Sunday 28 March 2010

Gary Becker interview in WSJ

Gary Becker is still going strong.   The father of the economics of "Human Capital" and a stalwart supporter of the Chicago School had an interview with the Wall Street Journal.  Question #1?   What do you think of the ObamaCare Bill?
The health-care legislation? It's a bad bill," Mr. Becker replies. "Health care in the United States is pretty good, but it does have a number of weaknesses. This bill doesn't address them. It adds taxation and regulation. It's going to increase health costs—not contain them."
Drafting a good bill would have been easy, he continues. Health savings accounts could have been expanded. Consumers could have been permitted to purchase insurance across state lines, which would have increased competition among insurers. The tax deductibility of health-care spending could have been extended from employers to individuals, giving the same tax treatment to all consumers. And incentives could have been put in place to prompt consumers to pay a larger portion of their health-care costs out of their own pockets.
"Here in the United States," Mr. Becker says, "we spend about 17% of our GDP on health care, but out-of-pocket expenses make up only about 12% of total health-care spending. In Switzerland, where they spend only 11% of GDP on health care, their out-of-pocket expenses equal about 31% of total spending. The difference between 12% and 31% is huge. Once people begin spending substantial sums from their own pockets, they become willing to shop around. Ordinary market incentives begin to operate. A good bill would have encouraged that."
My last question involves a little story. Not long before Milton Friedman's death in 2006, I tell Mr. Becker, I had a conversation with Friedman. He had just reviewed the growth of spending that was then taking place under the Bush administration, and he was not happy. After a pause during the Reagan years, Friedman had explained, government spending had once again begun to rise. "The challenge for my generation," Friedman had told me, "was to provide an intellectual defense of liberty." Then Friedman had looked at me. "The challenge for your generation is to keep it." 
Unfortunately, he has no political sense at all.

Saturday 27 March 2010

The Fray opens for U2 - June 23 in Edmonton


             

Micheal Coren interviews Ann Coulter

Coren interviews Ann Coulter, here.

Some interesting points:
  • She learned a decade ago not to do "non-live" interviews because of the potential to misrepresent her views (i.e Ambush Interview techniques of 60 Minutes) where editors have willfully parsed selected quotes from audio and print interviews that twist her answers. Hence, The Micheal Coren Show!
  • "Have you ever regretted" saying something?  No.  Coulter says she is a polemicist who tries to use the logic of her political opponents to show the absurdity of their claims. To wit, Abortion.  On murder of prominent abortionist Tellman, she said she didn't know what the fuss was as he was just "terminated in his 203 trimester".
  • 4 women who represented themselves as 9/11 widows known as "Jersey Girls" and were Democrats called to create ads calling for an end to the Iraq war.   When Ann was criticized them she was called cruel and unfeeling - which she disputes on the basis that in entering the "public debate" they are fair game. It is hiding behind "victimhood" to act otherwise. What is next using orphans to sell health care? (uh, who's that kid in the picture of Obama signing the Healthcare bill?)
  • Are you a Christian?  Yes.
  • Antisemitic? Not at all. That slag came from a poorly informed Liberal interview who was determined to be offended by me and selectively used examples to achieve it.
  • She has been called "racist" for insisting on "profiling" of air passengers - (i.e names, skin, dress,gender) which Ann suggests is just common sense. She is astounded that these issues have been taken off the table in considering the obvious security threat from Islamic countries is ludicrous. (we could profile by names - Mohammad would be at the top fro me.)
  • This is what Liberals learned from Hitler - never discriminate.  Conservatives learned - don't kill.
  • Same people who want Coulter to be barred from Canada also campaigned to admit George Galloway
  • Discrimination is acceptable - necessary for survival. Morbid obsession with ethic differences unless you you are using it in a bad manner. 
  • Is Obama great?   He may bring in the most massive right wing government ever. Worse that Carter on Foreign Policy and Clinton on Domestic Policy.

Ann Coulter - Calgary proceeds

After the University of Ottawa address was canceled on Wednesday, Calgary managed to make up for by selling-out with a vastly larger, upgraded venue.  Still, a small group of protesters did do a bit a damage and raised a ruckus (Coulter's excellent retort to the noise they were making a they banged on windows - cracking some safety glass - "Sorry, not everyone who wanted to, could get in".)

Tellingly, one was interviewed and quoted as saying:
"I'm for social justice, and she's just full of moronic talk."
Which is THE problem.  Liberals feel they have a god-given right (no pun intended) to spout off whatever they want, but as soon as a Conservative make a comment THEY find controversial everyone runs away with their hands over their ears wailing about how offended the "feel".

