June 10, 2010
Penn Jillette wants more politicians like Rand Paul
Comments Off on Penn Jillette wants more politicians like Rand Paul
June 9, 2010
Book written in 1944 tops Amazon bestseller list
Admittedly, this is an updated and supplemented version of the original text, but it’s still impressive to see it selling so well.
Update: American Digest has pages from the picture book version:
June 8, 2010
Questions of basic economics
Daniel Klein surveyed nearly 5,000 voting-age Americans on their basic comprehension of the political trade-offs on economic issues. He also asked them to identify themselves on the political spectrum. There were some interesting correlations:
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: “Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.” People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.
Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.
Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree.” This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer “not sure,” which we do not count as incorrect.
In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.
[. . .]
The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
H/T to Ghost of a Flea.
Comments Off on Questions of basic economics
June 7, 2010
Suddenly, the decision makes less more sense
Kelly McParland connects the dots on Mayor Miller’s surprising conversion to honouring the fallen (original post here):
As Sun columnist Joe Warmington points out, there’s already a Highway of Heroes: It’s the route along the 401 that leads from CFB Trenton, where the bodies of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan are brought home, to the coroner’s office near Queen’s Park in Toronto. Canadians spontaneously line the route each time a fallen soldier is returned. It’s not officially organized or directed — it’s just patriotic people showing their respect for the men and women who gave their lives to serve their country.
David Miller is about eight years late in recognizing that. Choosing a name that is similar but slightly different from the Highway of Heroes just confuses the issue: why does the route have to change names once it enters Toronto? Toronto is the city that couldn’t bring itself to allow fire trucks and ambulances to carry decals saying “Support our Troops”, and Miller was among those who wanted them taken off, in case someone got the mistaken impression Toronto actually supported the mission in Afghanistan.
Comments Off on Suddenly, the decision makes less more sense
June 5, 2010
Happy Tax Freedom Day! Maybe that’s not the right word . . .
Comments Off on Happy Tax Freedom Day! Maybe that’s not the right word . . .
May 28, 2010
Is it too late to cancel?
Chris Selley rounds up the (almost unanimous) pundits’ opinions about the billion-dollar-boondoggle-summit-set:
Is it too late to cancel the G8 and G20 summits?
The National Post‘s Don Martin for the win: “No amount of righteous government bluster about living in post-9/11 protection paranoia, last week’s bank firebombing in Ottawa or the precedent of hosting two back-to-back summits can explain how an $18-million security tab for the G20 in Pittsburgh last September, which involved 4,000 police, must balloon to a billion dollars in Toronto requiring 10,000 cops on the ground.” Yup. It’s outrageous, and the government seems very oddly . . . proud of it. We can hardly wait for the Auditor-General and Parliamentary Budget Officer to find out just where this money went. Especially in a climate where Canadians are thoroughly cheesed off about government spending in the first place, it’s not too much of a stretch to say this is the sort of issue that might bring down a government.
“A case of bureaucracy gone wild,” is Jeffrey Simpson‘s uncontroversial verdict in The Globe and Mail, “or planning gone crazy, of fear sinking itself into every official’s and security person’s heart.” Imagine what we could have bought with that $1-billion! A bunch more Canada Research Chairs, or a whack of “clean-energy projects,” or assistance for “cultural groups” — so sleepy — or, hey, now we’re talking, a massive injection of cash for infrastructure on aboriginal reserves. Or, as Simpson says, “whatever.” Almost literally anything would be better. We’d arguably be better off flushing the $1-billion down the john.
For those of you looking forward to suffering through the event, here’s the official map of the restricted area around the Metro Convention Centre:
The best advice — unless you’re hoping for a run-in with the police — is to avoid Toronto for that weekend (plus a few days in either direction).
May 27, 2010
The absurdity of spending $1 Billion for G20 meeting security
Hard to disagree with anything Rex Murphy says here:
Summits are useless, expensive and potentially dangerous anachronisms.
Let’s take the G20 summit, which will be held June 26-27 in Toronto. No one from the general public will be meeting with the world leaders — summits are not for mingling. So why are the leaders gathering in the middle of Canada’s most populous city when the very idea of interacting with any of the city’s population is absolutely impossible?
Once inside the summit venue the leaders — and their insanely bloated retinues — will be almost antiseptically sealed off from every other bit of Toronto. It’s all fortified meeting rooms and security-proofed hotels for them. Effectively, they will come to Toronto, stay behind a shield of impassable security and talk to leaders they’ve already met. It makes zero sense.
If you’re of a Toronto-centric, anti-Stephen Harper mindset (that would be most Toronto voters), you might attribute it to Harper recreating the famous pacification policy of Henry II: imposing the costs of supporting the royal court by visiting the powerful nobles (that is, the victim can’t refuse the honour of hosting the King, and then has no money or time to plot or scheme against same).
