Quotulatiousness

December 23, 2018

Parliamentary renovations

Filed under: Cancon, Government — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Andrew Coyne on the as-yet unclear path forward for the required renovations to the Parliament buildings in Ottawa:

Centre Block on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Photo by S Nameirakpam via Wikimedia Commons.

… nobody seems to know much of anything about the project: not only how long it will take (Public Services and Procurement has already begun backing away from the original 10-year estimate for completion), but how much it will cost (just to move the Commons and Senate into their temporary digs in the West Block and Government Conference Centre, respectively, is estimated to cost over $1 billion; there are no cost estimates as yet for the renovation itself), or even what exactly it entails.

The building itself, constructed in 1916-27 after a fire destroyed the original, is part of the mystery: no one knows quite how it was built, or what went into it. Officials explain they will have to get in and gut the place before they can assess what needs to be done to restore it, let alone update it with such mod cons as air conditioning or Wi-Fi. But part of it is, as usual, a problem of governance. Responsibility for the project seems to have been assumed to be a matter between bureaucrats at Public Services and the House of Commons, who took it upon themselves to make decisions on project design, cost etc with little to no input from those affected: MPs, Senators, or staff, let alone the public who will have to pay for it all.

Not only has there been no consultation, there is no body formally tasked with conducting it: when the Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee temporarily assigned itself the role last week, it was very much stepping into a void. Like the renovation itself, the oversight process gives every appearance of being improvised on the fly.

It’s all a little too symbolic: the renovation of the “people’s house,” the home of our democracy, is proceeding with no budget, no timetable, no plan and only the most rudimentary democratic oversight. The one consolation is that it is likely to get far worse.

Assuming MPs now get their hooks into it, and pouring through the breech after them every interest group and activist organization in the country, the whole thing is likely to devolve into the same chaotic tangle of cross-purposes that is the fate of every other attempt at large-scale collective enterprise in this country — Trans Mountain meets the Meech Lake Accord. There are children not yet born, I’d wager, who will be voting in their first election before this is completed, at a cost of God knows how many billions.

December 19, 2018

HMCS Haida – Guide 027 (Special)

Filed under: Cancon, History, Military, WW2 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 02:00

Drachinifel
Published on 13 Aug 2017

The most successful Canadian warship, HMCS Haida, is the subject of today’s video

The robotic narration on this video is painfully irritating!

Update, 14 February 2021: Drachinifel updated the narration at some point after I posted the original.

QotD: Maple-flavoured corporate welfare

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Government, Quotations — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

There’s that word: “investments.” That’s what Canadians — Ontarians and Quebecers, certainly — have been trained to expect in these situations: An elaborate mating dance culminating in a greasy press conference where corporate leaders hail bold new provincial and federal “investments” in the company and its workers and its world-beating widgets. Critics are assailed as uncaring and testily reminded that every jurisdiction subsidizes the widget industry.

Traditionally, this is later followed by outrage when it emerges the company has used taxpayers’ bold investment to pay out lavish bonuses or dividends. In the fullest version of the performance, the company just pulls up stakes and leaves town anyway — sometimes having fulfilled its stated obligations, sometimes not, but always leaving behind a bad taste and a per-employee subsidy rate that makes no sense in hindsight.

If the company is Bombardier, it might extract lavish subsidies from government for an airplane project on the theory the Canada needs an aerospace industry, then turn around and sell the project to a foreign competitor for basically nothing.

Chris Selley, “A reminder that governments don’t ‘invest’ in businesses. It’s just corporate welfare”, National Post, 2018-11-28.

December 18, 2018

Repost – Induced aversion to a particular Christmas song

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Media, Personal — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Earlier this year, I had occasion to run a Google search for “Mr Gameway’s Ark” (it’s still almost unknown: the Googles, they do nothing). However, I did find a very early post on the old site that I thought deserved to be pulled out of the dusty archives, because it explains why I can — to this day — barely stand to listen to “Little Drummer Boy”:

Seasonal Melodies

James Lileks has a concern about Christmas music:

This isn’t to say all the classics are great, no matter who sings them. I can do without “The Little Drummer Boy,” for example.

