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.
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Why all the Fear?
The more they talk, the more I want to see, the more I think we need to see...
Why all the fear folks?
You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.
It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...
Why all the fear?
Why all the fear folks?
You know, I don't trust a single one of these people as far as I could spit a wet rat, and the second they begin telling me that I don't need to know what they are spending my taxed money on, well that really piques my interest.
It is our money, they have been entrusted to spend it wisely within agreed upon terms on agreed upon expenses. If they are doing that then they shouldn't mind giving us a peek. An honest man fears nothing, a criminal fears all, so I'll ask again...
Why all the fear?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Ponzi Statism
According to Wikipedia...
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
If you replace the promise of cash returns for government "services" then the definition above doubles as the definition of a welfare state...
A Welfare State is a fraudulent investment operation that pays social services to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The welfare state usually entices new citizens by offering social services that are either abnormally efficient or unusually inclusive . The perpetuation of the services that a welfare state advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from citizens to keep the scheme going.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
The End of The Beginning of the End
"This really is Act V of the fiscal welfare state, in which monetary policy becomes the shameless handmaiden of fiscal policy in order to sustain an unsustainable kind of riskless society with massive benefits for everyone paid for by a few."Read the whole thing.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
A true plan to revive the economy
Stockwell Day is now Canada's Treasury Minister, and will have to make cuts to government spending amounting to about 8% to reduce spending by $19 billion over the next five years. To make this palatable to voters and the opposition parties, transfer payments are to be considered "untouchable". There is a lot of fat in terms of programs which are either not delivering what is promised, have outlived their usefulness or are mismanaged and can be reorganized to run more efficiently. Consider that large corporations like Canadian Tire or Wal-Mart typically only have five layers of management, while government departments have convoluted structures with multiple layers of management (reputedly as many as 30, but I'll leave that as anecdotal until I see proof)
I think the emphasis on protecting transfers is wrong headed, but that is because I don't see the idea of the State seizing wealth and property from the productive to give to political rent seekers and the non productive as being a proper role for the State.
However, given political reality, cutting transfers to individuals would be electoral suicide, so about $61 billion is untouchable.
We can still look at other areas like transfers to governments (especially governments with their own sources of revenue like offshore oil or hydro), which gives us another $46 billion to work with.
Subsidies should be cut for another @ $30 billion
Crown corporations should be cut as well, since that provides another $8 billion
Adding that up, we can get $84 billion in cuts. Sustained for six years this would allow the entire national debt to be paid off, and if the program is sustained for 12 years then all unfunded liabilities (CPP, pensions, etc.) are also covered.
Not included in this virtuous circle is the possibility of reductions in operating expenses due to the ending of so many programs, and of course the reduction of the $30 billion/year in debt payments. Real tax cuts can be made from the savings here, energizing the economy and in all likelyhood speeding up the entire process through increased tax revenues.
Here is a real program to get behind: don't leave the debt to our grandchildren but pay it off before our children leave school!
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Charitable State.
Invariably when arguing for complete laissez-faire policies and the dismantling of the welfare state the question that the statist asks is...
"What are we to do with the people who can't fend for themselves as well as others and who need assistance in order to survive in society?"
The Objectivist response is that the individual can do whatever he wishes to do, but that he can not claim the right to force others. That he can not take his personal penchant for charity and with the loaded gun of government force others to be charitable.
There are two man-centric ideologies at work here, represented by the welfare state, and the charitable state.
The welfare state is ruled by conflicting premises.
On one hand is the claim that we men are caring creatures and that we are not "wired" or "evolved" in such a way to act as self-centered, egoists and individualists. The claim is that each and every one of us needs the community, the collective and as a result men overwhelmingly realize that the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. This reasoning is used to indicate that men should help one another, that we ought to be charitable, altruistic toward our fellow men.
The other (and contradictory) premise, which leads the welfare state to use its ill gotten force is that men are nasty, selfish, ignorant brutes who would never stop to help their fellow men and therefore must be forced to support all sorts of initiatives and progams to alleviate the suffering and hardship of those less fortunate.
