I’m a little surprised by how resolutely Turkey is turning against Israel at this moment (although it’s been building for years). When I was living in Ankara, it wasn’t too hard to find a Turkish-language copy of Mein Kampf in mainstream bookstores; even more widespread was books of conspiracy theories of every stripe and variety. Many Turks believed that there was a secret Israeli plot to harm Turkey; they also believed in a secret American plot with the same goal, a secret European plot, a secret Iranian plot, a secret Arab plot, a secret Russian plot, a secret Chinese plot, a Vatican plot, and perhaps a secret plot by the penguins in Antarctica. From my experience, the first rule of Turkish political philosophy is that everyone is always out to get Turkey, and the fact that what most Americans know about Turkey could fit on a 3×5 index card is no impediment to this conclusion. We may be subconsciously conspiring against them.
(Rule number two of of Turkish political philosophy is that they’re not Arabs and in their minds, Turks are nothing like Arabs. They’re like Europeans; sophisticated, comparatively wealthy, advanced, educated, technologically innovative, honorable and nothing like those backwards despotic hellholes across the border. A lot of Turks look at Arab states as former branch offices of the Ottoman Empire; the sense is that they couldn’t be anything like the Arabs because they used to rule over the Arabs.)
Jim Geraghty, “Oh, Turkey, You Used to Be So Different From All the Others…”, National Review, 2010-06-02
June 2, 2010
QotD: Turkey’s conspiracy theorists
June 1, 2010
QotD: The Pascal’s Wager of Economics
[S]timulus spending is the Pascal’s Wager of economics. Seventeenth century philosopher Blaise Pascal couldn’t prove God existed, but figured he might as well be devout since, if there is a God, he’s saved from damnation. If there wasn’t, well, no harm in trying. Politicians see stimulus spending the same way. They can’t prove it works, but if they sit on their hands during a downturn, they know they’ll be blamed for inaction should things turn worse. If and when the economy recovers, as it has here, the government’s happy to take credit. And if more misery comes? They can at least claim to have staved off larger calamity — which is how it’s gone in the U.S., where they’re now spending their third stimulus package in two years.
Politicians are only acting rationally. Last year, they were convinced they faced another Great Depression. [. . .]
Get used to this. Since the narrative that stimulus spending pulled us back from the abyss works for Ottawa, it virtually guarantees that, when dark economic clouds are again sighted from Parliament Hill, we’ll see this routine recur: Dire recession warnings from politicians, followed by stimulus as insurance to cover political hides from any economic blame. As long as future taxpayers get the bill, via future debt payments, it’s as risk-free a gambit as Pascal’s: The latest stimulus added tens of billions in national red ink with little political distress for the Tories.
Kevin Libin, “The Stimulus Bluff: There’s Mounting Evidence That Government Spending Has Had No Impact On The Economic Recovery. Too Bad Politicians Aren’t Listening”, National Post, 2010-06-01
May 31, 2010
QotD: A lesson for today
Empires, indeed governments generally, tend to be good things at first and bad things the longer they last. First they improve society’s ability to flourish by providing central services and removing impediments to trade and specialisation; thus, even Genghis Khan’s Pax Mongolica lubricated Asia’s overland trade by exterminating brigands along the Silk Road, thus lowering the cost of oriental goods in European parlours. But then, as Peter Turchin argues following the lead of the medieval geographer Ibn Khaldun, governments gradually employ more and more ambitious elites who capture a greater and greater share of the society’s income by interfering more and more in people’s lives as they give themselves more and more rules to enforce, until they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is a lesson for today. Economists are quick to speak of “market failure”, and rightly so, but a greater threat comes from “government failure”. Because it is a monopoly, government brings inefficiency and stagnation to most things it runs; government agencies pursue the inflation of their budgets rather than the service of the customers; pressure groups form an unholy alliance with agencies to extract more money from taxpayers for their members. Yet despite all this, most clever people still call for government to run more things and assume that if it did so, it would somehow be more perfect, more selfless, next time.
Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, p. 182
May 30, 2010
QotD: The first great back-to-the-land experiment
. . . the plundering, the lack of invention, the barbarians and above all Diocletian’s red tape did for Rome in the end. As the empire disintegrated under this bureaucratic burden, at least in the west, money lending at interest stopped and coins ceased to circulate so freely. In the Dark Ages that followed, because free trade became impossible, cities shrank, markets atrophied, merchants disappeared, literacy declined and — crudely speaking — once Goth, Hun and Vandal plundering had run its course, everybody had to go back to being self-sufficient again. Europe de-urbanised. Even Rome and Constantinople fell to a fraction of their former populations. Trade with Egypt and India largely dried up, especially once the Arabs took control of Alexandria, so that not only did oriental imports such as papyrus, spices and silk cease to appear, but those export-oriented plantations in Campania became the plots of subsistence farmers instead. In that sense, the decline of the Roman Empire turned consumer traders back into subsistence peasants. The Dark Ages were a massive experiment in the back-to-the-land hippy lifestyle (without the trust fund): you ground your own corn, sheared your own sheep, cured your own leather and cut your own wood. Any pathetic surplus you generated was confiscated to support a monk, or maybe you could occasionally sell something to buy a metal tool off a part-time blacksmith. Otherwise, subsistence replaced specialization.
Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, p. 175
May 27, 2010
QotD: This isn’t what we mean by “the invisible hand”
Another Example of Your LCBO Hard at Work, Screwing You . . . If you’re feeling a pained sensation in your rear end, like a sandpaper wrapped glove entering your rectum, don’t worry fellow wine drinkers, that’s just the hand of the LCBO doing what they do best — sticking it to you. The LCBO has decided to take advantage of yet another potential money saving opportunity and has turned it into a money grab at your wallet. A recent article in the Toronto Star (“HST will lower tax on booze, but the price is going up ” – May 13, 2010) uncovered that the LCBO, instead of passing the HST savings on to you, which would have lowered the tax on booze from 12% to 8%, has decided to raise the price all in the name of “social responsibility”. Oh happy day, thank you LCBO for keeping me on the straight and narrow while lighting my pockets and lining yours in the process. Oh thank you — thank you.
Michael Pinkus, Ontario Wine Review, 2010-05-27
May 26, 2010
QotD: Facebook privacy follies
All 1,472 employees of Facebook, Inc. reportedly burst out in uncontrollable laughter Wednesday following Albuquerque resident Jason Herrick’s attempts to protect his personal information from exploitation on the social-networking site. “Look, he’s clicking ‘Friends Only’ for his e-mail address. Like that’s going to make a difference!” howled infrastructure manager Evan Hollingsworth, tears streaming down his face, to several of his doubled-over coworkers. “Oh, sure, by all means, Jason, ‘delete’ that photo. Man, this is so rich.”
“Entire Facebook Staff Laughs As Man Tightens Privacy Settings”, The Onion, 2010-05-26
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
May 19, 2010
QotD: Action movie lines
“I know what you’re thinking, punk: Did I fire six bullets or only five. Being this is a Glock with seventeen rounds, it’s a moot point, but I’m doing a cognitive psychology study on people’s ability to count in stressful situation. You’ll get twenty dollars to participate. So, do you feel like helping science? Well, do ya, punk?”
Frank J. Fleming, “Action Movie Lines”, IMAO, 2010-05-18
May 18, 2010
QotD: Time to kill the “information wants to be free” meme
“Information wants to be free” (IWTBF hereafter) is half of Stewart Brand’s famous aphorism, first uttered at the Hackers Conference in Marin County, California (where else?), in 1984: “On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it’s so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.”
This is a chunky, chewy little koan, and as these go, it’s an elegant statement of the main contradiction of life in the “information age”. It means, fundamentally, that the increase in information’s role as an accelerant and source of value is accompanied by a paradoxical increase in the cost of preventing the spread of information. That is, the more IT you have, the more IT generates value, and the more information becomes the centre of your world. But the more IT (and IT expertise) you have, the easier it is for information to spread and escape any proprietary barrier. As an oracular utterance predicting the next 40 years’ worth of policy, business and political fights, you can hardly do better.
