Unfair Labour Practices

The Canadian Government's treatment of Postal workers is unfair.

Actually the fact that the Canadian Government has anything to do with these workers is unfair.  That is the only reason I can think of why an unskilled labourer (mail carrier) earns $51,466 dollars a year to deliver mail and is eligible for up to 6 weeks (30 days) of paid vacation a year.  Not to mention the cushy allotment of sick, and family related leave that can be taken.

Show me a single equivalent package of entitlements for an unskilled manual labourer in the private sector...

Yup the Government's treatment of the postal workers is unfair...  and in the interest of fairness they should all be fired and new ones hired at a suitable and sane market rate.

Right, For all the Wrong Reasons

Irvin Studin’s idea to increase immigration into Canada is a good one, but although he momentarily catches sight of why it is a good idea when he says, “The Canada of 100 million has a far larger national market and the attendant economies of scale and scope…” this is a mere afterthought for him.

To Mr. Studin, hailed as something of a public policy wonder-kid, the prime reason to open immigration and increase Canada’s population is to “build strong national institutions and structures across the vast territory of Canada -- institutions that, while today are often absent or weak, would eventually serve as a bulwark for international strategic influence. Second, a far larger talent pool to populate the strategic arms of the state -- the military, diplomatic, civil service and political branches of government, as well as business, cultural, educational and scientific sectors.”

If you read the entire article it becomes quite clear that Mr. Studin’s intent is solely focused on increasing the power of the state both within and outside of Canada.

He envisions some sort of superpower which will simultaneously see the Canadian people held from cradle to grave by the “strategic arms of the state” and witness the rise of Canada as an international military and diplomatic force, with emphasis on the force part.

This is exactly the wrong reason to increase immigration and Studin's plan which counts on immigration as a force in and of itself is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

I agree that Canada ought to open up immigration and have it limited only for national security reasons, to prevent the spread of infectious diseases or to keep criminals out. But there is something else that must be done first.

First we should begin to dismantle the so called social safety net. The reason why we should do this ought to be self-evident. We want people to come to Canada to work. We want them to come here for the opportunity to succeed and thrive in a country that offers them more freedom to achieve than the one they just left.

Consider the United States in its early history. Immigrants didn’t flock to America for social services or “strong national institutions”, they came for the opportunity to be free and to make their own way in the world. As a result of that “pioneer spirit” the USA went from upstart colony to world superpower in less time than Mr. Studin could imagine in his wildest public policy wet dream.

Once we have ensured that immigrants won’t be coming to Canada to turn the “social safety net” into a hammock there is another step we must take before we can open the flood gates, and be reasonably assured that those that come will be those that want the freedom that we can offer, the freedom to prosper.

Now with immigration comes the economic benefit of all those added people. Mr. Studin continues to apply all this human power to “applied research institutions; to aid the generation of policy ideas; to create bona fide national institutions of higher culture in the musical, visual and theatrical arts; to justify national sports leagues” but he seemingly ignores the very thing that makes all of that possible… Individual economic activity.

To make this immigration plan work you can not just dump a bunch of people onto the land and expect great cities to rise, or… well you could if no one was going to get in their way… but sadly Canada is an over-regulated, politically restrictive pseudo-capitalist, bureaucratic welfare state.

So step two, before immigration can be opened up with any realistic hope of creating the wealth and its serendipitous cousin the power - that Mr. Studin so fervently desires - is to begin dismantling the bureaucracy. We would need to get the government at all levels out of the way of the people who actually make that wealth and power a possibility.

The best way to accomplish this would be to have, as Ayn Rand put it in her brilliant collection of essays The Virtue of Selfishness, “a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church..” . Initially, however, I think we could go a long way by eliminating superfluous regulations, business taxes and the sort of nickel and dime, money wasting red tape nightmares that make it so hard to open and run a business today.

Sure it will mean that consumers will have to be more aware of the services and goods they contract and consume, (with lessened regulation I am not so naive to think that some unscrupulous men won’t try to cheat and defraud) but that is part and parcel of being free. Besides we are not talking about eliminating the courts or police services and such frauds should be held to account by the law.

So now with the social safety net severely curtailed if not gone completely, and our bureaucracy restricted to the absolute bare minimum, Irvin Studin’s proposal for increased immigration could be implemented with reasonable chance of success.

Although this would no doubt lead to more economic, political and international clout for Canada I doubt that with the reduced scope of “strong national institutions” and the reduction or elimination of “strategic arms of the state” that Mr. Studin would recognize or appreciate the change.

Hippocrates Shrugged

In Obama's America, health care manages you...

45 percent of American physicians “would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement”

In the event that this 45% of doctors follow through, that would leave the rest not in a profession but in virtual slavery.

EDIT
An excellent post from F.I.R.M. (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) to add fuel to your intellectual fire.

If You're Happy and You Know It,

Clank Your...

"In Reich's worldview, it's groups that matter and individualism that's the enemy. "The American myth of the triumphant individual may have outlasted its time," Reich has explained. "The story of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself and eventually earns wealth, fame and honor" is outmoded.