Yes, the claim is that we are simultaneously "hard wired" to be altruistic and yet need to be forced to think of anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction of epic proportions.
The Objectivist stance on the less fortunate is simple. Let each and every individual choose whether he is going to be charitable or not, depending on his preference and his ideals, his values and his own situation. There is no need to force charity.
Without government forcing the charitable to pay for every politician's pet project or well connected pressure group's personal agenda the amount of disposable income available for charity would be immense.
The benefits to the contributors would similarly be valuable to them. "Contribute to a home for the homeless? Sure! It might reduce crime, it would certainly make the city look better. Donate to the family down the street in their time of need, but of course..."
Funny isn't it that it is the selfish egoist's that are certain that individual, honest, uncoerced charity can function as required, and that the altruistic, collectivist humanists see the need to point a gun at your head and demand your money for their life.
"What are we to do with the people who can't fend for themselves as well as others and who need assistance in order to survive in society?"
The Objectivist response is that the individual can do whatever he wishes to do, but that he can not claim the right to force others. That he can not take his personal penchant for charity and with the loaded gun of government force others to be charitable.
There are two man-centric ideologies at work here, represented by the welfare state, and the charitable state.
The welfare state is ruled by conflicting premises.
On one hand is the claim that we men are caring creatures and that we are not "wired" or "evolved" in such a way to act as self-centered, egoists and individualists. The claim is that each and every one of us needs the community, the collective and as a result men overwhelmingly realize that the collective is greater than the sum of its parts. This reasoning is used to indicate that men should help one another, that we ought to be charitable, altruistic toward our fellow men.
The other (and contradictory) premise, which leads the welfare state to use its ill gotten force is that men are nasty, selfish, ignorant brutes who would never stop to help their fellow men and therefore must be forced to support all sorts of initiatives and progams to alleviate the suffering and hardship of those less fortunate.
Yes, the claim is that we are simultaneously "hard wired" to be altruistic and yet need to be forced to think of anyone but ourselves. This is a contradiction of epic proportions.
The Objectivist stance on the less fortunate is simple. Let each and every individual choose whether he is going to be charitable or not, depending on his preference and his ideals, his values and his own situation. There is no need to force charity.
Without government forcing the charitable to pay for every politician's pet project or well connected pressure group's personal agenda the amount of disposable income available for charity would be immense.
The benefits to the contributors would similarly be valuable to them. "Contribute to a home for the homeless? Sure! It might reduce crime, it would certainly make the city look better. Donate to the family down the street in their time of need, but of course..."
Funny isn't it that it is the selfish egoist's that are certain that individual, honest, uncoerced charity can function as required, and that the altruistic, collectivist humanists see the need to point a gun at your head and demand your money for their life.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
No Tax for Pan-Am
1.4 billion
Bread and Circuses, that's what it was called back during the fall of the Roman Empire. The idea at the time was that the political leadership of the Empire could distract the citizenry, and make them to forget the realities of their day-to-day lives by staging elaborate games and spectacles in the colleseum.
Fast forward 2000 years... Now, in the middle of a recession, when people in the manufacturing heartland of Ontario (of which Hamilton is a part) are suffering from lay offs and plant closures all three arms of the government, municipal, provincial and federal, led by Dalton "Nero" McGinty think it's a good time to take more money from taxpaers to fund a sporting event?
Ridiculous!
No Tax For PanAm...
Bread and Circuses, that's what it was called back during the fall of the Roman Empire. The idea at the time was that the political leadership of the Empire could distract the citizenry, and make them to forget the realities of their day-to-day lives by staging elaborate games and spectacles in the colleseum.
Fast forward 2000 years... Now, in the middle of a recession, when people in the manufacturing heartland of Ontario (of which Hamilton is a part) are suffering from lay offs and plant closures all three arms of the government, municipal, provincial and federal, led by Dalton "Nero" McGinty think it's a good time to take more money from taxpaers to fund a sporting event?
