In Ontario the Provincial government has demonized coal-fired-thermal-power-generation. Lets put aside for the moment the obvious question that asks why is government is involved in supplying electric power to homeowners. I think competitive free enterprise would do a better job, but I will deal with that issue later. In the meantime an Ontario election is looming and citizens will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the policies and practices of Dalton McGuinty's Liberals soon.
One of those policies is McGuinty's plan to remove the option of coal and reduce natural gas usage for power generation, replacing them with solar panels and wind mills. This ideologically driven policy may lead to some serious unintended consequences for Ontario's future. It's "ideologically driven policy," because McGuinty is convinced that the waste gas carbon dioxide is a significant cause of the evil global warming. Why global warming is a problem for Ontario, I'm still not certain?
In a widely distributed pamphlet McGuinty's Liberals claim the reason for removing coal power is because it pollutes the air, even though there are ways of mitigating that problem that are less expensive and less risky for the future. If air pollution is a primary effect of coal-fired-thermal-power-generation, then the closure of these plants should reduce air pollution. Does it? Have a look at my answer in this video:
Here you see part of the 85,000 demonstrators that showed up in Madison Wisconsin (March 12/11) to protest first term Gov. Scott Walker's legislation to remove the collective bargaining rights of Wisconsin State employees.
I have avoided this issue because I feel very sympathetic to to the workers, especially the teachers. I don't condone there behaviour of late, which was appalling, but I understand their protest.
Speaking for myself, I became a teacher because I loved the subject matter (science) and I thought I could share that love and enthusiasm with others. The idea of teaching sounded good to me as an undergrad, because some of my previous teachers seemed to enjoy what they were doing. Who would not want a job that they enjoyed? That was my primary motivation. In order to earn the best salary and benefits I was attracted to the public school system simply out of rational self-interest. This meant I had to join a union (we called it a Federation - OSSTF) and I will admit I felt uncomfortable about the whole thing except the teaching. Most of the time I was able to dismiss the fact that I had a government job, and I was able put aside my philosophical and political beliefs. The worst times were when contract bargaining occurred, or the union supported some group/party that I did not support. There was strike action and work-to-rule action that I did not support, and that I actively undermined. I always knew that my union was in cahoots with the municipal and Provincial(State) governments, and that we teachers enjoyed job security, salary and benefits that did not exist in the private sector. It is for that reason that I think Gov. Walker is doing the right thing. Although he may not be doing the right thing for the right reason, this could be a political tactic.
Wisconsin like most of the states in America and Provinces in Canada, is teetering on default. They differ only in degree of urgency. Over the years legislators in all those jurisdictions, have conspired (and recruited to get re-elected) with public sector employee unions to create contracts and entitlements that cannot possibly be fulfilled, and are far in excess of what the free market private sector would provide. Everyone knows that, Wisconsin is the tip of the very large iceberg that will collide with the good-ship Liberal-Democracy, soon enough. Other states are bound to follow, New Jersey and Gov. Chris Christie comes to mind, the poop is hitting the propellor!
Below Stefan Molyneux has some interesting observations on Wisconsin.
Take a moment and Google "conservatives ban." When I did there were 2,570,000 results. Many of the first few pages dealt with conservatives banning burkas, booze, abortion, gay marriage, smoking, Harry Potter!, various books and words, trans fats, song lyrics, topless sunbathing etc., I think you get the picture. Conservatives like banning things they don't like or supporting the banning of things they don't like, and the list is long.
Now try that again but this time Google "libertarians ban." There are results, but they are phrased differently, more like: should libertarians be banned? Also very common is "libertarians against the banning of....." a whole range of things, a list almost as big as the conservative ban list. It's an interesting distinction, unfortunately libertarians are often lumped together with conservatives and thought of as being similar when in fact the difference is huge.
A posting by George Bragues on the new Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada website called Conservatism vs. Libertarianism points to one thing the two share: ".......conservatism and libertarianism share a deep suspicion of collectivism. Conservatism does so because it prefers changes that are continuous with, and organically flow, from the status quo, whereas collectivism typically entails a top-down engineered break with custom and tradition. Libertarianism, by contrast, has no special attachment to the prevailing order. It opposes collectivism simply because it violates the principle of individual liberty." That's why the two sides are lumped together, but conservatives are not averse to using collective action on many things.
The chief difference is "......the libertarian is willing to tolerate behaviour that he or she does not approve, whereas the conservative finds it difficult to do the same. If the conservative cannot approve it, he or she is inclined to want the state to ban, or if that’s too onerous, restrain it." So the fact is I'm willing to tolerate conservatives - not ban them, but that does not mean I like them.
Did I ever mention how much I hated doing income tax? I believe I did, last year. Nothing has changed. It might not be so bad if I felt I was getting something for the money (I'm kidding). The fact is, I suspect much of my tax money goes to transfer payments, either to another province or directly to some other people. I have no idea where all the money goes, and I think I pay attention to things like that. Imagine the plight of most of my countrymen who generally don't give a damn, they are being robbed blind. I wish someone who knows where the money goes would itemize it for me, not that it makes a difference, I know it isn't being spent well. My municipal-regional real-estate tax gets me garbage collection, road maintenance, sewage and snow removal, police, schools, transit and other tangible services. I get all of those services for about one-fifth of my family's income tax payout. While I have little choice in who or how delivers these services, they are generally adequate, but with lots of room for improvement.