It’s the “Bolero” of Christmas songs. It just goes on, and on, and on. Bara-pa-pa-pum, already. Plus, I understand it’s a sweet little story — all the kid had was a drum to play for the newborn infant — but for anyone who remembers what it was like when they had a baby, some kid showing up unannounced to stand around and beat on the skins would not exactly complete your mood. Happily, the song has not spawned a sequel like “The Somewhat Larger Cymbal Adolescent.”

This reminds me about my aversion to this particular song. It was so bad that I could not hear even three notes before starting to wince and/or growl.

Back in the early 1980’s, I was working in Toronto’s largest toy and game store, Mr Gameway’s Ark. It was a very odd store, and the owners were (to be polite) highly idiosyncratic types. They had a razor-thin profit margin, so any expenses that could be avoided, reduced, or eliminated were so treated. One thing that they didn’t want to pay for was Muzak (or the local equivalent), so one of the owners brought in his home stereo and another one put together a tape of Christmas music.

Note that singular. “Tape”.

Christmas season started somewhat later in those distant days, so that it was really only in December that we had to decorate the store and cope with the sudden influx of Christmas merchandise. Well, also, they couldn’t pay for the Christmas merchandise until sales started to pick up, so that kinda accounted for the delay in stocking-up the shelves as well …

So, Christmas season was officially open, and we decorated the store with the left-over krep from the owners’ various homes. It was, at best, kinda sad. But — we had Christmas music! And the tape was pretty eclectic: some typical 50’s stuff (White Christmas and the like), some medieval stuff, some Victorian stuff and that damned Drummer Boy song.

We were working ten- to twelve-hour shifts over the holidays (extra staff? you want Extra Staff, Mr. Cratchitt???), and the music played on. And on. And freaking on. Eternally. There was no way to escape it.

To top it all off, we were the exclusive distributor for a brand new game that suddenly was in high demand: Trivial Pursuit. We could not even get the truck unloaded safely without a cordon of employees to keep the random passers-by from snatching boxes of the damned game. When we tried to unpack the boxes on the sales floor, we had customers snatching them out of our hands and running (running!) to the cashier. Stress? It was like combat, except we couldn’t shoot back at the buggers.

Oh, and those were also the days that Ontario had a Sunday closing law, so we were violating all sorts of labour laws on top of the Sunday closing laws, so the Police were regular visitors. Given that some of our staff spent their spare time hiding from the Police, it just added immeasurably to the tension levels on the shop floor.

And all of this to the background soundtrack of Christmas music. One tape of Christmas music. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

It’s been over 20 years 30 years now, and I still feel the hackles rise on the back of my neck with this song … but I’m over the worst of it now: I can actually listen to it without feeling that all-consuming desire to rip out the sound system and dance on the speakers. After two three decades.

December 16, 2018

Mackenzie King at war

Filed under: Cancon, History, Politics, WW2 — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Ted Campbell remembers Canada’s Second World War Prime Minister:

Prime Minister Winston Churchill greets Canadian PM William Lyon Mackenzie King, 1941.
Photo from Library and Archives Canada (reference number C-047565) via Wikimedia Commons.

I was born in 1942, William Lyon Mackenzie King was the prime minister; my mother often said that, in the 1940s, it seemed that he would never cease to be prime minister, and she thoroughly detested him; it wasn’t all of his policies she hated, it was, mainly, how he approached the war, and a few other things ~ she was, later, fond of the Canadian poet F.R. Scott’s rather bitter epitaph:

He seemed to be in the centre because we had no centre,
No vision to pierce the smoke-screen of his politics.

Truly he will be remembered wherever men honour ingenuity,
Ambiguity, inactivity, and political longevity.

Let us raise up a temple to the cult of mediocrity,
Do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters.

Now, Canada fought a good war, we made four absolutely vital contributions:

  • We were the true “breadbasket of the empire,” our farmers fed our large Army and much of Britain’s, too;
  • We were a major part of the “arsenal of democracy,” our factories and shipyards turned out all of the things, from tanks and trucks and bombers and corvettes to Bren guns and grenades that were needed to help defeat the Axis powers;
  • We managed the all important British Commonwealth Air Training Plan that was a key element in the allies’ eventual success; and
  • We played a huge and a significant leadership role in the Battle of the Atlantic ~ the only battle Churchill said that he really feared losing.