Ridiculous!
No Tax For PanAm...
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Are We There Yet?
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Ayn Rand
If you read the news today or have been reading it for the last while you are virtually assaulted by the systemic use of tax money to bail out here, or subsidize there. The workers cry out for it, the Unions beg for it, the businessmen complain that they can not survive without it and the politicians dole it out.
When this is done a majority of consumers sagely nod their heads, Unions and businessmen grimly set their jaws and make a show of “getting to work” and Politicians on the left and on the right preach the gospel of regulation, control and “social responsibility”.
It’s systemic, invasive, pervasive and sickening.
So, as the title of this post asks… Are we there yet? Is it necessary for honest rights respecting folks to be criminals in order to live their lives as men?
Ayn Rand
If you read the news today or have been reading it for the last while you are virtually assaulted by the systemic use of tax money to bail out here, or subsidize there. The workers cry out for it, the Unions beg for it, the businessmen complain that they can not survive without it and the politicians dole it out.
When this is done a majority of consumers sagely nod their heads, Unions and businessmen grimly set their jaws and make a show of “getting to work” and Politicians on the left and on the right preach the gospel of regulation, control and “social responsibility”.
It’s systemic, invasive, pervasive and sickening.
So, as the title of this post asks… Are we there yet? Is it necessary for honest rights respecting folks to be criminals in order to live their lives as men?
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tax And Gouge Liberal
In this time of economic uncertainty the McGinty government wants to impose another set of taxes on the people of Ontario. First it was the announcement in the 2009 Ontario Budget that his government would harmonize the PST adding 8% tax onto every single good and service that is currently PST exempt.
This is a cash grab of unprecedented proportions from the guy that said he wouldn't increase taxes!
Then McTaxation decides he wants to go ahead with a Cap and Trade system for Carbon emissions. The speculation that increased costs for industry "could be passed on to taxpayers" is laughable. What on earth is speculative about it!!! Do the mental midgets in Queens Park believe for one second that a businessman is not going to pass this increased costs onto the consumer?!?!?
I'm going to don my soothsayer hat for a moment...
When... WHEN (not if) Ontario business' pass this new carbon/production penalty onto consumers I expect the McTaxation Government to lambaste them for "taking advantage of the consumer" or/and for "forcing the innocent consumer to pay for their waste and polution"... Crank up the spin machine... It's going to be a doozy!
Now for an examination of the Win, WIN, WIN, WIN situation these new taxes represent.
McGinty is about to castrate this province's economy worse than Bob Rae's NDP did.
This is a cash grab of unprecedented proportions from the guy that said he wouldn't increase taxes!
Then McTaxation decides he wants to go ahead with a Cap and Trade system for Carbon emissions. The speculation that increased costs for industry "could be passed on to taxpayers" is laughable. What on earth is speculative about it!!! Do the mental midgets in Queens Park believe for one second that a businessman is not going to pass this increased costs onto the consumer?!?!?
"A cap-and-trade system places a ceiling on greenhouse gases and lets participants buy and sell emissions permits within that cap. Those who don't meet the emissions targets can buy credits from others with a surplus instead of lowering their emissions."This is nothing more than a wealth distribution scheme. Which is to say distributing your wealth into the government's coffers. I am willing to bet that every single one of these transactions will be subject to the new HST... How much money will this net the Tax-drunk Liberal Government of Ontario.
I'm going to don my soothsayer hat for a moment...
When... WHEN (not if) Ontario business' pass this new carbon/production penalty onto consumers I expect the McTaxation Government to lambaste them for "taking advantage of the consumer" or/and for "forcing the innocent consumer to pay for their waste and polution"... Crank up the spin machine... It's going to be a doozy!
Now for an examination of the Win, WIN, WIN, WIN situation these new taxes represent.
