It seems today that Stephane Dion has decided to step down. The one thing that seemed to really destroy the Liberals out of the gate was their Green Shift programme. It seems that Canadians really talk a good game about the environment but are not prepared to actually do anything!
I think that people would go along if; (1) There was absolutely no change in their lifestyle and (2) it won't cost them a penny. Why - because fundamentally we are a selfish people. You have to look at all the SUV's - no-one needs an SUV. A mini-van would be more suited to the tasks which most use them for. We still have drive-though restaurants.
That's Canada in a nutshell - talk big and no action.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Keynesian economics make a comeback...
If John Maynard Keynes was alive right now he would be laughing his head off. Modern business orthodoxy believes in a free-market without government interference. In the early 1980s the government of the UK buried the Keynesian economic model. The US of course was always wary of government interference - but still they continued to reduce regulation. Over 20 years of unbridled and unregulated financial markets and look at the mess! Short-sightedness and bad planning brought on by greed.
John Maynard Keynes advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. Most of the western governments rejected government regulation, control and interference in the markets. The companies of course, were not above accepting handouts from these "non-interventionist governments".
Which brings us to 2008 and the current crisis. The government of the UK has effectively nationalised the Halifax Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. Even the great beacon of capitalism, the US had to step in and bail their major banks. It seems they are capitalists on the way up and socialists on the way down.
During the past 100 years, we have seen Fascism fail, Communism fail, Socialism fail and now finally Capitalism in trouble. All competing theories of government have their pros and cons (discounting the obvious cases of Genocide and violence). All of these competing theories fail to take into account the inherent corruption and greed of those who are driven to power.
Hmmm... maybe we should only have leaders who don't power - they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into office. The personality type of those drawn to seek power seems to be inherently corrupt and greedy. Even those idealistic few who gain power are ultimately corrupted by power. If someone can come up with an answer, I would like to hear it.
John Maynard Keynes advocated interventionist government policy, by which the government would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of economic recessions, depressions and booms. Most of the western governments rejected government regulation, control and interference in the markets. The companies of course, were not above accepting handouts from these "non-interventionist governments".
Which brings us to 2008 and the current crisis. The government of the UK has effectively nationalised the Halifax Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB. Even the great beacon of capitalism, the US had to step in and bail their major banks. It seems they are capitalists on the way up and socialists on the way down.
During the past 100 years, we have seen Fascism fail, Communism fail, Socialism fail and now finally Capitalism in trouble. All competing theories of government have their pros and cons (discounting the obvious cases of Genocide and violence). All of these competing theories fail to take into account the inherent corruption and greed of those who are driven to power.
Hmmm... maybe we should only have leaders who don't power - they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into office. The personality type of those drawn to seek power seems to be inherently corrupt and greedy. Even those idealistic few who gain power are ultimately corrupted by power. If someone can come up with an answer, I would like to hear it.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Follow-Up
I have sent an e-mail to the NDP of Canada asking them to explain how higher corporate taxes will create jobs. When corporations flee Canada to jurisdictions with lower taxation they will take their jobs with them. I think that Mr. Layton has an overly inflated opinion of Canada - namely that companies are willing to pay higher taxes to stay here....ummm.... no.
I doubt very much that I will receive a meaningful answer.
I doubt very much that I will receive a meaningful answer.
Political (il)logic
Let me see... the 2 major opposition leaders (Liberal and NDP) are attacking the Conservatives because PM Harper does not want run a deficit in these uncertain economic times. This evening I'm watching the news and none of them will say they are willing to run a deficit... pardon? So what exactly are you attacking the Conservatives about?
Jack Layton (NDP) does not seem to have a very good grasp of economics. He says that he will generate jobs by raising taxes on industry. So... when the companies flee the country, how will more jobs be generated?
Jack Layton (NDP) does not seem to have a very good grasp of economics. He says that he will generate jobs by raising taxes on industry. So... when the companies flee the country, how will more jobs be generated?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Socialists of convenience.
It has been an interesting time in the financial world of late. As the old curse says, "May you live in interesting times". Americans in particular are rabidly capitalist and scornful of anything that smacks of socialism or government intervention. Companies don't want government regulation or interference in their affairs saying that they could do better than government regulators.
So here we are... one of the largest financial meltdowns in modern history. A tale of greed, dishonesty and outright fraud. Fund managers demanding more and more profits and driving companies to make riskier and riskier loans. People were lent money they could not repay on the irresponsible advice of greedy loan financiers.
So now, President Bush wants the government to bail out his friends. Congress has baulked over payouts to millionaires and billionaires who made these bad decisions. People are loosing their homes, jobs and going bankrupt - meanwhile the people who caused this mess will likely walk away with a windfall from the bailout. By buying the bad debt they are effectively nationalising the money market and bailing out the people who made the mess.
The same government that won't bail out individuals or claims that it can't afford Medicare is preparing to spend approximately $700 Billion on the bailout. It appears that if you're poor or middle-class the government won't help you, but if you are rich you can expect a bailout.
Socialism for the rich. Everybody is capitalist when they're doing well, but when things go bad they want the government to step in. If the true test of a system is how it handles adversity, I guess US capitalism is an abysmal failure.