George Jones of the National Post had an excellent comment entitled "Censorship and Satire":
On Tuesday, a howling mob demonstrated Canada’s commitment to restraint and respect by blocking Coulter (and those who came to hear her) from entering a lecture hall on campus.

The only group exhibiting Canadian-style restraint was the police. They cast a calm eye on the pandemonium, took a balanced view and chose no sides between people trying to exercise their rights and bullies trying to prevent them. Resisting any temptation to enforce the law, Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.


I’d say Houle’s risk of being charged with practising law without a licence for giving legal advice to Coulter is higher than Coulter’s risk of being charged with hate speech for anything she’s said. But was the provost’s letter really for Coulter — or was it a green light for the mob?

Mike and Ellen [protesters in crowd] are the idealistic, demonstrating, book-burning, sometimes violent spear-carriers of social trends and ideas that shape all periods, occasionally for the better, usually for the worse. Many are educated beyond their intellectual means; all concern themselves with matters beyond their maturity. They’re the collateral damage of higher education.

Here’s the circular sophistry of two-tiered freedom: Approved speech = free speech; censored speech = hate speech. This is what corrupts minds, and I don’t mean students. I mean professors, provosts and presidents. The operating fallacies come from them. Mike and Ellen provide only the noise, the echo and the muscle.

Some say Coulter is an attention-seeking ninny. Assume it’s true. So? Offered as an excuse for a university preaching respect and civility while practicing suppression and intimidation, it’s worse than immaterial. It’s demeaning. Hypocritical. Ludicrous. I regret to say, it’s so Canadian.
Here is debate on Joy Behar - useful I think as she was a comedian so the free speech line is dear to her - plus they cover Sarah Palin's "Don't retreat, RELOAD" comment.

Wednesday 24 March 2010

Ann Coulter = lightening rod to discontent

The controversy over Freedom of Speech has been whipped into a fevered pitch at the University of Ottawa.  The event was canceled last night due to concern by police over the safety for the attendees to the talk. The left and various fringe groups (i.e UK Labour MP George Galloway)  can say whatever they want and we are supposed to tolerate it, but try to turn the tables and this what happens.  The other recent example was the disallowing a York University Jewish Students group to mount a "rebuttal" display during that university's controversial, racist "Israel Apartheid Week" protests.  They were told that because of the likelihood of provoking violence was so high - not withstanding they had agreed to pay for security - they could not participate.

What an outrage!   She will be in Calgary tomorrow.    I can hardly wait because I bet she will be welcomed with open arms.

Hopefully, the Provost at University of Ottawa will get some come-comeuppance from his misconceived idea. Here is his contact info if you wish to tell him your thoughts.

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5
Telephone : (613) 562-5800 ext. 5737
Fax : (613) 562-5106
e-mail:
francois.houle@uottawa.ca

Sunday 21 March 2010

What level of pensions do Canadians really want

This was in the Financial Post on Friday March 19 - courtesy C.D Howe. Here is link to C.D Howe brief.

It basically suggests that there is a problem with our RRSP limits as they do NOT allow taxpayers to accumulate a comfortable retirement lifestyle. 

There are a number of problems with this analysis - plus it ultimately has limited value as  retirees have no alternative but to change their future behaviour (unless they want to work part-time). Although I suppose one could use it to point to Policy Catch22. We want to design policy alternatives to help citizens provide for themselves, but these need to be tested to ensure they are feasible..

1) In the lowest income deciles (upto 4th decile or 30-40% - that C.D. Howe calls the Working Poor?) are theoretically well served by existing RRSP limits above and beyond Mandatory CPP/OAS coverage (upto 60-70% of pretax income). EXCEPT we know that most Canadians DO NOT make their annual RRSP contributions. But I imagine CCRA has done this *analysis - matching say last 5years RRSP contributions against pretax deciles. * Horner, Keith. 2009. “Approaches to Strengthening Canada’s Retirement Income System.” Canadian Tax Journal. Vol. 57. No. 3. November.

2) Is assumption that taxpayers target 60-70% of pretax income reasonable for upper income earners? Probably not.   In Table C1 we can see that those who earn very high earning early in life AND start saving early (age 30-41) will have no trouble saving for retirement IF expectations are reduced to 50% of income.   This will only involve saving 7% of income - which I think is quite acceptable.

3) Clearly, these are not "lifetime income" - just a single year snapshot - so there is a logic gap in assuming these taxpayers stay in these cohorts.

4) No assumption is made about non tax sheltered investment like a small business, personal investment portfolio or most the important asset for many - including the middle class - owned/free& clear principal residence.