- Company A (a logging firm) is assessed as being in violation of its Carbon cap. So that business buys Carbon credits from CompanyB (some "carbon nutral" business)... Cha-Ching! McTaxation gathers his carbon cap loot... Win
- Company A having been forced to pay for Carbon raises the price of his lumber which he sells to Comapny C (the building supply company)... Cha-Ching! McTaxation gathers HST loot... WIN
- Company C having been forced to pay more for the lumber passes that cost on to Company D (the home builder)... Cha-Ching! McTaxation continues his taxation-extraviganza gathering in more HST... WIN *note that this would happen with almost every product that goes into a house or other product.
- Company D having been forced to pay more for the materials used to build the house passes that increased cost onto the consumer... CHA-CHING!!! McTaxation gathers the biggest payoff yet because not only does he get more taxes because the house costs more but this is actually a brand new taxation stream for his Tax-adicted government... New construction used to be PST exempt!!! WIN
McGinty is about to castrate this province's economy worse than Bob Rae's NDP did.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Lies My Government Told Me
A Comparison of socialized and Free Mixed Market Healthcare
It is interesting that this essay addresses the fact that pure cash for cash comparisons are skewed due to the way government accounts for the services rendered.
It's almost like they don't want us to know what it really costs...
NB, this is a comparison between Mixed Market and fully Socialized Healthcare. Too bad there isn't a completely Free Market alternative to compare both of the current choices to.
"An answer in the negative is suggested by a comparison of the British National Health Service and California’s Kaiser Permanente found that Kaiser provided more comprehensive and convenient primary care and more rapid access to specialists for roughly the same cost."Read it all.
"In 2002-2004, dialysis patients waited 16 days for permanent blood vessel access in the US, 20 days in Europe, and 62 days in Canada."
"Comparing cancer outcomes, the largest international study to date found that the five-year survival rate for all types of cancer among both men and women was higher in the US than in Europe."
It is interesting that this essay addresses the fact that pure cash for cash comparisons are skewed due to the way government accounts for the services rendered.
It's almost like they don't want us to know what it really costs...
NB, this is a comparison between Mixed Market and fully Socialized Healthcare. Too bad there isn't a completely Free Market alternative to compare both of the current choices to.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Robbing Harper - Steals From You to Give To Them
So now my money is going to be given out to Kids in the Caribbean so that they can go to university in Canada paid for by my taxes?
WTF?
I might sound insensitive here but perhaps these countries should be putting their own students through fricking university and my money should be left in my pocket so I can put MY two kids through university.
I find myself looking forward to the next election, and wondering if these guys have a candidate in my riding...
WTF?
I might sound insensitive here but perhaps these countries should be putting their own students through fricking university and my money should be left in my pocket so I can put MY two kids through university.
I find myself looking forward to the next election, and wondering if these guys have a candidate in my riding...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
If You're Happy And You Know It...
Clank your chains...
Yesterday, all across the US regular people from all walks of life, and all sorts of political stripes gathered together to protest the unprecedented waste of their money, the undeniable infringement upon their liberty and the unqualified attempt to stifle their right to live their own lives.
These "Tea Parties" have taken on a viral quality in the US as this map shows though sadly, it isn't an election year in the US and all this will likely be forgotten by the next Senatorial elections in 2010. But at least it was done.
Some vainglorious and ignorant Canadians deride our American cousins for wearing their patriotism on their sleeves, but what have we done?
We Canadians are being ripped off just as badly as our compatriots to the south (proportionally), our individual rights are in worse shape than the Americans, just ask Ezra Levant, Mark Stein and others. But instead of doing something we shrug our shoulders, adjust our manacles issue a barely audible "Meh" and carry on.
Meanwhile our government talks about paying other peoples bills, is spending our money like a drunken sailor and narry a peep... Silence from the herd. Hell, we Canadians collectively make more noise and fuss over the $%#@ hockey playoffs than we do issues that confound, limit and erode basic freedoms.
If I could choose two words to describe the prevalent Canadian attitude to individual rights they would be ignorance and ambivalence.