Lets see, my federal-provincial income tax gets me health care (it must be a big chunk of that money), a smallish armed forces (its wonderful to live next to America), a judiciary, a border control and an enormous bureaucracy to dole out the transfers etcetera.
To further irritate me, I spend hours trying to dodge and finagle my way out of paying too much tax by filling out tax forms each year on my computer. Last year I mentioned the idea of a flat tax, its still a great idea, and William Hanley in the Financial Post thinks so too. He suggests 25%, I'd start lower and dump some of the gravy, a term that has become popular in these parts.
Of course an income tax is punitive, and always brings to mind the chant "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Yes, that phrase popularized by that guy, should make everyone think about the morality of income tax. Its immoral, legalized theft, and it penalizes effort, never a good idea.
Consumer taxes are better, and less punitive. We had a provincial and a federal sales tax, PST and GST, now we have the harmonized sales tax HST. I don't really like it either, but at least it is avoidable in some ways.
A big problem with those taxes are that businesses become government tax collectors. One of my colleagues, who runs a business, actually snubs his nose at government, and refuses to collect sales tax. Watch and listen to this interview of a very brave gentleman.
In my entire career as a high school teacher there were just a few times when I could walk out of a classroom after delivering a lecture and think to myself "That was good, I did a good job of explaining those concepts and I think I covered all the bases." On those days, I would think: "wouldn't it be great if I could have filmed that lecture or discussion and repeat it again for my other classes or in future years?" More often after class I was self-critical, I knew I had failed to mention this thing or that, but I also knew I would see them again and bring it up then, if they were all there.
A much worse feeling was knowing that some of the students did not understand my talk even though I thought I had done such a fine job. That can be the worst, most frustrating part of teaching. Even if you ask a group whether they understand, few in the group will have the courage to say no and waste everyones time. That is one problem with one-size-fits-all teaching. Salman Khan wants to use video to reinvent education. He might already have done that. Years ago in my former school board, there was a concept kicked around called "mastery learning." Basically students don't proceed until they have mastered a particular objective. So imagine a student airline pilot who only gets 75% of his/her landings correct. Though thats not bad, you would not want that person to become a pilot, not yet anyway. The problem with mastery learning is that it does not fit the model on which most school systems function, and since there is little competition among school systems because they are largely government institutions, well, you see what I mean. Students are left with gaps in their education, not able to master some things because of time or some other constraint. Salman Khan has helped flip the eduction system around. Using hundreds (2100 so far) of YouTube videos to teach basic concepts, Khan has allowed students to master by repetition (YouTube is very patient) particular lessons so that they may proceed to the next level fully prepared. Teachers can then use one-to-one contact to help the stragglers. Does it work? Well, have a look the TED video below and he will explain it, then visit the KhanAcademy here.
About a month ago I posted a comment on the Egyptian Revolution. It was about democracy and the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood would be involved in a future Egyptian government. Well, that revolution, or should I say coup d'état, seems to have subsided, Mubarak is out, and the Army is still in control as it always had been, no need to worry about the Brotherhood there, not yet anyway. George Jonas commented on that last week in a column Intoxicated by Revolution, where he gets closer to the truth of what is going on in the current Middle Eastern unrest. Jonas points out that Americans in particular are in love with revolution because their own country was born that way. The American and Canadian media got very excited about the Egyptian "peoples revolt" and their demand for freedom and democracy even though those terms have a different meaning for the Egyptians.
I'm old enough to remember a revolution that got North Americans excited more than half a century ago. The picture shows Ed Sullivan, lord of Sunday night television back when I was a kid (in 1959), speaking to a 32-year-old Fidel Castro about his "liberation of Cuba." Some liberation, opinions on that revolution changed soon after that interview was aired.
Mr. Jonas' column discusses democracy as being a goal of the Mid-East unrest. He points out that democracy is really just a "method of succession or power-transfer." In North America we view democracy as a synonym "for individual liberty, fundamental human rights, private enterprise, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, freedom of expression - in short, for the sum of the best ideals of Western-style societies."That is just our bias and it has never been true. Jonas continues that: "'Democracy' denotes a system in which governments succeed each other by being elected, usually for a fixed term, by a majority of qualified voters. That's all. Rule by majority mandate says nothing, in itself, about the kind of society such an impeccable mandate is going to rule." Jonas also adds that it is very unlikely for democracy to come from this current unrest "it's more likely for wealth, justice and liberty to bring people democracy," like has occurred in the West. In other words there is virtually no chance that we can expect democratic states, as we think of them in North America, to arise in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, or Libya. So what is going on there?
Two things are happening and both are related to the way government distorts the marketplace.