In conclusion it at least shows that below Median Pretax taxpayers COULD, if they wanted protect themselves in retirement - absent if these income levels provide an acceptable standard of living.

In the online comments, another surly point was made:
Meanwhile federal civil "servants" retire at age 58 with 70% income replacement and put it only 10% of their income - taxpayers putting in the other 22%!!

Tuesday 16 March 2010

George Jonas is no "Gun Nut"

Following up on his excellent defense of freedom last week - is his self defense.  He is no "Gun Nut" but believes that others should have the right to protect themselves if they wish. That seems very reasonable to me.

Go George!

Some Economist's blogs

I have just fallen upon a number of economists blogs - some are quite good.
Tim Duy's FedWatch
Economist View
The Money Illusion
Adam Smith Lost Legacy

And here is Larry Summers recommendations on how to save the economy.

Monday 15 March 2010

Why Christians should be politically conservative

Anglican Samizat mentions the following article in the NYTimes, that explains the basic premise behind this claim.
Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.
However, under Brooks "Wal-Mat Hippies" theory:

Members of both movements [the so called "New Left" and "Tea Partiers"] believe in what you might call mass innocence. Both movements are built on the assumption that the people are pure and virtuous and that evil is introduced into society by corrupt elites and rotten authority structures. “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains,” is how Rousseau put it.
Thus they are doomed. Glen Beck is more  Abbie Hoffman than he knows.

God's Brain - The neuroscience of devotion

Besides his intriguing name (Lionel Tiger is as close to an oxymoron as one could hope for) I found this book idea to be a most interesting idea and hope to read it ASAP (added to recent one by Ezra LEVANT - Ethical Oil). Here are some clips:

  • He estimates that religious systems have lasted 70,000 years and are practised by 80% of the world's adults.
  • Prof. Tiger is best known for his 1969 book, Men in Groups, which coined the term "male bonding." 
  • Prof. Tiger said he and his co-author Dr. Mc-Guire, a California researcher and psychiatrist, on God's Brain, released last week - were compelled to look more deeply at religion because of the spate of books by such high-profile atheists as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, which were gaining huge readership for their anti-religious notions.
  • "We wanted to understand the mechanism in the brain that fosters religion," Prof. Tiger said during a stop in Toronto. "We're really interested in what is going on in humans that stimulates, permits and codifies the endurance of religion. It's a major scientific mystery. Our intent was to describe what might animate and support this notion of the sacred in such a complex set of different societies and circumstances."
  • The main arguments of these HITCHENS & DAWKINS is that no religion is backed up by scientific fact and therefore religious believers are deluded, if not outright morons.
  • "That was disrespectful and also not scientific," Prof. Tiger said. "You can't have a viable society in which 80% of adults are morons."
How intriguing.

Beckham tears Achilles Tendon - done for World Cup in June 2010

Yesterday (Sunday March 14) English celebrity soccer star, David Beckham while attempting to regain his form in order to earn a position on English National team in the upcoming World Cup - ruptured his Achilles Tendon in match with AC Milan.   Beck's is apparently undergoing surgery at a specialty clinic in Finland and his recovery time is variously suggested to be between 5-12 mths but at 35, it is clear that he is toast and will not be able to perform in any way at the World Cup in South Africa in June 2010.

Here is clip of how innocently the injury occurred.  Rarely is it anything other than serendipity and old age.

Thursday 11 March 2010

The next Kalashnikov?

I saw this article referenced and thought how interesting that this 15 year old teenager Maxim Kotelnikov, is possibly the "next Kalashnikov" (Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK-47) - and that still in Russia he can "push the envelope" in finding the next "elegant" design solution.  It is also what men are so good at - engineering excellence.

Russian Teenager Designs Noiseless Electric Rifle
Posted by Ivica Miskovic | Thursday, March 04, 2010 |

Russia's Defense Ministry has shown interest in the new electomechanical rifle the performance of which exceeds that of sniper weapons. The rifle was invented by a schoolboy in the city of Ufa.

Maxim Kotelnikov, an eighth-grader, designed his weapon after he had seen a TV program about the use of similar rifles in the USA and Korea. It took the boy a year to design the new weapon. He used his friend's broken game rifle as the basis. The rifle weighs nearly six kilos; it fires special cartridges that need to be magnetized in advance.

Russia's Defense Ministry showed interest in the new weapon and asked the boy's permission to test his rifle.

"This weapon is unique for it fires noiselessly. There is no shock of discharge
and a shot does not produce a flare. No other sniper rifle can do it. I designed
my own system, which I called the "Nucleus System," the boy said.