No, I don't think some demagogue is going to enslave us... (just yet) and we're a long way from living in tyranny and dictatorship. Besides, we're not going to go that way.
The apathy will destroy us first...
Yesterday, all across the US regular people from all walks of life, and all sorts of political stripes gathered together to protest the unprecedented waste of their money, the undeniable infringement upon their liberty and the unqualified attempt to stifle their right to live their own lives.
These "Tea Parties" have taken on a viral quality in the US as this map shows though sadly, it isn't an election year in the US and all this will likely be forgotten by the next Senatorial elections in 2010. But at least it was done.
Some vainglorious and ignorant Canadians deride our American cousins for wearing their patriotism on their sleeves, but what have we done?
We Canadians are being ripped off just as badly as our compatriots to the south (proportionally), our individual rights are in worse shape than the Americans, just ask Ezra Levant, Mark Stein and others. But instead of doing something we shrug our shoulders, adjust our manacles issue a barely audible "Meh" and carry on.
Meanwhile our government talks about paying other peoples bills, is spending our money like a drunken sailor and narry a peep... Silence from the herd. Hell, we Canadians collectively make more noise and fuss over the $%#@ hockey playoffs than we do issues that confound, limit and erode basic freedoms.
If I could choose two words to describe the prevalent Canadian attitude to individual rights they would be ignorance and ambivalence.
No, I don't think some demagogue is going to enslave us... (just yet) and we're a long way from living in tyranny and dictatorship. Besides, we're not going to go that way.
The apathy will destroy us first...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
87% Of Canadians Will Never Check The "Facts"
I woke up this morning to find this, a complete and utter repudiation of everything I have come to believe about how the free market would out perform the welfare state.
So, that's it folks. I'm done. How could I ever have thought to question the wisdom of state run services. Why, I've been such an ungrateful citizen. I should just be hauled off to a frost-bitten gulag somewhere... How dare I dream about being permitted to spend more ofmy the states hard earned money? Mea culpa.
Rest assured fellow sheeple, once I have been sufficiently reeducated I will redouble my efforts to praisegovernment indoctrination our public education system, the tax supported cultural and racial partitioning of Canadians multiculturalism, and the black hole of our lord and master the healthcare system.
I've been such a bad, bad Canadian taxpayer.
*
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Valuing public services — benefit vs. cost
With limited exceptions, public services are not exchanged in markets. As a result,
they cannot be valued at market prices the way privately-produced goods are. Furthermore, most public services are public goods, in that the benefits from the service cannot be isolated to an individual who purchases the good or service. That is obviously the case for services like public health, for which there is generally no individualized benefit.
Really?
So when the "news" article says...
Hmmmmmm,
On further, cursory study I see that the study is 40 pages long, yet there is no bibliography. It backhandedly cites 4 sources in the "NOTES" section on page 40, one of which is from the same left wing thought tank that produced this vile little piece of newspeak. Another is from the OECD entitled “Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries”. (what the hell does that have to do with the cost of Canadian public services?). The 2 remaining sources come from Statscan which should be an unbiased source of information, but you know what they say about statistics...
This 'study' is an exercise in political gamesmanship and statistical masturbation. It is intended to cause a stir, to repudiate the claims of free market thinkers and to be propagated by the mainstream media. It has lived up to it's purpose.
JUST THINKING - This whole thing raises another question, though probably not for the first time. The question is, that with all this marvelous technology at their fingertips,(it took me 2 minutes it took me to track down this study and link to it on the web) how come the main stream media still doesn't put links to actual sources in their articles?
They claim their job is to educate the masses, to ensure the story gets out, but do they really care about doing that?
From my point of view all they really do is regurgitate press releases and play their own games, spinning the story whatever way they feel will generate press, further their own political ideology or worse yet, push it at us as "infotainment".
And they wonder why their industry is circling the drain of history.