Update: Kelly McParland makes another good point:
Hard as it is to fathom, the Conservatives appear to have successfully created a bigger waste of money than the Liberal gun registry. It took a long time — they’ve had 15 years to study how the Liberals went about wasting so much money on an agency that costs a lot and doesn’t work — but they’ve managed.
In doing so, they’ve disqualified themselves from ever complaining again about money-wasting Liberal schemes, or the gun registry itself for that matter. If Tories can blow a billion forcing everyone in Toronto to find somewhere else to spend the weekend of June 26-27, Liberals can force farmers to get shotgun licences.
Comments Off on The absurdity of spending $1 Billion for G20 meeting security
May 25, 2010
The dangers of writing near-future SF
Charles Stross gets sandbagged by the unforeseen:
Back in mid-2008 I mentioned that what I thought was a futuristic-circa-2023 technology for the next novel was too damn close. Slightly more recently, in Living through interesting times, I mentioned that it was becoming near-as-dammit impossible to write near-future SF; I was sore because Bernie Madoff had stolen the plot of my next novel.
Well, I picked myself up, dusted myself down, re-framed the novel in question, and I’m currently about 80% of the way through writing it when it all happened again. First of all, Lothian and Borders Police actually established a recognizable-as-the-embryonic-form version of the unit that one of my protagonists, circa 2023, manages. (Only I got the staffing level and departmental mission statement slightly off-whack …) Next, there’s just been another revolution in Kyrgyzstan (a country which, for reasons I’m not going to discuss here, plays a significant role in “Rule 34”).
But the worst thing? I’ve been sandbagged by an unanticipated event.
Of course, it’s quite understandable — after all these years, who knew there even was a “libertarian arm of the Conservative party” to mess up Charlie’s plot of the near-future?
Comments Off on The dangers of writing near-future SF
May 24, 2010
Why the Canadian political sphere lacks zest
It’s a fundamental issue that prevents any form of excitement from being discussed, or acted upon:
In Britain, even post-Blair, many of the best and brightest still go into politics. Until the expenses scandal, there was something of a cache to being an MP, something which will probably return in time. The typical Canadian Cabinet is, by comparison, made of poorer quality timbers. The average minister of the crown, here in the Elder Dominion, might make it as a parliamentary secretary back in the Mother Country. Our best and brightest go into business, science and down South. In Canada, those who can’t do, teach, those who can’t teach, teach gym, and those who fail at that run for elected office. There are exceptions. Very few.
The other reason British parties are, relatively, more principled than their Canadian derivatives is national unity. Until about the mid-1990s, no one seriously talked about the break up of the United Kingdom. Even the bleeding ulcer of Ulster was unlikely to be resolved by uniting North and South. This is not the case in Canada. On pretty much every major national issue of the last century and a half — Catholic Schools, prohibition, conscription, foreign policy, Medicare, Afghanistan — English speaking Canada leans one way, and French Canada the other. Raise controversial issues and you might start reminding the Solitudes how much they dislike each other. Thus our national politics has the colour, consistency and firmness of oatmeal. It’s why Mackenzie King, the Great Equivocator, was our longest serving Prime Minister.
Comments Off on Why the Canadian political sphere lacks zest
May 22, 2010
Another reason public service pensions are better than private ones
Megan McArdle points out another key difference between “ordinary” pensions and US state government pensions:
Public employees rack up overtime in their last year of work, with the active encouragement of their supervisors and even local politicians, then they retire with inflated pensions that can be greater than their base salary.
New York is the understandable focus, but these problems are hardly unique to my home state. In fact, New York is among the better states on funding of pensions, because they actually have to do some. Other states kinda sorta haven’t really bothered — at least not at anywhere near the levels that would be needed. New York’s problem is notable only because its public sector unions are unusually powerful.
The problem is that these things are nearly impossible to change. People have worked for twenty years or more under the expectation of pensions that were calculated this way; you can’t just wait until they’re 58 and say “Ha, ha, just foolin’.”
<sarcasm>Of course, the money will always be there, right? No reason for anyone to change their expectations.</sarcasm>
Comments Off on Another reason public service pensions are better than private ones
May 21, 2010
California’s version of the Greek public service problem
David Crane shows why California’s public pension scheme has much in common with the Greek pension scheme, in the sense of a mind-boggling disconnect from economic reality:
In 1999 then California Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that represented the largest issuance of non-voter-approved debt in the state’s history. The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries. The California Public Employees’ Retirement System sold the pension boost to the state legislature by promising that “no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements” and that Calpers would “remain fully funded.” They also claimed that enhanced pensions would not cost taxpayers “a dime” because investment bets would cover the expense.
What Calpers failed to disclose, however, was that (1) the state budget was on the hook for shortfalls should actual investment returns fall short of assumed investment returns, (2) those assumed investment returns implicitly projected the Dow Jones would reach roughly 25,000 by 2009 and 28,000,000 by 2099, unrealistic to say the least (3) shortfalls could turn out to be hundreds of billions of dollars, (4) Calpers’s own employees would benefit from the pension increases and (5) members of Calpers’s board had received contributions from the public employee unions who would benefit from the legislation. Had such a flagrant case of non-disclosure occurred in the private sector, even a sleepy SEC and US Attorney would have noticed.