But under King we did each with apparent reluctance, seemingly trying to never serve any vital interest if there was even a remote chance that any political constituency might be offended ~ something that reminds me of Justin Trudeau in 2018. Our large and entirely commendable war efforts were, in the main, directed, sometimes despite King, by the indefatigable C.D. Howe, and the national unity concerns were assuaged by recruiting the universally respected Louis St Laurent.

The King era was characterized by extraordinarily tepid leadership at the top but brilliant work by strong ministers in a small cabinet. It also began Phase 1 of a national political civil war. I think that in the First World War many Canadians had either understood or had been, largely, indifferent to Quebec’s objections to conscription. But in the 1940s we had better mass communications and many Canadians were less understanding of Quebec’s reluctance to participate in that war, especially as Canadian casualties mounted after Hong Kong and then in Italy and then in France, Belgium and Holland. Louis St Laurent did not try to explain French Quebec’s misgivings to English Canada, his job was to maintain, by force of his own stellar reputation and personality, just enough support in Quebec and, as he easily did, to “outclass” the vocal, crypto-fascist, French Canadian opponents to the war. But there was another division fomenting inside the Liberal Party of Canada: both Howe and St Laurent had a new vision for Canada in the post war world; both saw Canada as an important actor on the world stage; both were frustrated by King’s timid leadership; it is very probable that had St Laurent, the foreign minister, rather than King, [been] the prime minister, led Canada’s delegation to the UN’s founding conference in San Francisco in June of 1945 that Canada, not France, would have been the fifth member of the Security Council (or that it would have had only four members. as originally planned). St Laurent, especially, was known, liked and respected in both London and Washington; both he and Howe were highly regarded as leaders and as statesmen … King was not; Churchill distrusted him because he has actively supported Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and it seems to me that both Churchill and Roosevelt saw him as little more than an errand boy.

December 13, 2018

Toronto’s own “Most Precious Citizens”

Filed under: Business, Cancon — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Chris Selley on a tempest-in-a-teapot that is convulsing Toronto’s Cabbagetown residents:

Houses in a typical Cabbagetown street in Toronto.
Photo by Alain Rouiller via Wikimedia Commons.

Every city has its Most Precious Citizens — that hyper-privileged group of over-comfortable supposed progressives who are too hopelessly tone-deaf to realize the rest of the city can’t stand them. MPCs can serve a valuable unifying purpose: Residents from all walks of life, who might otherwise struggle to share common experience, can bond in mutual appreciation of their ridiculousness.

Torontonians are truly blessed to have the Quintessential Cabbagetowners to play this role. These folks make the Ward’s Islanders look blue-collar. Riverdale might as well be a 1950s Welsh coal mining village. And the Quintessential Cabbagetowners’ most recent performance has been a classic: A businessman wants to open a daycare in a lovely corner house with storefront space. The MPCs have been freaking out in ways that have their reality-based neighbours hiding their heads between their knees.

Some claim a daycare is simply incompatible with Cabbagetown’s gorgeous 19th-century Victorian row houses. As a “de facto commercial operation,” one resident complained, it would represent “a slippery slope for this iconic neighbourhood” and “an outrage.”

“This is standard-issue capitalism run amok,” a local resident told the magazine Toronto Life. He’s a mining executive, which is absolutely perfect.

The most precious quailed at the thought of hearing children at play. “The idea of tolerating (it) is frankly ludicrous, and completely incongruent with this, or any other, residential corner in this city,” one couple wrote to the city.

More reasonable folks claim daycare in Cabbagetown is a fine idea, just “not on this particular street,” because it is “too narrow,” with “too many cars on it.” That describes all streets in Cabbagetown, though.

Toronto’s downtown neighbourhoods

December 8, 2018

Will the West want in again this time?

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

The last time Albertan sensibilities were being regularly assaulted by federal politicians, the response was the Reform Party with their slogan “The West Wants In”. This time, Lawrence Solomon suggests, the Albertan response might not be so congenial:

Canadians don’t value our fossil fuel economy, which explains why so many are OK to trash pipelines and see Alberta tank. Only 19 per cent think it more important to pursue oil and gas development than to go green and regulate oil, according to EKOS polling. That 19 per cent figure shrinks to eight per cent for Canadians who consider themselves Liberals, six per cent for NDPers and two per cent for those who vote Green, meaning that politicians of most stripes have no interest in alienating their supporters to help Alberta’s energy economy recover.

