Quotulatiousness

October 15, 2011

It’s not as stirring a rallying cry to say that the 99% earn 80% of the income

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:32

Lorne Gunter can, if he holds his mouth right, kind of agree with the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters, but he says they do themselves no favours by mixing in fake “facts”:

The protesters’ main point also is obscured by all the lefty, social justice, union-financed trash they have heaped on it. The Occupy movement has proclaimed itself in favour of animal rights, a guaranteed living wage, free health care and education, and an end to the “poisoning” of the food supply.

Nor can the protesters help repeating a lot of class-warfare myths, such the “fact” that 1% of the population controls almost all of the wealth. According to Internal Revenue Service statistics in the United States, the “99 per centers” — as OWS types like to call themselves — earn about 80% of all income and control over two-thirds of the personal wealth (both percentages are slightly higher in Canada), while the “one per centers” earn about 20% of income and control about 32% of wealth.

It’s true that the top 1% of earners are taking a greater share of the pie than at any time since the 1950s, when reliable family income figures first became available. But it is also true that even the bottom 20% of earners are better off than they were then — not as much better off than the top 1%, but better off than they were in the mid-20th century.

[. . .]

But the biggest problem with the OWS movement is what they want to do about the problems they see. Because they view most corporate activity as bad and most government programs as good, the Occupiers have convinced themselves the only way to a fairer society lies through bigger government, more public spending and much higher taxes, all of which would only make our economic problems worse, while alleviating none of the disparity protesters believe is so corrosive to democracy.

The secret way Supreme Court justices are appointed

Filed under: Cancon, Law — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:07

Christie Blatchford isn’t a fan of the secret and convoluted way that our Supreme Court is staffed:

According to the latest serious rumour, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson are poised to make two appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The two will be chosen from a secret short list of six names produced by an all-party selection committee which whittled down a bigger secret list (given to them by the Justice Minister after his officials mysteriously came up with what is believed to have been 12 names) and only after consultation with unnamed officials from provincial law societies and law schools and unnamed senior judges.

[. . .]

The lack of openness is a particular concern with the Supreme Court, which, as has been evident recently, and even in its current ostensibly non-activist form, is plenty activist about telling government when it is wrong.

I refer of course to the Insite decision, which effectively told the federal government, particularly the former health minister Tony Clement, that its policy against this particular supervised injection site was arbitrary, ill-conceived and violated drug users’ rights to “life, liberty and security of the person” as defined by the Charter of Rights.

As it happens, in the end I reluctantly concurred with the result (that Insite stays open), but there’s no getting away from the bottom line that a group of unelected judges over-ruled the elected government and effectively legislated policy, albeit in a specific case.

[. . .]

Canadians are comforted by the fact ours isn’t like the American system, where presidential appointments to the Supreme Court have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate (such an unseemly business, such a circus) and where, o! the horror, some lower-court judges actually run for office.

How is it better to have kings emerge from a secretive inside-baseball process, for all we know involving a witches’ chants and eye of newt, than to vote for them?

Conrad Black on “Occupy Wall Street” and its targets

Filed under: Economics, Government, Media, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:50

Conrad Black looks at the “Occupy Wall Street” movement:

The Wall Street protesters denounce government bail-outs, the political and economic short-shrifting of students and young workers, the high cost of post-secondary education, various forms of discrimination, U.S. foreign policy, union-busting, outsourcing, the oil industry, media misinformation and (more generally) capitalism and globalization.

Of course, this is a pretty hackneyed scatter-gun indictment by people who haven’t really thought it through, but their anger and frustration are largely justified nonetheless: In the past decade, many prominent financial houses joined in the process of issuing consolidated debt obligations (CDOs), consisting of unfathomable patchworks of mortgages on packages of residential real estate, unsupported by any real base of invested equity in the underlying assets by their ostensible owners, and covered by diaphanous fig-leaves of default insurance. These instruments were made deceptively presentable by certifications from the main rating agencies that they were investment-grade, as if issued by serous entities and secured by unquestionable assets.

[. . .]

As for the Wall Street protesters, their largely justified complaints can’t be addressed by the wild methods they suggest. (A proposed list of demands posted at OccupyWallSt.org includes “free college education,” “bring the fossil fuel economy to an end” and “Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all.”) The prestige of the U.S. financial leadership, the country’s political class and its economic academics and financial media have all collapsed at once and together, like a soufflé. Except for the military and the pure sciences, the country’s elites have been utterly discredited, and no one believes anything they say. Even if they wanted to, they could not impose on Americans the sort of radical anti-capitalist reforms the protestors urge.

Chile upgrades their amphibious capabilities

Filed under: Americas, France, Military, Pacific — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 11:21

A brief item from the invaluable Strategy Page talks about Chile’s most recent naval acquisition:

Chile is buying the French amphibious ship Foudre, which is being replaced by a more recent design. The 12,000 ton Foudre has been in service for 21 years and could, with some refurbishment, serve another two decades or more. The 168 meter (521 feet) long ship has a crew of 160 and carries up to 70 vehicles. The well deck contains eight landing craft and there is a hangar that carries up to four helicopters. There are accommodations for 450 troops (or double that for short voyages). The Foudre can also be used as a command ship, which spaces for 150 headquarters personnel and their equipment.

Chile will use the Foudre to replace an 8,700 ton, 40 year old, American Newport class LPD. This ship was retired earlier this year, as it was considered too expensive to refurbish it. France has also offered Chile the second ship of the Foudre class, which is scheduled to retire from French service in a few years. The price of the Foudre to Chile has not been revealed. It will be cheap, and will depend on how much refurbishment French firms will undertake. Foudre undertook several long-distance operations during its career.

This week in Guild Wars 2 news

Filed under: Gaming — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 11:04

I’ve been accumulating news snippets about the as-yet-to-be-formally-scheduled release of Guild Wars 2 for an email newsletter I send out to my friends and acquaintances in the Guild Wars community. Another relatively slow week in the news: nothing further on the closed alpha testing or any guess as to when beta testing will begin.

(more…)

NFL week 6 predictions

Filed under: Football — Tags: — Nicholas @ 00:08

I don’t have any particular advice to offer to other prognosticators this week, as even though I’m doing well overall, it is often the picks I’m most comfortable with that go sour on me and those I’m iffy about work out well. Here are my best guesses for this weekend’s games (favourite listed first):

    @Atlanta vs Carolina (4.0) Sun 10/16 1:00pm
    @Cincinnati vs Indianapolis (7.0) Sun 1:00pm
    @Detroit vs San Francisco (4.5) Sun 1:00pm
    @Green Bay vs St. Louis (15.0) Sun 1:00pm
    @New York (NYG) vs Buffalo (3.5) Sun 1:00pm
    @Pittsburgh vs Jacksonville (12.0) Sun 1:00pm
    Philadelphia vs @Washington (1.5) Sun 1:00pm
    @Oakland vs Cleveland (6.5) Sun 4:05pm
    @Baltimore vs Houston (7.5) Sun 4:05pm
    New England vs Dallas (7.0) Sun 4:15pm
    New Orleans vs @Tampa Bay (4.5) Sun 4:15pm
    @Chicago vs Minnesota (3.0) Sun 8:20pm
    @New York (NYJ) vs Miami (7.0) Mon 8:30pm

Last week 8-5 (6-7 against the spread)
Season to date 51-26

Powered by WordPress