Instead, "we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship," states Reich. In place of individuals who "buck the odds" with "drive and guts," Reich argues for a world where the central planners right the wrongs, determine the production, distribute the rewards in a "fair" manner, i.e., with "only modest differences in income," and knock the rough edges off anyone who doesn't demonstrate sufficient obedience to the collective."

H/T West

Chains You Can Believe In

In less than a month President Obama has begun a process that the ideology of communism was unable to do in over a hundred years of existence, the systematic destruction of American capitalism.

Now, a few more short steps...

From limiting the wages when a company is on the dole, to limiting all "excessive salaries".

From the minimum and maximum wages sitting at opposite ends of the scale, to one equitable wage for all.

Inch by inch.

Day by day.

Change by disastrous change.

Chains you can believe in

It can't be done!

When free market reformers suggest a market solution to any of the multitude of unwieldy, underfunded, unaccountable "public systems" The perennial answer from the unions, big government and their hapless drones in the public is "it can't be done!".

This statement is followed closely by its fellow travelers "what about the poor?", "what do you have against <insert 'protected' group/ideal here>?" and finally... "It could never work!" all of which are accompanied by the usual arguments from intimidation... "Certainly you don't mean..." "You couldn't possibly be saying..." "I know you don't intend to..."

Indeed... I do.

A fisherman with an understanding of economics that would put union officials to shame, who had moved his daughter from state to private school, told me that the private school proprietor needed to satisfy parents like him, otherwise he would go out of business. “That’s why the teachers turn up and teach,” he told me, “because they are closely supervised.”

One father, living in the Kenyan slum of Kibera, summarised it like this: “If you go to a market and are offered free fruit and vegetables, you know they’ll be rotten. If you want fresh produce, you have to pay for it.”

The Shakedown

It's another quiet day in the store. Some parts of your inventory are still selling, though a little slower than normal. On the whole though, you're not nearly as bad off as Sam down the road or Pierre (who's neighbourhood has taken a turn for the worst in recent years).

That didn't matter last week though, when Big Ken and his boys came to you and in not so subtle terms indicated that your continued economic survival depended on their economic survival.

In spite of your better judgment you "agreed" to a sum, knowing that other companies much bigger than yours in terms of inventory, like Sam's had already cracked under the weight of people like Ken and his friends.

But you're nervous, you think that maybe the money you've promised Big Ken and his boys will keep them away until after this "economic downturn" but you are still facing the downturn yourself and the money Ken has demanded is more than you can and should be parting with especially now.

Well, you think... Just maybe if I tighten my belt another notch, if I am just a little more frugal I won't notice that money too much.

At that point the front door opens and in walks Ken.

In a speech brimming with imperatives he explains that, sadly, no, that wasn't all he was after... that "you'd better be sure to have some extra cash on hand and ready for him any time he should ask... That you had better be thinking about how you are going to keep his friends right where they are now or it will all come back to you... No, it wasn't his friends fault, their inability to make money on their own was your fault, and you have to make sure, no matter what, that they were happy and safe... Or.. all this would be destroyed.

Let Them Fail Part 2 - Fear and Opportunity

The abject fear that is being spread by the Auto sector and the UAW is palpable. "You don't realize what this is going to do to our economy!" they scream. "If one of the big three fails then it affects hundreds of thousands!!" they clamor. "You have to bail us out! We're VITAL!!!"

Well, the confluence of union greed, poor management and substandard products has brought us to this point. Right where we should be, and we didn't get here in a private jet or even in a hybrid.

Back to the fear though, lets take a logical look at the claims of the fear-mongers, industry, political and Union alike...

1. If one of the big three fails then the resulting job losses will cripple the economy.

Hmmm, Chrysler has 58,000 employees. Of those only 1,100 are Canadian. Sure that's a lot of lost jobs but cripple the economy? I don't think so. Regionally, sure it's going to hurt, but other regions such as Hamilton (steel), Sudbury (nickel), Sydney NS (steel), Ottawa (the tech sector), have seen similar failures, so what puts the auto sector at the head of the handout queue?

I'd say it's a combination of things, a highly political union being first and foremost in my mind, the tangible nature of their product being the next. It's a lot easier to identify with the loss of a brand name you see driving down the road than it is to attribute the same emotional connection to the loss of a natural resource producer like Inco.

By the way, those other sectors didn't get bailed out and their regions are rebuilding or have already rebuilt.

2. The failure of one of the Big 3 (isn't Toyota who is not asking for money one of the big three now?) will cause a corresponding crash in auto parts manufacturers.

Really? So these parts manufacturers only sell directly to the auto plants? No after market sales? No replacement parts? No revenue stream except for selling to the auto manufacturers? If that is the case then, like the Auto manufacturers themselves, they deserve to fail. Dumb should be painful, especially in business.

3. If one of the Big 3 fails then people who own that brand will be left out in the cold! The manufacturer won't even be able to sell it's current stock... Who is going to buy a car from a company under bankruptcy protection or worse!"