Those figures also explain why Alberta’s sense of alienation is on the rise. According to Ipsos, fully 62 per cent believe Alberta “does not get its fair share from Confederation” (up from 45 per cent two decades ago), 46 per cent feel more attached to their province than to their country (up from 39 per cent) and 34 per cent “feel less committed to Canada than I did a few years ago” (up from 22 per cent). Just 18 per cent of Albertans believe “the views of western Canadians are adequately represented in Ottawa.”

One-quarter of Albertans now believe Alberta “would be better off if it separated from Canada,” a number that may well rise if the provincial economy founders, and would certainly rise if Albertans realized that they need Canada a lot less than Canada needs them. Without Alberta’s wealth and foreign-exchange earnings, the living standard of Canadians outside Alberta would drop and the Canadian dollar would plummet, likely leading to inflation as the cost of imports rose. Albertans, in contrast, would see their affluence rise and, because oil sales are denominated in U.S. dollars, Alberta would be largely insulated from the inflation to its east and west.

Those pooh-poohing independence claim Alberta, being land-locked, would be held hostage if it were an independent state. Those scoffers have it backwards. Alberta is today held hostage, its pipelines east and west kiboshed by its fellow Canadians. If Alberta were independent, its newfound bargaining power would certainly cause the Rest of Canada to capitulate, and speed to completion any and all pipelines Alberta needed to either ocean.

An independent Alberta would control access to its land mass as well as the skies above it, requiring Canada’s federal government to negotiate rights for, say, Vancouver-to-Toronto flights over Alberta airspace. Canada would also need Alberta’s agreement to have trains and trucks cross its now-international borders. Threats of tolls and tariffs could abound as needed to chasten those perceived to be wronging Alberta, whether Quebec, which exports dairy to B.C., grain interests that now commandeer rail to the detriment of Alberta’s oil shippers, or the B.C. ports that depend on commodities going to and from points east. Anyone thinking that Alberta would be unable to police its borders needs to be reminded that, for the past 70 years, Alberta’s patrols have made it the continent’s only rat-free jurisdiction.

December 5, 2018

The Alberta government must be getting a heck of a deal on those tank cars and locomotives

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Government, Railways — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley grabbed headlines recently with her pledge to buy additional railway locomotives and tank cars to help move some of Alberta’s excess crude oil to market. Brian Zinchuk says those numbers don’t make sense, given the amount of money the province is to pay:

On Nov. 28, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced her province is going to be acquiring unit trains to get her province’s landlocked oil moving. Not only has she committed money to Trans Mountain Expansion, but now rail, too. This premier is serious.

However, there’s a big problem with her numbers. She spoke of $350 million to purchase up to 7,000 rail cars and 80 locomotives. That $350 million doesn’t come even close. It might be enough to lease those units for a few years. Her stated intention was this was a short-term solution, and the life expectancy of a locomotive and tanker cars is easily into three or four decades.

However, she said, “Alberta will buy rail cars ourselves in our fight to get top dollar for the resources that belong to every Albertan.”

I never saw “lease” mentioned once.

Notley spoke of 120,000 barrels per day (bpd) of capacity. Her initial statements weren’t very clear, as someone with little knowledge of the business might think she just meant two sets of 100 or 120 car trains. That wasn’t at all what she meant.

She meant enough trains to keep 120,000 barrels per day in motion, each and every day. That’s a lot of rail cars, and a lot of locomotives.

[…]

There’s a problem with her numbers, however. The current standard locomotives used by Canadian railways cost US$3 million each as of December 2017, when CN bought 200 locomotives for US$600 million. That’s $3.859 million Canadian, each, at the exchange rate at that time. Notley spoke of 80 locomotives – that’s $308.7 million. That only leaves $41.3 million for 7,000 rail cars, or $5,897 each. That’s obviously way too low. So either there’s some leasing considerations involved here, perhaps on the locomotives, or the $350 million is way too low. Remember they were asking the feds for half? Even if the feds coughed up an additional $350 million, that still leaves only $55,900 per car.

