontario and neighbouring competitors such as New York State, which uses just half the electricity compared to Ontario to produce one dollar’s worth of GDP. While the subsidies were a bad idea to begin with, the story behind the additional increases gets much worse.
The local utilities appear to be the villain in this story but they simply distribute electricity for their municipal shareholders to the consumers. The real villains were previous governments who created the subsidies.Now the McGuinty government is compounding those increases in its rush to be green at all costs – mostly yours.
Over 100 years ago competitive cheap hydroelectric power became widely available to businesses and residents of Ontario and it became the industrial dynamo of Canada. We still benefit from that very good start, but today, rather than encourage a competitive market in the production of cheap electricity the McGuinty Liberals are doing the opposite. They have made long-term deals with various companies (like Samsung Corp.) to purchase electric power at rates far in excess of the current market price of 4.5-cent per kilowatt-hour market rate (a 100 watt light bulb could run for 10 hours for 4.5 cents).
As a result Ontario will be forced to buy electricity at between 13.5 and 44.3-cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the next twenty years from various solar and wind power companies. Recently (Aug. 13, 2010) McGuinty renegotiated a deal with 16,000 solar power project applicants to pay them 64 cents per kWh (down from an initial 80 cents) when they come on-line in the near future. Remember, these are intermittent power sources (no sun/wind no power), so “back-up” fossil fuel sources will be standing by (at additional expense because McGuinty is closing the cheap coal burning plants).
These massive subsidies to green energy are a result of policy brought about by the Ontario Green Energy Act (2009) which was shepherded through Queen’s Park by the powerful lobby group the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association (OSEA). Under the new Green Energy Act, former Energy Minister (now Toronto mayoral hopeful) George Smitherman (also of e-Health infamy), directed Hydro One to connect to the new heavily subsidized solar and wind power generators at a cost of $2.3-billion (the ones that will get 64-cents/kWh for their power). The OSEA claims to speak for Ontario ratepayers and it has exerted its influence through another group: the Green Energy Act Alliance (GEAA). How do these groups get funded? Well, it’s almost incestuous.
A recent article in the Financial Post (Aug. 17, 2010) by Parker Gallant points to a list of sponsors including: the Ontario Trillium Foundation (it distributes lottery revenue), the City of Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Ontario Power Authority, the Ministries of Energy, Natural Resources, Environment, Aboriginal Affairs, Hydro One and on and on. Its largely tax money that is influencing government policy, not public input.
In November 2009 OSEA held its 1st Annual Community Power Conference. The sponsors above plus a few other branches of government and a very few private-sector sponsors that directly benefited (law firms, equipment importers, unions) paid for the conference whose Honorary Chair was David Suzuki (his foundation also gets money from Trillium above). The keynote speaker was then Energy Minister George Smitherman who is slated for this year’s conference, too. Somehow in all this the word “cozy” seems inadequate to describe how Ontario’s electricity policymaking works.
Is it possible to find a more expensive way to produce electricity than the McGuinty Liberals have? I doubt it. Imagine what kind of competitive position this creates for Ontario businesses for the next 100 years. Of course the new HST adds an additional 8% to your electric bill, as it will continue to go up and up.
This article was excerpted from the Fall Issue of Libertarian Bulletin the Newsletter of the Ontario Libertarian Party
Today is Labour Day (yes, with a "u" in Canada) a holiday that celebrates organized labour (that picture from a Labour Day Parade in Fort William ON, 1903). This morning The US Heritage Foundation blog suggested that today should be called Government Day. In the US this is the first time that public sector unionized government workers outnumber private sector unionized workers. Unions have become a casualty (or is it causality? both?) of the recession/depression. In Canada it's likely similar, but maybe we're not there quite yet, certainly the public sector is rife with unions and the various levels of government seem to be in cahoots with their unionized employees. That of course is the problem, the public sector unions virtually eliminate one of the key features of bargaining, that is, looking for less expensive help, union rules prohibit that. Some of you may say that is the point of unions, the workers are protected. Certainly thats true, but who protects the tax payers? Is it elected officials that represent taxpayer interest? Of course it should be, but look at the job they have done.
Public sector strikes are fairly common, but in the end government negotiators generally cave in with offers in excess of anything available in the private sector. A recent Toronto garbage strike ended with unions getting a much better deal than private contractors give their workers.
Public sector construction contracts regularly requires unionized workers to carry out any work. In the Toronto region, electricians doing public sector work get between $34 and $36 per hour. The average hourly rate for non-unionized electricians work is $26. Now multiply that percentage difference (38% more) by all the public construction projects and its easy to see why government costs continue to rise much faster than the rate of inflation and governments go into debt. The elected officials who are responsible rarely get blamed, and if they do, they don't get re-elected but the new officials aren't any different. There is no competitive other government to take over (most political party's once in power act the same as their predecessors), the business of government is monopoly with minimal change every four years or so.
So imagine if there were alternate, but competitive governments, in other places to live that actually offered a competitive price structure. Somewhere where freedom is valued and competition exists in everything. That's the idea behind the Seasteading Institute, explained in this short video for young people.
Maybe I've been watching too many Peter Schiff videos lately, but I'm getting more concerned about our financial future. By "our", I mean North America, we are effectively a common market. The old joke about the Americans sneezing and Canada getting the flu is well know in these parts. Everyone says Canada is in good shape compared to our neighbour, but as I have said before if your biggest and best customer has money troubles, then how good is your business?
The stock market doesn't seem phased, it's been in rally mode this week - but with lower volume. I'm not an economist but I know volume can be a sign of conviction and enthusiasm. The lack of volume says something else, or it could just be the end of summer.
I know I said I wasn't an economist but I have managed my family affairs so that we have no debt and some savings. I always thought that debt was something you wanted to reduce as quickly as possible, and there really is no such thing as good debt (contrary to what many advisors will say) even if it is a mortgage or business loan. Debt means you are not in control of your future - the debt holder is. The more debt the less control you have, so getting rid of debt is always a good idea for individual, families and governments.
So when the financial crisis of 2008-09 occurred, as a result of excessive debt it wasn't a surprise. Peter Schiff was right. The debt owed by homeowners became more expensive because interest rates rose. Many found the new rates beyond their ability to pay, sold or abandoned their homes and the rest is history. Prices for US homes fell significantly for the very first time. The resulting recession, according to several knowledgeable people (including Peter Schiff) is just the beginning. That argument is clearly explained in the following video which is about 45 minutes long but well worth your time.