The rifle is based on the principle of accelerating coil. The rifle is powered
with electricity only. A bullet gathers speed immediately, PolitOnline reports
with referecne to Life.ru.

Maxim showed his creation to his teacher of physics. The teacher sent the
wunderkind to St. Petersburg, where the boy took part in "Russia's Young
Intellectuals" forum.

The 15-year-old boy took the first place at the forum and received a special
invitation for practice at the defense ministry. All further tests of Maxim's
weapon will be conducted under the guidance of ministerial scientists.

The boy will assemble three other rifles in St. Petersburg during one month. If
the tests are successful, it is not ruled out that the electromagnetic sniper
rifle will be launched into serial production for the needs of the Russian armed
forces.

PolitOnline.ru

http://www.aroundglobe.net/2010/03/russian-teenager-designs-noiseless.html

Tuesday 9 March 2010

Municipal Political Donations Disclosure

I just read this on Hicks on Six:

How Edmonton compares to other jurisdictions in election campaign contribution rules


Try as I might, I can't find a more contributer-friendly election campaign funding rules anywhere but here in little ol'Edmonton.

New provincial rules are coming in - a $5,000 maximum on any campaign donation from one entity - but as things now stand ...

There's no limitation on how much any contributor can make to a campaign.

The information - the candidates' lists of all election contributions of $300 or more - are supposed to be public.

In this day and age, that should mean on the city's website, in standard form.

Hardly! The "disclosure forms" are merely collected, stuck in a binder available for viewing at the City Clerk's office. You're not even allowed to photocopy them!

There's no protocol for verifying the accuracy of the donations, nor is there any standard form. Each candidates' list differs. Some are on spread-sheets, some are written in child-like scrawls.

Elsewhere ....

Calgary had major issues about campaign contributions run amuck a few years back.

Calgary municipal candidates still have no limit on donations, but their disclosure forms are listed on the city's website, are standardized, and all must be "certified" by a certified accountant - which at least means an accountant has looked at them and figured they look OK.

Toronto has a $750 limit per contribution for council positions, $2,500 maximum for mayoraly candidates. 

Toronto also goes the expenses route. Each candidate is only allowed to spent 70 cents per potential voter in his or her ward, plus $5,000. 

On the federal stage, Canada has some of the strictest election contribution laws going.

The Canada Elections Act of 2007 sets out a $1,000 limit, and all contributions must come from individuals. Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups cannot make election campaign contributions. (Wouldn't that knock the stuffing out of Edmonton mayor and councillor election funding!) 

On the disclosure side, federal candidates must receipt and report ALL contributions of $20 or more. Donations of $200 or more must include the name, address, amount of each contribution (if more than one) and the date the contribution was received.


Provincially, Alberta has a campaign contribution limit of $2,000 per candidate, and a maximum of $10,000 to the candidates of any one political party. I.E. if my company wanted to support the Conservatives, I can't give more than $2,000 each to a maximum of five candidates.

On the other hand, my company is allowed to give thousands a year to any political party outside of an actual election campaign.

In Ontario, the maximum donation from any one contribution to an individual candidate's campaign is $5,000.

Is Geldof just naive?

First, this appeared last week.  I was not surprised as it was obvious how unstable the region was in 1985.  However I also recall that the Warlords captured the capital of Mogadishu some time afterward the Xmas concert.
LONDON March 3, 2010 -- Millions of dollars of international aid for victims of the mid-1980s famine in Ethiopia was diverted to rebels to buy weapons in the African country, a BBC investigation reported Wednesday.

Citing former rebels and CIA documents, it said militant leaders posed as merchants in meetings with aid groups who flooded into Ethiopia to help during the famine, highlighted by the global Live Aid charity concert in 1985.
And now:
Anti-poverty campaigner Bob Geldof on Sunday lashed out at a BBC report that claimed millions of pounds raised for famine relief in Ethiopia by Band Aid in 1985 were used by rebels to pay for weapons.
"About Band Aid, not a single penny went to the armaments, not a pound, not a penny," the Irish rock star told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show. He is considering filing a complaint.

Gun Freedom?

George JONAS penned an excellent summary of the difference between Canadian and American legal attitudes towards firearms ownership.   In Canada one is suspiciously regarded as being a nascent threat to law, order and "good government".  In America it is seen as a right - some insist it is only a constitutionally respected right if you are in the militia - but this always debated and considered under proscribed limits.

Given the atrocious services delivered by the EPS and RCMP (a buddy of mine calls it Crime Management - not Crime Prevention) I think we should have the right to defend ourselves when threatened.  The Federal Department of Justice or Police nation-wide doesn't seem to agree with that sentiment.