My math shows, on the low end, a price tag of $945 million for new rail cars alone. Coupled with ~$309 million for locomotives, and you come in at $1.254 billion. At the high end, it would be $1.484 billion for cars, totalling $1.793 billion including locomotives. Either way, it’s a heck of a lot more than the $350 million announced. Unless she’s leasing, Notley’s $350 million is only one-third to one-fifth of the money required to buy all these new trains, and no consideration has been given to staffing or operational costs.

H/T to Small Dead Animals for the link.

The true lesson to be learned from GM Canada’s economic plight

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Economics, Government — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Andrew Coyne tries to encapsulate the key economic concept that should be taken away from the GM Canada collapse:

Think of it this way. Governments have proven more than ready in the past to pay whatever the auto companies demanded to hold onto threatened jobs. If there were any chance whatsoever of buying the plant’s reprieve, no matter how foolishly or expensively, can there be any doubt they would have? That they did not — apparently GM waved them off — tells you how hopeless the plant’s prospects really are.

Many have recalled that the closure of the Oshawa plant comes less than a decade after the Canadian operations of GM and Chrysler were bailed out with $14 billion in federal and provincial money, $4 billion of which was never recovered. The lesson some have drawn from this is that GM is a devious ingrate, which may be fair comment but is not especially helpful. The real lesson is this: when you try to buy jobs with public money, the jobs last only as long as the money does. In the end, all you will have done is to lure people into taking or staying in jobs that were long since doomed.

Like most of economics, this is wholly alien to popular wisdom. There is a rich vein of commentary to the effect that the laws of economics are effectively optional, something we can resist by force of will: we can either bend to “market forces,” or we can “stand up” to them in some fashion. But in fact the latter option is entirely imaginary, at least in the long run. You can perhaps lure plants and jobs your way at the outset with subsidies and other goodies. But the only assurance they will stay is if it makes economic sense to the company to keep them there.

If not, then all you have won with your subsidy is the right to go on providing more subsidy, which is a fairly accurate description of Canadian automobile policy in recent decades. The workers whose jobs successive governments boasted of creating or saving were effectively hostages; as in all hostage-takings, the payment of ransom only stimulates further demands for ransom. Until one day when the money runs out, and the workers whose jobs were supposedly saved find themselves abandoned. This may be many things, but one thing it is not is compassionate.

December 2, 2018

Canada’s initial WW1 infantry weapon, the Ross rifle

Filed under: Cancon, History, Military, Weapons, WW1 — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

During the Boer War, the British were busy producing Lee-Enfield rifles for the British army and didn’t have enough extra manufacturing capacity to fulfill a modest Canadian order. The government of the day took this opportunity to try to find a distinctly Canadian weapon to equip the (tiny) Canadian militia. They ended up purchasing the Ross rifle, which is what the men of the Canadian Corps took into the field during the First World War. It didn’t go well, as the highly accurate Ross was not well-suited to the rough-and-tumble life of an infantry weapon in the trenches of Flanders. The mechanism was prone to jamming in muddy conditions and did not work well with low-quality ammunition. It became a national scandal, and eventually most of the Ross rifles were replaced with British Lee-Enfields, except for the sniper weapons (where the Ross was much better suited to the needs of the job). The National Interest has the story:

Ross rifle model 1910B
Photo by Vaarok via Wikimedia Commons.

Tested head to head with the Lee-Enfield Mark I, the Ross did well in some of the trials but came up short in other crucial ones, such as the endurance test. Some 1,000 rounds were fired through each rifle and, while the Lee-Enfield functioned well, the Ross repeatedly jammed. After the 300th round, the heat of firing melted away the foresight, which was fastened with common solder. Ross explained that prior tests had been conducted with ammunition of American and Austrian manufacture and that “the standard called for in the manufacture of British .303 cartridges is not of the same precision and quality of material hence greater limits have to be allowed.” His dubious explanation was accepted by the committee.