So here we are... one of the largest financial meltdowns in modern history. A tale of greed, dishonesty and outright fraud. Fund managers demanding more and more profits and driving companies to make riskier and riskier loans. People were lent money they could not repay on the irresponsible advice of greedy loan financiers.
So now, President Bush wants the government to bail out his friends. Congress has baulked over payouts to millionaires and billionaires who made these bad decisions. People are loosing their homes, jobs and going bankrupt - meanwhile the people who caused this mess will likely walk away with a windfall from the bailout. By buying the bad debt they are effectively nationalising the money market and bailing out the people who made the mess.
The same government that won't bail out individuals or claims that it can't afford Medicare is preparing to spend approximately $700 Billion on the bailout. It appears that if you're poor or middle-class the government won't help you, but if you are rich you can expect a bailout.
Socialism for the rich. Everybody is capitalist when they're doing well, but when things go bad they want the government to step in. If the true test of a system is how it handles adversity, I guess US capitalism is an abysmal failure.
Friday, September 19, 2008
I know you are, but what am I!
Wow! Do Republicans ever get upset when you insult one of theirs. Our very own Heather Mallick of the CBC ruffled a few feathers with her critique of Sarah Palin (Link: Heather Mallick's Blog on CBC). They are very good at insulting opponents... I believe it was a Republican who coined the pejorative phrase "Libtard" -- but not so good at taking fire. I believe the phrase is "If you can't take it, don't dish it out".
Now, don't get me wrong -- I am by no means a fan of Liberals or the left-wing -- but, people are allowed to express themselves. If you get upset by a little name calling you're not cut out for politics. Actually, FOX seemed more upset than the GOP itself!
FOX interviewed a journalist from the Ottawa Citizen. The interviewer peppered him with questions and kept talking over him. Could it be the reason the interviewer was so upset is that she herself seems to favour the "toned-down version of the porn actress" look? Heather Mallick was accused of calling Bristol Palin unmentionable names in her blog - "pramface" - I guess they don't know that "pram" is English for "baby carriage". Now, it might have been worse if she commented on Bristol's Bristols... (that one is cracking up the UK as I write!)
As they say, "Suck it up, buttercup".
Now, don't get me wrong -- I am by no means a fan of Liberals or the left-wing -- but, people are allowed to express themselves. If you get upset by a little name calling you're not cut out for politics. Actually, FOX seemed more upset than the GOP itself!
FOX interviewed a journalist from the Ottawa Citizen. The interviewer peppered him with questions and kept talking over him. Could it be the reason the interviewer was so upset is that she herself seems to favour the "toned-down version of the porn actress" look? Heather Mallick was accused of calling Bristol Palin unmentionable names in her blog - "pramface" - I guess they don't know that "pram" is English for "baby carriage". Now, it might have been worse if she commented on Bristol's Bristols... (that one is cracking up the UK as I write!)
As they say, "Suck it up, buttercup".
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Price of Fuel
If you are like most people you are suspicious of the oil companies and the way they do business. Most people are in favour of free-enterprise as long as it benefits them and don't want the government interfering in their lives. However, as soon as something occurs they don't like they start clamouring for government controls and interference. Interestingly, most people don't see the inherent hypocrisy in this.
Where the oil companies really shoot themselves in the foot and raise the ire of the citizenry is the duplicitous way in which they raise and lower costs at the pump. It seems that when the price of oil drops, the decrease has to work its way through the system. This at least makes sense as the cost of the fuel in on-site storage has not changed as it has already been paid for.
But, when the price of oil goes up, the price of fuel at the pump is immediately raised with the company citing "market forces". Hmmm.... using the argument that the oil company used to keep prices up whilst the price of oil worked it's way through the system -- should not the increased price have to work it's way through the system?
Therein lies the essential dichotomy and hypocrisy of the pricing of fuel - going up always responds immediately to the price of oil and going down has to work it's way through the system...
This is what raises the ire of the citizenry. In addition, when you then consider this against the backdrop of the profits made by the big 5 oil companies:
Comparing the profits of the big 5 oil companies and then considering the pain felt by the citizens at the pumps, it is no wonder that people hate and consider the oil companies to be dishonest. To top it all off, there was the effort by the automotive sector to eliminate or reduce public transit to drive people into the car and you can see how we ended up in this situation.
Where the oil companies really shoot themselves in the foot and raise the ire of the citizenry is the duplicitous way in which they raise and lower costs at the pump. It seems that when the price of oil drops, the decrease has to work its way through the system. This at least makes sense as the cost of the fuel in on-site storage has not changed as it has already been paid for.
But, when the price of oil goes up, the price of fuel at the pump is immediately raised with the company citing "market forces". Hmmm.... using the argument that the oil company used to keep prices up whilst the price of oil worked it's way through the system -- should not the increased price have to work it's way through the system?
Therein lies the essential dichotomy and hypocrisy of the pricing of fuel - going up always responds immediately to the price of oil and going down has to work it's way through the system...
This is what raises the ire of the citizenry. In addition, when you then consider this against the backdrop of the profits made by the big 5 oil companies:
Comparing the profits of the big 5 oil companies and then considering the pain felt by the citizens at the pumps, it is no wonder that people hate and consider the oil companies to be dishonest. To top it all off, there was the effort by the automotive sector to eliminate or reduce public transit to drive people into the car and you can see how we ended up in this situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