Until very recently, public service pension schemes might as well have been listed in the dictionary under “soporific” — except for the beneficiaries, nobody paid much attention. Even so, you’d think that the breathtaking assumptions in the Calpers bill would have woken up at least a few politicians and reporters. Of course, no political body has an effective “Office of Realistic Assumptions” to run proposed legislation past (although it wouldn’t be a bad idea), so it might well be that nobody bothered to check the sums before the bill was passed.
Or, more likely, that nobody voting that day expected to be held accountable for the outcome.
Update: Good news! The state legislature just passed new regulations! That’s bound to fix the problem, right?
Oh, wait . . .
California’s public pension funds would have to report the ethnicity and gender of some of the outside investment managers they hire under a bill that passed the state Assembly on Thursday.
The bill states that businesses owned by women and minorities are not adequately represented in the state’s pension fund portfolios, compared to their proportion of California’s population. It passed on a 41-22 vote and now moves to the state Senate.
Well, that will certainly fix the funding issues in no time, won’t it? Your California state legislature, constantly working for you!
Comments Off on California’s version of the Greek public service problem
May 20, 2010
QotD: Recruiting protesters for the G20 in Toronto
Are you a woman, person of colour, indigenous person, poor person, queer, trans-gendered or disabled?
If so, the G8/G20 Toronto Community Mobilization team assumes you must sympathize with civic disruption, lawbreaking and maybe even a little good old fashioned terror. They want your help. They’re mobilizing to disrupt the gathering of democratically elected politicians who are meeting in Toronto next month and they assume — just because you’re a woman or a disabled person — that you must hate civilized society as much as they do.
That’s their logo, above.
The CN Tower, torn from its roots, used to stab the G20 like a knife in the heart. Gee, isn’t that inclusive, co-operative and non-violent. Hard to imagine anything more likely to attract widespread public support than an image like that. Hey, women and indiginous people, wanna stab some white guys? How about you, queers and indigenous people? Because we here at the Community Mobilization team take for granted that you must be as twisted, angry, vengeful and keening for violence as we are.
Kelly McParland, “Anti-G20 activists want your help in spreading the hate”, National Post, 2010-05-20
Comments Off on QotD: Recruiting protesters for the G20 in Toronto
May 18, 2010
Someone has to make this campaign video
Frank J. considers what his campaign video would be like if he was running for office:
This makes me think of the ad I might run if I one day campaigned for an office. I think I could improve on his ad, though. Here’s what I would do in my campaign ad:
* Ride into the commercial on a Liger.
* Every scene, I’d be stroking a different gun.
* Vow that if elected, our enemies will be eaten by genetically resurrected dinosaurs.
* In the middle of the ad, pause to shoot a hippy dead.
* Not only call the other politicians “thugs and criminals” but also promise to lock them in a room with a bear.
* Draw a picture of Muhammad while talking.
* Look up at the moon and yell, “You’re going down!”
* End with an awesome guitar solo while my farm explodes behind me.Yeah, I’d be so awesome commissioning agriculture or whatever.
By the last item, I was already seeing it . . . someone’s got to make this video. It doesn’t even matter what he’s running for!
Comments Off on Someone has to make this campaign video
May 13, 2010
QotD: Because your government cares about your health
If there ever was a reason to get the Ontario government out of the liquor business, this is it. While taxes on booze will drop on July 1, thanks to the introduction of the province’s new Harmonized Sales Tax, the price of your favourite poison will actually increase because — wait for it — the government doesn’t want to turn you into an alcoholic.
[. . .]
Actually, the whole modus operandi of the LCBO is counter-intuitive. At the same time that it preaches social responsibility, the LCBO inundates Ontario households with glossy brochures that take lifestyle advertising to new heights. The latest one cheekily invites customers to take “French lessons”, and features winsome couples in various states of embrace (hey, aren’t the French always making out?). A concurrent radio campaign features a sexy French-accented female voice extolling the virtues of Bordeaux. You get thirsty just listening to her.
Such campaigns are designed to make Ontarians drink more, not less, of course, funneling more cash into LCBO coffers and keeping its employees on the public payroll at juicy union wages. All fuelled by taxes and a staggering mark-up of 71.5% on that latest imported bottle which pairs so well with flank steak and frites.
This kind of hypocrisy is but one reason why the government shouldn’t be in the liquor business. The others include higher prices, less consumer choice, and the general inefficiency inherent in any monopoly business, whether public or private.
Tasha Kheiriddin, “Lower taxes, higher prices, courtesy of your local LCBO”, National Post, 2010-05-13
Comments Off on QotD: Because your government cares about your health