But it’s time for it to die.
Cory Doctorow, “Saying information wants to be free does more harm than good”, The Guardian, 2010-05-18
May 17, 2010
QotD: Standing up for freedom
The Drug Wars in general, and the case of Marc Emery in particular, are a litmus test for those who say they believe in freedom. Everyone is for freedom, their own. It’s everyone else’s that makes them uncomfortable. It is easy to be for low taxes and light government regulation, when you run a business. It is easy to be for freedom of speech, when your livelihood depends on your keypad and fingers. It is easy enough to feel sympathetic for those whose freedom is taken away, when they are like you, when you can see yourself in their position. There, but by grace, go I. But this is not advocacy of freedom. It is nothing more than special pleading. The businessman who demands low taxes, and government subsidies, is not for freedom. The journalist who cries out when some powerful politician tries to silence him, then turns around and supports the Human Rights Tribunals, is not for freedom. The ordinary citizen, who is also the member of a minority ethnic group, who becomes indignant when the rights of his group are threatened, but shrugs his shoulders when those of other groups are trampled upon, he is not for freedom.
Publius, “Martyr to Freedom”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2010-05-17
May 14, 2010
QotD: Western civilization – stick a fork in it
In the history of civilization — and that’s how old terrorism is, it wasn’t invented on Sept. 11, 2001 — terrorists have never, on their own, succeeded in destroying or significantly altering a culture. They utterly lack the resources to do so.
Where they have succeeded, terrorists have done so only by so frightening a society into abandoning its fundamental values.
That guy who tried to fly a plane into the White House? The one who failed to detonate an explosive device in an airplane approaching Metro Detroit International? The shoe bomber? The guy who just failed to set off a bomb in Times Square? The homegrown terrorists at Virginia Tech and Fort Hood?
The combined death toll from their acts is less than 100. The U.S., supposedly the world’s sole superpower, has a population of 308 million.
The distinction between a global superpower and a nation afraid of its own shadow is becoming more difficult to discern with every attack on the U.S. homeland. Each has been met with an over-reaction — in the media and among government officials — that would embarrass the Londoners who stoically endured the Blitz.
David Olive, “The terrorists win”, Toronto Star, 2010-05-14
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
May 12, 2010
QotD: National Post goes full Anarchist
Speaking of Queen Victoria, the Calgary Herald‘s editorialists are disappointed that Banff National Park is banning alcohol at its campgrounds on the 24th of May weekend. Better enforcement would take care of “the young rowdies in the tents,” they insist, without denying “the family out for the weekend in the motorhome” a glass of wine with dinner. We suggest such families do as we did when we were young rowdies in tents on the 24th of May weekend at parks where alcohol was banned: Ignore it. This land is your land, this land is my land, pass me another Big Rock.
Chris Selley, “Full Pundit: Jesus comes to Ottawa”, National Post, 2010-05-12
May 11, 2010
QotD: Parenting, in a nutshell
That’s parenting: a measure of your success is how you’re needed less and less.
James Lileks, Bleat, 2010-05-11
May 7, 2010
QotD: The HST only looks good on paper
I know all the reasons why sales taxes — i.e. consumption taxes — are to be preferred to income taxes. Every economist I respect believes consumption taxes are better because they let the taxpayer control the amount of tax he pays. Don’t want to pay as much? Don’t buy as much.
But to an ordinary person, this is a silly argument. Everyone has to buy stuff — school clothes for the kids, a new car, a laptop. If your washing machine breaks down, you have to buy a new one or pay for repairs. There is no alternative but to pay the sales tax.
To consumers, a sales tax looks like the least avoidable kind of tax. For most people, the only true way around a consumption tax is to hid their spending by switching to cash, barter or the black market.
On paper, I agree with my economist buds. And if we lived on paper, I might try to convince you to learn to love the HST.
Lorne Gunter, “The HST is fine on paper. It’s only painful in real life”, National Post, 2010-05-07