In both Tunisia and Egypt a post-secondary education is "free," even though the market for graduates is extremely limited. Tunisia particularly has 57% of its young people entering the labour market with a college degree, compared to the US situation with less than one-third of its young people in that situation. An education bubble fuelled by government policy has created unemployment and underemployment in both Tunisia and Egypt. The value of an education to an individual can only be determined by the price that an employer would pay to employ that individual. If the educated individual is unemployable, than of what value was the education received? That is the distortion created by these governments. Countries with groups of educated unemployables, subjugated by dictators like Gaddafi in Libya, together with power of the internet, has created a volatile mixture.
For us in the West the unrest across North Africa has distorted the oil market in southern Europe and as a result everywhere oil is used, "a pain in the gas." A prolonged civil war in Libya threatens to involve the armed forces of NATO and beyond, because it endangers Libyan civilians (no fly zone) and the oil infrastructure of Libya. We are all paying more for gasoline today because the market demands it. Interesting how one government distortion far away can lead to your wallet.
They were robbed. Thats right, the Oscar for Best Picture at the 83rd Annual Academy Awards should have gone to The Social Network. Instead The King's Speech, another very good movie won. The Fighter was also a very good movie, and I'm sure Inception (did not yet see) was as well. My problem is I really don't have much respect for the monarchy or monarchists in general.
Yes, the The King's Speech was about overcoming stuttering, a real problem (especially for a King), and certainly I was sympathetic and even moved by the acting.....I get it. Maybe Colin Firth even deserved Best Actor, but a movie that portrayed how an elitist overcame a problem so that he could fulfil the job which he received by right of inherited entitlement, well, I have a problem with glorifying and celebrating that. So I'm prejudiced against arbitrary rule. What else is new?
The Social Network is a different kind of movie and I remember after watching it that the writing (adapted screenplay) was wonderful, and so was the editing, and each of the actors together did a fabulous and convincing job. It was amazing to me that such a great movie was made about what could be a very dry topic.
A column in the National Post last week said it best for me. Shaun Francis wrote this before Oscar night: "The Facebook story proves that a great idea, combined with good timing and an evangelical founder, can flourish in a system that allows it to quickly attract money, resources and talent. That system is, of course, the free market, capitalist, forprofit economy." He continues by adding: "...I am most struck by what was not part of the Facebook story: government. The Social Network doesn't include a cast credit for "faceless bureaucrat." Nor did the screenplay include any lines about statesponsored venture funds. No science and research tax credits. No federal regulations stipulating who could own Zuckerberg's company, or specifying the language or disclaimers for his home page." Mr. Francis continues by speculating about what would have happened if government were involved (disaster) in creating Facebook and then compares it to the Canadian and Ontario government's "bungled attempts to create electronic medical records."
Mr. Francis adds: "Mainstream political parties and academics claim for-profit medicine will make health care more expensive. Yet despite governments spending bigger and bigger budgets on health care, wait times lengthen and services are delisted. Clearly, taxpayers are not getting value for their money in our monopoly-payer system."
Facebook has 500-million voluntary users, produces scads of money, and has absolutely nothing to do with government. Mr. Francis concludes that the film The Social Network:"teaches us to value the individual and the free market as agents of change. It proves it's possible to transform the world without a tax credit. It shows that you can make money and make a difference.
"I'm from the government," the man says. "And I'm here to help." When we hear those words, The Social Network suggests we should run in the opposite direction." Absolutely right!
Why is capitalism portrayed as evil by many artists? Because its easy to suspend thought, much easier than thinking. Here are a couple of interesting views:
Some of my libertarian friends will tell me that gold has no intrinsic value, and pays no dividend so why bother owning it? Of course that is true. You can't eat gold, but it makes great jewellery, can be used in the electronics industry in small amounts, is still used by dentists, has a minor role in space exploration, but not much else. The point that is often missed in their argument, is this: for whatever reason gold has been used as a method exchange among people for thousands years. That is indisputable. Gold can, and has been used as money. However dragging around bullion or any other precious metals in your pockets has its downside, literally. The weight of the metal and the problems of storage have created proxies for gold. Once-upon-a-time paper money was a proxy for gold; no longer, too bad. Today if you want to buy gold you can at some banks, or other outlets. The other way to buy gold is through the proxy of an exchange traded fund (ETF), a little more scary but much more convenient. One of the largest ETF's, has the symbol GLD on the New York Stock Exchange. A friend of mine posted an article on the mises.org website today that simply must be read to understand why gold could be important soon. Have a look here.
It took a German Pope to exonerate the Jews for killing Jesus. From now on the phrase "a day late and a dollar short" will be directly referenced to that pronouncement in the Pope's new book.
I'm sure Jews around the world will breathe a sigh of relief when they read: "Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus' accusers?" the pope asks, adding that the gospel of St. John simply says it was "the Jews."
"But John's use of this expression does not in any way indicate -- as the modern reader might suppose -- the people of Israel in general, even less is it 'racist' in character," he writes.
"After all John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews," he writes.
So John was not a self-hating Jew. Apparently it was the Temple aristocracy that was the guilty party, not all of Jewry. What a relief! Oops, sorry for this and this! Who says religion is irrelevant.