On an unrelated matter, a Chinese man Yao Wei Wu is going to charge the Vancouver Police Force in the case that led to his unlawful assault. (image of him a few days after the assault is shown)
A Vancouver resident mistakenly beaten by police at his home earlier this year has filed a lawsuit against the city, two officers and the municipality of Delta.

The lawsuit filed Friday (March 5) by Mr. Wu and his wife, allege that Delta has conducted a "negligent investigation" of the incident. Delta police failed to obtain forensic evidence from the scene of the beating, interview material witnesses or prepare a report to Crown counsel "in a timely way at all," the documents allege. As well, Mr. Wu alleges in the lawsuit that the officers should face criminal charges.
Here is a CBC Interview about the legality of the assault.

Friday 5 March 2010

"Serious" U.S Protectionism rear's it ugly head

A much feared possibility regarding Democrat's "protectionist" penchants reared it's ugly heard today (see article below).  All  federal U.S legislation is up for review every 5 years and for NAFTA that means 2010.    I believe that after discussions between PM Harper and President Obama in the Fall, assurances were given that indicated Obama would likely over-rule any attempt to revoke NAFTA.  Given his weakened state today (so soon) I am not sure if this matters anymore.

One thing is for sure - were the U.S Congress and Senate vote to revoke NAFTA - it would likely trigger a protectionist backlash far worse than the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 - that was considered  a major factor in starting the Great Depression during the 1930's.   However, I hope it unlikely this measure will gain widespread support.  It maybe just a ploy before the 2010 mid-term elections.



U.S. lawmakers launch push to repeal NAFTA


Thu Mar 4, 4:35 PM
By Doug Palmer


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A small group of U.S. lawmakers unveiled legislation on Thursday to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement in the latest sign of congressional disillusionment with free-trade deals.
The bill spearheaded by Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat, would require President Barack Obama to give Mexico and Canada six months notice that the United States will no longer be part of the 16-year-old trade pact.
"At a time when 10 to 12 percent of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work," Taylor said.
He argued NAFTA has cost the United States millions of manufacturing jobs and hurt national security by encouraging companies to move production to Mexico.
The high unemployment rate makes it the "perfect" time to push for repeal even though past efforts have failed, he said.
"You'll see the American people rally behind this, in my humble opinion," said Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who is one of about 28 co-sponsors of the bill.
Business groups like the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly support NAFTA, which they say has spurred U.S. economic growth by tearing down trade barriers between the three countries.
The repeal proposal comes as Obama says he wants to resolve problems blocking congressional approval of long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia.
The strongest opposition to those agreements comes from Obama's fellow Democrats.
The United States also will begin talks later this month with Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam and Brunei on an Asia-Pacific regional free-trade agreement.
Obama criticized NAFTA during the 2008 presidential election campaign but has not followed through on threats to withdraw from the agreement if Canada and Mexico did not agree to revamp the pact's labor and environmental provisions.
But many Democrats are pushing for that and other changes to existing trade deals before considering any new deals such as the deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.
The House of Representatives is expected to vote later this year on whether the United States should remain a member of the World Trade Organization.
U.S. law allows House and Senate members to request a vote on that issue every five years. In 2005, 86 of the House's 435 members voted to withdraw from the world trade body.

Monday 1 March 2010

Inglorious Tarantio is a Basterd

I watched Inglorious Basterd's this weekend. I must admit that I have not been a great admirer of Quinton Tarantino's work in the past - Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction had quixotic plot lines that were mildly entertaining, but the gruesome violence was numbing and wholly "over the top" (and I realize this is part of the caricature).

Happily, Melanie Phillips agrees with this sentiment so I include her assessment in this article.

The net result? No redeeming qualities whatsoever. I hope it fails at the Oscar's as well.

Tom Brokaw introduces Americans to Canadians before Vancouver Olympics

Tom BROWKAW gives a very kind, generous and obviously personal introduction to Canada just before the 2010 Winter Olympics began in Vancouver. (As a major news anchor and reporter he worked with Peter JENNINGS and closely covered both 9/11 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979 - both mentioned in video.)

Ann Coulter is coming to Canada on Speaker Tour

Ezra LEVANT is helping bring Ann COULTER to Canada!  Thursday March 25@730pm at U of Calgary. Here are further details.   She will be signing her most recent book "Guilty".

Here is her hilarious address to CPAC 2010 in Washington Feb 18-20 (during their 1st massive snowfall).



Fox News Ticker

Apture