So, that's it folks. I'm done. How could I ever have thought to question the wisdom of state run services. Why, I've been such an ungrateful citizen. I should just be hauled off to a frost-bitten gulag somewhere... How dare I dream about being permitted to spend more of
Rest assured fellow sheeple, once I have been sufficiently reeducated I will redouble my efforts to praise
I've been such a bad, bad Canadian taxpayer.
*
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES
Valuing public services — benefit vs. cost
With limited exceptions, public services are not exchanged in markets. As a result,
they cannot be valued at market prices the way privately-produced goods are. Furthermore, most public services are public goods, in that the benefits from the service cannot be isolated to an individual who purchases the good or service. That is obviously the case for services like public health, for which there is generally no individualized benefit.
Really?
So when the "news" article says...
"Canada's average middle-income family would have to spend more than half its paycheque to buy health care, education and the other "free" public services now paid for with tax dollars..."that information is in fact unsupported and unprovable by the studies own admission? In fact all of those handy figures, "80% of the population" here, "the majority" there, "63%" of this that and the other thing are unfounded interpretation?
Hmmmmmm,
On further, cursory study I see that the study is 40 pages long, yet there is no bibliography. It backhandedly cites 4 sources in the "NOTES" section on page 40, one of which is from the same left wing thought tank that produced this vile little piece of newspeak. Another is from the OECD entitled “Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries”. (what the hell does that have to do with the cost of Canadian public services?). The 2 remaining sources come from Statscan which should be an unbiased source of information, but you know what they say about statistics...
This 'study' is an exercise in political gamesmanship and statistical masturbation. It is intended to cause a stir, to repudiate the claims of free market thinkers and to be propagated by the mainstream media. It has lived up to it's purpose.
JUST THINKING - This whole thing raises another question, though probably not for the first time. The question is, that with all this marvelous technology at their fingertips,(it took me 2 minutes it took me to track down this study and link to it on the web) how come the main stream media still doesn't put links to actual sources in their articles?
They claim their job is to educate the masses, to ensure the story gets out, but do they really care about doing that?
From my point of view all they really do is regurgitate press releases and play their own games, spinning the story whatever way they feel will generate press, further their own political ideology or worse yet, push it at us as "infotainment".
And they wonder why their industry is circling the drain of history.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Silly Me...
I should have bought a Chrysler or GM...
Oh, wait! Maybe I did...
Nope, I didn't. I chose a Toyota, because Chrysler and GM didn't produce the kind or quality of vehicle I wanted.
Thanks to the government I will get to make payments on them though.
So let me get this right, it is now the responsibility of government to honour the warrantees of private companies to individual consumers?
And this current cleptocracy calls itself "Conservative"? WTF ever happened to limited government?
Oh, wait! Maybe I did...
Nope, I didn't. I chose a Toyota, because Chrysler and GM didn't produce the kind or quality of vehicle I wanted.
Thanks to the government I will get to make payments on them though.
So let me get this right, it is now the responsibility of government to honour the warrantees of private companies to individual consumers?
And this current cleptocracy calls itself "Conservative"? WTF ever happened to limited government?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Summing up the Obama Administration
And in only two months: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrFa9jrpv8
Share this with everyone you know for the next four years........
Share this with everyone you know for the next four years........
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
CTV, Poll Gets it Right
This is the current result of a CTV web Poll being conducted now...
Today's Result:
Are the Canadian and U.S. governments being too hard on the auto sector?
Yes, it's vital to North America 8%
No, it has gotten enough help 92%
If 92% of average people believe that the Auto sector has received enough of our hard earned money (stolen as taxes) why are our elected talking heads dreaming up conditions under which they will give them more?
Don't these fricken people work for us anymore?
Today's Result:
Are the Canadian and U.S. governments being too hard on the auto sector?
Yes, it's vital to North America 8%
No, it has gotten enough help 92%
If 92% of average people believe that the Auto sector has received enough of our hard earned money (stolen as taxes) why are our elected talking heads dreaming up conditions under which they will give them more?
Don't these fricken people work for us anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