Garbage!!! Do you honestly believe that these people won't be able to get service for their vehicles if the company itself doesn't exist? If that is true I guess I missed the great Datsun breakdown of 1986...

Another thing, isn't it likely that some enterprising auto maker will recognize the opportunity a failure of that sort would represent for his company? I mean if I owned Ford, and Chrysler went belly up, I'd offer to provide servicing for their vehicles, using the new found glut of cheap aftermarket parts. Hell I'd even honour warranties for an additional though reasonable price. Crisis = opportunity, even this dumb-ass-never-taken-a-business-course-in-his-life knows that!

Hell if I was a {insert bankrupt car company name here} certified mechanic I'd offer a similar deal to continue to ensure my business and my profitability. Wouldn't you?

It is good to see that the US Senate has refused to bailout the Auto sector, though to contemplate it in the first place shows a criminal level of interference in the market, absolute ignorance in how the market works, and lastly, a blindness to what has brought us to this point in the first place (the mixed economy).

All the government needs to do is let the cards fall where they may. When one these companies is finally allowed to fail, there will be a flurry of rational reforms within the rest dictated by the need to produce quality products at reasonable prices. The deadwood of management will be figuratively hung, their dismembered heads stuck on pikes outside of the corporate headquarters as a warning to all of what happens when the market is ignored. The union gild masters and looters will be knocked off their soapbox, finding themselves, finally, in fear of not having an industry to work for, much less abuse, castrate and rape.

There are very few things that can immediately focus the mind. Some are negative lenses like fear and pain, and some are positive like opportunity, challenge and innovation. It's high time the North American auto sector felt a little of all of the above.

As my counterpart here has already said... LET THEM FAIL!

Reject blackmail: Let Chrysler Canada fail

Chrysler Corporation has resorted to a fairly crude attempt to blackmail the Government of Canada today for $1.6 billion dollars in return for saving about 8000 jobs.

Outside of the moral dimension of a private corporation blackmailing the taxpayers and the government, there are three very compelling reasons to oppose such a bailout:

1. Chrysler's owner, Cerberus Capital Management LP, refuses to invest any more money in the firm.

2. Chrysler has already hired law firm Jones Day as Bankruptcy Counsel, indicating the bailout request is too little, too late, and;

3. $1.6 billion left in the productive economy is the resources needed to create 32,000 full time jobs. Transferring this amount of wealth from the taxpayer to Chrysler is a huge net loss for Canada and Canadians.

The conclusion is clear: Let them fail.

Blogburst this and write your MP to stop the blackmail.

Praise the Dollar, and Pass the Consumerism

Organizations like Adbusters, (which I will not lower myself to link to) would have you believe that the act of spending money is a crime. That it is some sort of new age sin, an evil that keeps us all from being truly happy. That this message originates in and is preached to its vacuous followers from the security, safety and opulence of the wealthy West seems lost to both the originator and receptors of the message.

We consume, but that is merely the end result. First there is an idea, a spark of creativity or brilliance that stimulates the man. Indeed, to think and create is as human as drawing breath, it differentiates us from animals, it makes our lives worthwhile.

Next the idea is dissected, reduced to component parts, assembled, disassembled tested destroyed rebuilt perfected. This part is often referred to by the creator in such celebrated terms as “a labour of love”. What was that line from the movie “Flash of Genius”? When told that his invention is “just a windshield wiper,” Robert Kearns replies, “To you maybe. To that bartender up there. But to me it's the Mona Lisa.”

Tell me, how do we go from such a life affirming ideal, such a passionate statement to the idea that consuming the products of our creation is a sin?

When the invention is ready the creator enlists the aid of others. Labour is divided to increase our output, to the benefit all the men involved. Those who are hired have their effort rewarded with pay. They in turn support families, they buy other products they need to make their lives better, they consume, they prosper, and they enjoy the fruit of their labour, and the wonders created by other men for their consumption.

What’s wrong with that?

Adbusters would have you believe it is all wrong. They would ask you to not consume, to not enjoy the fruits of your labour, to not celebrate the wonderful time we live in, to toss aside the innovations that have taken mankind from mere existence to a life worth living. They would have you ignore the reality of the economic cycle from create to consume.

Why?

Because we consume too much?

Look at the wealth that our consumer culture has created. Even the poorest person in the so called “West” lives like a king compared to the dark days before our consumerism.

In the end I say if the Adbuster folks wish to preach about austerity and curse our consumerism, they ought to have the decency to do it from the slums of Calcutta. Perhaps while wearing a hair shirt… and no shoes. Of course they’ll have to cut down on their exposure, flashy websites, computers and electricity are just so evil… and you can only reach so many people when you are writing your anti-consumer manifesto out by hand on scrap paper and taping it to lamp posts and mail boxes.

I celebrate Reasons Harvest.

Go thank yourself!!!

Blessed is Sarcasm, Yea Verily it Speaks Truth!

Wait till Buzz sees these, he'll have some of the boys blockade the Internet!