Already the enterprise was off on the wrong foot. Due to Borden’s choices, the investigative committee leaned in favor of the Ross. It was obvious that no accurate appraisal of anything can result from a biased investigative body. Hughes in particular championed the rifle, and his stubborn resistance to evidence that contradicted his opinions bordered on the irrational. To the end he would insist that the Ross was superior to the Lee-Enfield, even after thousands of Canadian soldiers had simply thrown theirs away on the battlefield.

If the weapon had flaws, so did the purchase contract. Under its terms, Ross was to provide 12,000 rifles during 1903 and 10,000 every year thereafter, with a 75 percent advance on all rifles ordered for the duration of the contract, which was not stipulated. The cost of the Ross was not to exceed that of a Lee-Enfield in Britain, yet the price set was $25, compared to $18.27 the War Office paid for a Lee-Enfield. The contract also stated that materials and machinery Ross needed to import to meet the manufacturing requirements were to be exempt from import taxes. Because there was no division outlined between military and sporting rifles, Ross could get all his imports duty-free, regardless of whether they were built for government contract or not. There was no guarantee Ross would provide more rifles in the event of a national emergency, only that he would provide 10,000 annually after the initial 12,000. There was also no mention in the contract of providing a bayonet.

[…]

The final verdict on the Ross was rendered in the vile ooze of mud, filth, and rotting corpses that characterized trench warfare during the Great War. From the first day of fighting, the frequent jamming of the Ross forced soldiers to strike the bolts with entrenching tools or boot heels to clear them. The problem was attributed to the British ammunition being used, which was slightly larger than Canadian- manufactured rounds, but a significant factor was faulty manufacturing that resulted in deformed firing chambers. Long and unwieldy, the Ross was also not well suited for use in narrow trenches. Soon, British Small Magazine Lee-Enfield rifles began appearing in the Canadian ranks, causing First Division commander Lt. Gen. E.A.H. Alderson to issue an order that his men were not permitted to be in possession of SMLE rifles. It was an order largely ignored.

If earlier investigations had repeatedly given the rifle a pass and rendered a skewed verdict, the Canadian soldiers in the trenches did not. In April 1915, after the bloody fight at the Second Battle of Ypres, Belgium, which also saw the first gas attacks of the war, 1,452 of the 5,000 surviving Canadian soldiers threw away their Ross rifles and picked up Lee-Enfields from British casualties. The verdict of the fighting soldier had been delivered. With confidence in the rifle badly damaged, British Commander in Chief Sir John French issued orders rearming the First Canadian Division with the SMLE.

Not all the reports from the line were negative; the superb accuracy and faster loading capability of the Ross made it an excellent sniper’s rifle, as Sergeant William Carey, one of Canada’s top snipers, discovered one morning at St. Eloi. He and a German sniper spotted each other at the same time and both fired, each missing the other. But the bolt action of the Ross gave Carey the edge; he was able to reload and fire faster than the German, and his next shot was lethal. Although it would be replaced as the standard issue service rifle, the Ross would remain a valuable sniper’s weapon.

December 1, 2018

CAFE killed the North American passenger car

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Government, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

The move by GM to close many of its remaining car manufacturing facilities in Canada and the US is a belated rational response — not to the market, but to the ways government action has distorted the market. In the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon explains how, step-by-step, the CAFE rules have shifted drivers out of sedans and wagons and into minivans, pickup trucks, and SUVs:

Before the U.S. government introduced Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to increase the distance cars could travel per gallon of gas, sedans and full-size station wagons were popular and SUVs were unknown. CAFE, which effectively governed the entire North American market thanks to the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, incented manufacturers to artificially raise the cost of large passenger cars in order to favour smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. It soon claimed its first victim: the full-size station wagon, whose flexible interior accommodated both passenger and cargo needs, and which, at its peak, came in 62 models to satisfy different tastes.

But, although CAFE priced the station wagon out of the market, the market still demanded a vehicle that offered its flexibility. Enter Lee Iacocca, the chairman of Chrysler, who helped develop the minivan and convinced the U.S. government to deem it a truck rather than a passenger vehicle, thus exempting it from the strict CAFE standards that killed the station wagon. The minivan took off — the first 1984 model, built in Windsor, sold 209,000 its first year — followed by the SUV, which also was deemed a truck rather than a passenger vehicle. By 2000, the passenger car had less than half the market. Today it accounts for only about a third.

CAFE standards didn’t only claim certain car models as victims, they also made the whole industry a victim by making it dependent on government whims and then handouts. CAFE also distorted the market by creating credits for ethanol and electric vehicles and by creating a lobbyist’s dream through ever-changing regulations that led car manufacturers to continually game the system to favour their own vehicles over those of competitors.

Perversely, by improving mileage, CAFE also increased distances travelled and emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The 2025 CAFE targets (since cancelled by President Trump) ran to almost 2,000 pages and were estimated to add an average of US$1,946 to the cost of a vehicle. Tax loopholes also helped accelerate SUV sales — like all light trucks, they were exempted from the gas-guzzler’s excise tax and also given preferential tax treatment as business vehicles.

November 30, 2018

“Infrastructure” is a Canadian word meaning “jobs for the boys”

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

H/T to Colby Cosh for the link.

November 28, 2018

The bitter economics of North American passenger railways

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, History, Railways, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Earlier this month, I posted an excerpt from The Romance of the Rails, by Randal O’Toole. It’s a book I haven’t yet read, but based on what I’ve heard, his analysis of the state of US and Canadian passenger rail is both savage and accurate — as in, we’re insane to subsidize long-distance or high-speed rail for the wealthy out of the taxes levied on the poor. Recently, Trains columnist Fred Frailey got a chance to chat with O’Toole about his work:

Amtrak Acela passing through Old Saybrook, CT
Photo by Chasesmith via Wikimedia Commons

That was one of the pleasures of reading your book, to discover you are a lover of trains and railroads, and that you marry this with a contrarian way of thinking. Do you take perverse pleasure in that combination? Oh, not at all. To me, it’s really sad. I wish I could support passenger trains, and I do support them as far as riding them and things like that. But I know enough about government subsidies to know that they reduce overall productivity and usually end up taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The people who are riding the Acela are not people in need of government handouts. The people who are riding light rail and things like that are not the poor, by and large.

What is the future of the long-distance trains? The role they fulfill is giving people access to scenery they can’t see in any other way, and really, it ends up being something for the wealthy. I think the Rocky Mountaineer model is the future of long-distance trains, and if you look at the United States, where can we have a Rocky Mountaineer? Certainly, Oakland to Denver, probably Oakland to Los Angeles, and after that, it gets pretty iffy. They would become cruise trains.

You seem almost as uncharitable towards the short-distance passenger trains. Amtrak does its best to deceive people about how well these trains do, for example, counting state subsidies as “passenger revenues,” in order to make itself eligible for more subsidies. I wouldn’t mind short-distance trains if they worked, but the Cascades, the California service, those trains aren’t really doing anything. A lot of money is spent carrying not that many people.

[…]

Statistics of yours that struck me are that public transit paid 90 percent of operating costs in 1964 from fares and just 32 percent today. Why not try to make the rail part of public transit more viable? You don’t address that in your book. You can’t make it more economically viable, simply because buses are so much better in every respect than rails. If you take the rail lines, and pave them over, and turn them into busways, you’ll be able to move more people, faster and cheaper and with far lower maintenance costs. Even if you could make the rails pay for themselves, since the buses are so much cheaper, why would we bother?

You seem most upset at places like Orlando and Dallas and Nashville, where commuter rail or light rail began but so few seem to ride. It this money thrown to the wind? I think so. Why is it that we allowed steam to change to diesel, sailing ships to steam ships — all these different technological evolutions to take place — but when it came to passenger rail, we said, “Halt, we don’t want more technological change.” The answer is threefold. It’s nostalgia. It’s people who are making money from wasting money, such as contactors — crony capitalism. And it’s accidents of history. The accident of history affecting urban rail transit was in 1973. Governor Francis Sargent of Massachusetts asked Congress to let cities substitute capital investments in transit for interstate highway grants. Congress said yes, but you can’t spend that amount of money on new busses. Instead, cities such as Buffalo, Portland, and San Jose built new rail lines with money from cancelled freeways because they are expensive and could use up those federal dollars. That’s what started the light-rail revolution, not because it was cheap, but because it was expensive.

November 25, 2018

“They said Trudeau was going to be a uniter, but what an accomplishment”

Filed under: Cancon, Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Calgary this week, just as the city council officially buried its Olympic bid (but somehow decided to try to keep the subsidies from other levels of government for that event). His visit was the target of protests from both organized labour and Albertans angry about the federal government’s part in keeping Alberta oil from getting to market:

The prime minister flew into Calgary on Thursday to meet with Mayor Nenshi, chat with the Chamber of Commerce, and have photos taken at the site of new social housing being built partly on Ottawa’s dime. The PM left no word on what he thought of the whole “let’s buy Calgary an Olympics without going to the trouble of having one” concept. There were unexpected distractions at every turn in Calgary, the main one being a fierce protest outside his temporary headquarters at the downtown Hyatt.

The Herald’s agreed-upon estimate of the size of the anti-Trudeau protest was two thousand people. I am not sure I trust their math, but at any rate the crowd was large enough to snarl traffic and intimidate the police. I say “crowd,” but perhaps the word should be “crowds,” because the protest was actually twofold.

The striking Canadian Union of Postal Workers was there to discourage Trudeau from passing the back-to-work legislation his cabinet is cooking up. And there was also a coinciding protest over the landlocking of Alberta’s oil, which has widened the spread between world oil prices and local spot prices to surreal, unimagined heights. The sluggishness of pipeline construction has left Alberta hydrocarbons all but worthless. And now the world price is tottering from medium-high levels, ending a sunshiny global oil season from which the province got no advantage.

The posties’ chants of “Negotiate!” alternated with the militant oilpatch’s cries of “Build that pipe!” In a way the spectacle was touching. Here, in the streets of Calgary, you had one of the most internationalist and red-dyed corners of Canadian organized labour literally joining forces with its mostly non-union, mostly right-wing working-class brethren. They said Trudeau was going to be a uniter, but what an accomplishment.

This solidarity will, of course, be fleeting. CUPW, having played the Grinch successfully, will either cut a deal or take its medicine when the back-to-work law passes. But Calgary’s resentment of Trudeau will not be so quick to evaporate — nor, perhaps, will the images of our young prime minister facing a display of active mass public hostility for the first time.

November 24, 2018

It’d be an inhumanly restrained government that wouldn’t take advantage of this arrangement

Filed under: Business, Cancon, Government, Media — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

And I don’t know of anyone who thinks that highly of our current federal government. In the Financial Post, Terence Corcoran outlines the government’s bribe offer to Canadian media organizations:

Historically, a free press has meant freedom from government intervention — from the king, the president, the prime minister, politicians, bureaucrats. The proposals outlined Wednesday by Finance Minister Bill Morneau to rescue journalists pretends to be consistent with that fundamental principle. The measures, he said, will be “arm’s-length and independent of the government.” They are not, and they represent a step backward for Canadian journalism.

Under the Morneau proposals, the arm of government is directly involved in deciding which journalists or news organizations will receive special treatment, tax breaks, charitable status. Over five years the amount of federal money moving directly into news and journalism will exceed $600 million, which obviously results in government dependence, not independence.

Morneau’s own words betray the falsity of his defence of the media-bailout plan. Decisions will be in the hands of an “independent panel of journalists (that) will be established to define and promote core journalism standards, define professional journalism, and determine eligibility.” What the heck does all that mean? Other journalists are going to set standards for what? Content? Ethics? Ideology? Adherence to the Canada Food Guide?

[…]

It is also unlikely that these measures to shape local journalism and bolster some media companies over others will be the end of government efforts to meddle in the industry. One can reasonably expect that there will be corresponding attempts to undermine the corporate entities and others that are said to be destabilizing Canadian journalism and the news and information business.

There is constant pressure on government from many sources to take action against the social media giants that are accused of stealing profits from legacy newspapers while spreading fake news. In a new commentary this week, former U.S. labour secretary Robert Reich called on Washington to break up Facebook and Google on the grounds that they dominate advertising. Anti-trust action is needed, said Reich, on the grounds that they “stifle innovation.” Canadian regulatory activists share the view that the U.S. tech and media companies need to be controlled and taxed — with the money redistributed to Canadian entities.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress