Bruce Guenter's Thoughts

Asking for Directions

Throughout virtually all kinds of political discussions the political spectrum is divided into two extremes. Known most accurately as the left and the right, they are also called other names. Democrat and Republican. Liberal and conservative. Communist and fascist. etc.

Sadly, the definitions of "left" and "right" are slippery and constantly changing. They originate in the old British legislative cabinet, where the conservative (Tory) party sat on the right side and the progressive (Liberal) party sat on the right. However, in those days, the Tories were more concerned about keeping the status quo, and the Liberals about promoting liberty. Today, the right generally connotes free enterprise and a strong military, while the left generally connotes egalitarianism and state controlled social welfare.

In any case, they are defined as two diametrically opposing directions on the political spectrum, and usually the only two directions. This kind of dualism leads to long-held but nonsensical observations about the nature of the left and the right. For example, it is commonly said that in their extreme forms, the left and right actually meet in the middle. Given that the ideals of left and right-wing politics are irreconcilably opposed, this is complete bafflegab.

This doesn't however explain how communism, as seen through Lenin and Mao, and fascism, as seen through Hitler and Mussolini, had many things in common. It also doesn't explain those who are anarchists with both communal and free-market views. To explain this, there must be another dimension.

The Political Compass points out that there are two dimensions or axes to the so-called one-dimensional political spectrum. That is the economic axis, on which the left and right labels fall, and the social axis. The social spectrum grades between authoritarians and libertarians.

By the way, please take the time to take the test to get a better idea of where you really stand before reading much more on the site. It is worth the time. As it says on the front page, "there's no right, wrong or ideal response. It's simply a measure of attitudes and inevitable human contradictions to provide a more integrated definition of where people and parties are really at."

Adding this second dimension makes it much more apparent what actually happened with the so-called extreme forms of left and right-wing politics. These extreme forms, embodied in communism and fascism, were not so much extremely left or right but rather extremely authoritarian. Their policies placed most of the decision making power out of the hands of individuals and into the hands of the state.

It is no longer enough to simply label political figures as left-wing or right-wing, assuming it was ever enough. Remember this when you read such reports, and realize there is more to the picture than just a line.
Bruce on 09.26.08 @ 02:09 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Seniors not embracing generic drugs? Not quite.

CTV is reporting that seniors are "not quite embracing generic drugs", according to a study by Medco Health Solutions Inc. in the USA.

What the study actually says is that "The majority of seniors only switched to generics after they reached the point in spending when users must pick up the whole cost of prescriptions." Apparently, after they actually have to pay for the drugs, they do embrace the generics.

Really? And this is in the least bit surprising? Psychologically, even if you educate people that generics are equally effective as brand-name drugs, the price alone makes the brand-name drugs more desirable. Since the seniors don't have to pick up the whole cost of the prescription normally, why not get the more desirable drugs? After all, they're not picking up the tab, except in their taxes which don't change if they need more or more expensive drugs.

After all, when you go to an all-you can eat buffet, what do you eat? Do you stick to the cheaper foods because that will make it less expensive for everybody, or do you stuff yourself as much as possible with all of the choicest bits? It doesn't matter how much you eat, you still pay the same amount, so go wild.

As the saying goes: If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free. (P.J. O'Rourke)
Bruce on 09.25.08 @ 04:52 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Cell phone foolishness

Recently, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, has warned that cell phone use may cause cancer. Really, as warnings go, this is old news, frequently reported but never conclusively proven. I use a cell phone (occasionally) but I refuse to be panicked until something more substantial develops.

The really foolish part of his warning is this: "Adults should keep the phone away from the head and use the speakerphone or a wireless headset" (emphasis mine). Warning users of cell phones to stay away from electromagnetic fields but simultaneously recommending them to use wireless headsets is absurd. How does he think wireless headsets operate that avoid electromagnetic fields?
Bruce on 07.25.08 @ 11:27 AM CST [link] [1 Comment]

Copy protection and death

In the light of the new copyright bill introduced in Canada yesterday, I had this thought:

Copyright has frequently been described as an incentive for creators to produce new works. If that is true, why does copy protection on a work extend for decades after the death of the creator (70 years in USA, 50 years in Canada)? What possible incentive could that be after the creator is dead?
Bruce on 06.13.08 @ 07:35 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Oh how I wish for a federal vacuum

The Saskatoon StarPhoenix opinion column has observed that a vacuum in federal politics leaves the provinces fighting to fill in. Somehow this has been misconstrued as a bad thing.

While apparently "most federations recognize that the best way to attack such large issues ... is for the federal government to take the leadership and direct policy", this is really not as effective as it sounds. There are innumerable instances where federal policies have benefited one group only to completely cheat everybody else. Since the federal government is effectively constrained to "one size fits all" type policies, this will always be the case.

For comparison, let's look at some other large issues where the federal government took leadership and directed policy. First up, the energy crisis of the 1970s. The result of the federal government's "leadership" was the National Energy Program, a name that is still cursed nearly universally in western Canada.

What about the problem of disparities between so-called have and have-not provinces? That is supposedly solved by another federal system, the equalization program that punishes successful economies and reduces motivation for poor and underachieving economies. It has been the cause of all kinds of fighting, even to the point of near lawsuits by the provinces against the federal government, a rather ludicrous prospect.

It is true, as they say, that the provinces have "disparate interests". That is precisely why the provinces should be left to solve the problem in their own way rather than having the federal government dictate their choices. In fact, given the tension between the cities within each province, having the provincial government dictate solutions to the cities may even be too large a division. Having lived in both cities, there are problems for which Regina and Saskatoon would have offered completely different solutions if the provincial or federal governments had not made their decision for them.

Truly, decisions are best made as locally as possible to provide the best results for the disparate people groups we have in Canada.
Bruce on 06.11.08 @ 06:58 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

McCain's shows off his economic ignorance

In the news today, Republican John McCain is quoted as saying oil companies should return some profits to consumers.

What on earth for? By definition, consumers are the ones that are buying the oil companies' products. Also by definition, said consumers have already profited by buying the products. We have made the decision that the products are more valuable to us than other uses of the money, and so are better off for purchasing the products. That's profit.

See, there are only a handful of people in the world who could possibly produce the kinds of products that oil companies produce on their own. Even then, they would have to purchase billions of dollars of equipment, land rights, employees, and so on. For all the rest of us, we benefit from the incredible investment these companies have made in offering us a valuable product.

In fact, given all the competition in the oil product market, these products are being offered at razor thin margins. John Gormley, a local talk show host, calculated all the costs involved in delivering gasoline to the pumps. Despite all kinds of complaints that we are being gouged, or that oil companies are colluding to charge us more, the end number he comes up with is within a few pennies of the actual price at the pump.

No, companies are only obligated to return their monetary profits to those people who have shared in the risks they take. That would be the investors that have given the companies their money to use. That's right, the same shareholders that they already return profits to. Thanks to the wonders of modern investing, pretty near everybody who owns shares in a mutual fund probably is an effective shareholder in at least one oil company.

So, we can all profit from companies by sharing in their risk. Or we can profit by purchasing their products that we value. Either way, we can profit from companies without those companies being coerced to do something so counterproductive as what McCain is suggesting.
Bruce on 06.11.08 @ 06:09 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

CUPE is worried about propaganda?

Brad McKaig, spokesperson for the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1975 is quoted in a story in today's newspaper as saying:

We're worried about members reading propaganda on the web or elsewhere and then casting a ballot

That's a rather outrageous statement for the spokesperson of the same organization that sent a number of pamphlets containing misleading statements and fabrications during this past election to union members and schools.

Isn't this pot a little too charred to be calling others black?
Bruce on 11.23.07 @ 03:17 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Extended shopping hours in Saskatoon.

Two Saskatoon stores are asking city council for permission to stay open 24 hours a day for some days during Christmas. Sarah Maunder writes that there is "Little to gain by extending shopping hours even more". She says that "help-wanted signs are everywhere" but that "employees need to prove their dedication in order to be guaranteed shifts".

Well, Sarah, fortunately it can't work both ways. If help wanted signs are everywhere (and they really are), then there really is no risk in losing your job because the employers are so desperate to keep workers. Even if you do, there's always other jobs you can go to because there are so many looking for employees. But if employees are being made to prove their dedication, then there must be a serious risk of them not getting another job.

I say let the people decide. If the stores stay open and lose money, they won't be likely to do it again. If they make money, it means enough people decided that they wanted to shop during the extended hours. Either way there is little to lose and potential for a gain in convenience.
Bruce on 10.16.07 @ 11:10 AM CST [link] [No Comments]

Pre-election announcements

You can be sure a government election is coming when the announcement coming out of the government offices start to resemble a snowfall. In light of the Saskatchewan elections that were announced recently, I did a few searches for all the announcements I could find that were tied to money coming from the provincial government. I knew there had been quite a number, but I was somewhat dismayed at just how many I could find.
Bruce on 10.15.07 @ 05:22 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Jack Layton cries for the news again.

The headline of the article reads "NDP warns government of election", but the foul comes in this quote from NDP Leader Jack Layton:

[Prime Minister] Harper used to believe in democracy. He used to believe in accountability. ... Now he believes in doing what the Liberals did: pile up the money in surprise surpluses, and pay down the debt without any consultation with Canadians about their priorities.

Once again, Mr. Layton gets it wrong on just about all his talking points (and the one point where it isn't incorrect is probably not nearly the bad thing he's making it out to be). Let's start at the top.

Democracy, as we have come to understand it, is a system of government where people are ruled by a group elected by the majority of the people. By implying that Mr. Harper no longer believes in democracy, Mr. Layton is really saying that the people have changed their minds. See, Mr. Harper is following his election platform on this issue.

Accountability is "an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions" according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. The decision to use all of the surplus for debt reduction seems to me to be highly accountable. The Conservatives campaigned on debt reduction, tax reduction, and less of the government largesse that characterized former governments. To do spend the surplus on anything but debt reduction would be dodging that promise.

I will agree that he is doing similar to the Liberals by lowballing the income forcast and overestimating the expense (if that's possible -- expenditures have a habit of growing to meet the budget, especially in a large bureaucracy like the government). This is a good practice for a country that is massively in debt, as long as the surplus is used wisely.

Canada's debt, as of the 2007 budget stood at roughly $469 billion. The entire budget was only $233 billion, making the debt twice the size of the entire budget. While this might not sound like much, especially for those of us holding mortgages, this debt was largely not incurred buying any objects of lasting value. I would compare to having a credit card debt of twice your annual salary. Fortunately, the interest rates are better for the government, or else we'd go bankrupt. Incidentally at the budgeted debt reduction of $3.0 billion per year, we would still have the debt in 2163. Instead, at $14.0 billion per year it will only take until 2041.

By Mr. Layton's own words, though, Mr. Harper is diverging significantly from what the previous government did with surplusses, in particular toward the end of their terms. The Liberals did put part of the surplus towards paying down the debt, but that was only part of the picture. The surplus was also used for spending on social programs and other items, apparently completely at their own discretion. No budget, little debate, and little accountability.

As for doing this without consultation with Canadians, paying down the debt was part of their election campaign, and was part of the budget. Not only that, but the article itself indicates that the government, by the laws enacted to pass their budget, are required to pay any surplus
against the debt. It's a little late now to be complaining that this was done without consultation.

Besides which, the debt is money that past governments (of both political stripes) have already spent. Its the past governments who decided, with or without consultation, to spend more money instead of balancing the budget. We're just catching up with the payments. Does Mr. Layton really expect that we can keep spending forever and just forget about the debt stone hanging around our necks? Or worse yet, print extra money to pay it off?

Fortunately, by paying extra on the debt the government has committed by legislation to let us keep more of our money next year from the interest savings, and that's the best news of all.
Bruce on 10.01.07 @ 04:40 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

I guess she must have been doing something wrong

...because she did have something to fear, in the form of an ex-boyfriend using US Department of Homeland Security databases to stalk her and her family. This proves the point I made in a previous post: you don't have to be "doing something wrong" to have reason to fear unilateral privacy invasions.

The only good news in this story is that the perp got caught. How many others don't?
Bruce on 09.28.07 @ 12:43 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Serial CPUs?

It occurred to me yesterday that the type of interconnects used to attach devices to computers has come full circle. This left me wondering how much further the current trend is going to go.

Many of the earliest devices were attached to computers using various serial cables. Printers, terminals, and drives mostly started life as having some kind of serial interconnect. RS-232 (used with modems and older printers), EIA-422, ST-506 (used with the first PC hard drives), and ESDI (a successor to the ST-506 interface) were all serial interconnects.

Slowly, as the demand for higher bandwidth grew, those interconnects started moving to wider and wider parallel buses. ATA (formerly known as IDE, now known as PATA) for hard drives, SCSI for drives and other bulk data devices, and the parallel port for printers were the main examples of this on PCs. For many years these interfaces were clocked incrementally faster, and in some cases the buses grew wider as well.

Internally, where device attachment largely started with parallel connections, the same trend has been happening, with the ISA bus starting at 8 bits, then moving to 16, and then to 32 bits with EISA, MCA, VESA, PCI, and AGP. The PCI bus later developed a 64-bit variant known as PCI-X, and the speeds clocked higher as well.

However, those parallel interconnects have hit a brick wall, and it appears that they will not be back any time soon. As data transfer speeds increase, it becomes increasingly difficult to ensure that all the data on a parallel bus is valid at the same time. This necessitates correspondingly more complex and expensive circuitry to drive such a bus. When combined with the ability for engineers to build much faster circuitry, it has become much more effective to built interfaces based on serial mechanisms instead of parallel ones.

So, all major PC devices have now moved to serial connections of one form or another. FireWire is used for many digital media devices, SATA and SAS are used for storage drives, and USB is used for just about everything. Even the internal PCI bus has moved to a serial mechanism with PCIe. Even though a PCIe bus may transfer multiple bits simultaneously, it is physically composed of multiple serial "lanes" which are independently self-clocked.

This leads me to my question. All of the replaceable components on PCs, both externally and internally, have moved to serial interconnects except for two: RAM and CPUs. Admittedly, these two devices have the highest bandwidth requirements of all of the devices, so the technological constraints are higher. However, I still wonder. Are serial-attached CPUs as inevitable as all the other serial interconnects?
Bruce on 07.04.07 @ 12:42 PM CST [link] [2 Comments]

There are two threats to liberty in America

There are two clear and present dangers to liberty in America. One is known as the Left, and the other is known as the Right.

Great article that says what I've been thinking for some time -- the majority of politics in America (and much of Canada) is opposed to liberty.
Bruce on 06.11.07 @ 11:56 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Al Gore on TV

Apparently, Al Gore is saying that our democracy is being ruined by television. The link points to the next item on the TV agenda, a report on Pitt and Jolie at Cannes, as the irony.

Really, Al Gore is the irony himself for criticizing others for their use of television to ruin democracy. That's rather rich coming from somebody who is spending so much time on TV to promote his highly political docudrama and even apparently sold his vote for more speech time.
Bruce on 05.30.07 @ 02:54 PM CST [link] [1 Comment]

Jack of fair trades?

Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP is reported to be pushing the government for "fair trade". What kind of fair trade would that be, Jack?

The federal government must enact strategies to ensure Canadian products are traded fairly on an international market, he said.

"If Korea wants to sell cars here, they need to take ours."

Hold on a second. How exactly would that be fair?

Since the meaning of words is so important, let's look at the dictionary for a definition. The most relevant entries from dictionary.com are: "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice" and "legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules". The American Heritage Dictionary entry on the same page adds: "Having or exhibiting a disposition that is free of favoritism or bias; impartial" and "Just to all parties; equitable".

So, Korea expends their resources to manufacture a car and sell it in Canada because they value our money more than they value their car, and we give them our money because we value their car more than we value that amount of money. This seems perfectly "fair" to me -- everybody is getting what they want out of the exchange. How can such an exchange be made more "fair" by forcing Korea to spend their money on cars that they don't want in exchange for the privilege of selling cars here?

I think Mr. Layton is perhaps thinking of this definition, again from the American Heritage Dictionary entry: "Being in accordance with relative merit or significance". Perhaps in his eyes he sees cars that are manufactured here as having equal or higher merit or significance to cars manufactured in Korea, and wants to compel that value judgement onto the Koreans.

To an outside observer, I doubt this kind of demand would be considered as "fair". This is trade protectionism, based on faulty economics, and Mr. Layton has himself protested when it is applied to us.

I guess "fair" must really mean "my way".
Bruce on 05.29.07 @ 01:48 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Gas companies and gouging

It's a perrenial complaint, and completely understandable. The companies charge us too much for gasoline. The cry "They're gouging us! is heard. The most common complaint is how prices seem to spike quickly when crude oil prices go up, but drop slowly when they go down.

Unfortunately, the facts aren't nearly so convenient. I did some checking on GasBuddy.com and came up with the following chart produced from their historical price charts:



This chart shows the price of gas in Saskatoon SK (where I live) along with the Canadian average price and the market price of crude oil over the last 24 months. The chart does show that there is sometimes a delay between the price of crude dropping and the street price of gasoline dropping, although that delay appears to be fairly short. It also shows a similar delay between prices going up. Alltogether, it shows that there is a very strong correlation both ways.

Huh.

Another complaint is how Canadians pay so much more for gasoline, even after taxes are taken into account. Again, the facts fail to back up this argument. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation put out a report in 2005 called the "Gas Tax Honesty Campaign" (PDF). While most of the report details how poorly the tax collected on gasoline is being spent, page 26 compares the prices of gasoline in Canada to that in the USA, before and after taxes. The before taxes line in their chart is very close (within 10% at all points). Exxon Mobil also produced this op-ed (PDF) which includes a chart showing the price of gasoline around the globe in 2005, before and after taxes. Again, the before tax prices varies very little across the globe.

Huh again.

Then there's the matter of the use of the term "gouging". According to dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster, this term means "to engage in swindling, overcharging, or the like". I do not think that we are being swindled (meaning defrauded), and overcharging implies there is a price that they should be charging. This seems to imply there is a moral price at which their profit could be considered acceptable.

Consider this however: we keep buying. The demand for gasoline is highly elastic with relation to its price. This means that when the price goes down, we don't buy much more gas, and when the price goes up, we don't buy less gas. Sure, when the price goes up we may delay buying gas, but we still buy it, because we just can't stop driving. If we keep buying, what incentive do they have to keep prices low? It's not like they're in the business as a game for play money.

Yes, these companies are in the business to make real money. These are public companies that have a explicit reponsibility to the shareholders that help to fund the company to make the most money they can. It is important to realize that "shareholders" includes nearly all of us who own shares in mutual funds, who in turn typically depend on these investments to return a good profit so as to provide for our retirement.
Bruce on 04.10.07 @ 05:59 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Boulders in a river

Recently, somebody pointed out a survey (warning: PDF) by The Strategic Council and sponsored by The Globe and Mail and CTV. The results of the poll seem to me to be fairly neutral, with most sides being able to find something to point at as positive. There is a leaning that favours the party that is currently in power, which is normal.

It's not the results that were of real interest to me, though. One of the questions caught my eye as having the appearance of push polling. I'm not sure this kind of push was even realized when the question was posed, given the political bias of the sponsors of the poll.

The question was this: "Which one of the political parties do you think is best able to manage the economy?" (page 11)

This question is highly leading, with a lot of assumed answers preceding it. Does the economy need to be "managed"? Does government management add value to the economy? Does any government do a good job of managing economy?

Governments "manage" their economies much in the same way as boulders "manage" a river. Since governments do not and can not create value by themselves, they can only operate by taking value out of their economies. The "management" they provide usually amounts to obstacles and impediments against one form of activity or another, much as boulders provide impediments to the flow of a river. Put in enough boulders, and the result is the river slowing down to a trickle, and the plants the river feeds will die.

There's another side to that too. Rivers don't just trickle between boulders put in their paths. Given enough obstacles, they will start to flow around the obstacles, making new paths and streams, rendering the obstacles ineffective once again and washing out unexpected areas. In much the same way, virtually everything done to "manage" an economy has unintended consequences that spill over into other areas. People will try to route around impediments to their economic goals through tax evasion, black markets, and other illegal activities. Government incentives and impediments will also have unintended consequences, like some of the mass shifts of companies into income trusts to avoid taxes.

Sadly, this poll did not appear have an answer that is the most accurate: "None of them."
Bruce on 03.05.07 @ 01:12 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Yet another "automatic" software development tool

Great news! Software developers are now obsolete! A company called Attunity has developed a platform called InFocus "which will enable customers to build their own applications".

Yawn.

Too bad this promise has been repeated about every 5 years since the introduction of FORTRAN and BASIC (and maybe earlier). While some aspects of software development can be made easier, there will always remain some inherent complexity which cannot be reduced. As such software development will always require experts, at least to do anything remotely novel.
Bruce on 02.12.07 @ 11:17 AM CST [link] [1 Comment]

CSIS says "Too much secrecy is bad"

It's rather refreshing to hear that CSIS (Canada's intelligence agency) has seen the light (or at least a glimmer of it) on the issue of excessive secrecy. A notable quote: "Over-reaction to terrorism, it should be remembered, is a fundamental objective of most terrorists in history. We should not accommodate their goals in this regard."

Exactly!

Update: I emailed this story to Bruce Schneier, and apparently he agrees.
Bruce on 01.29.07 @ 05:18 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Hitler and the need for war

When discussing the necessity of war, many have pointed to the atrocities of Hitler as the ultimate example. If Hitler had not been stopped by war, what would have happened to the world as we know it?

This line of reasoning completely ignores the factors that propelled Hitler into a place of influence in the first place. Hitler took power at the head of the National Socialist German Workers Party in 1933 after the collapse of the Weimar Republic in Germany caused at least in part by the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. Without this treaty, it is unlikely that the necessary conditions (popular resentment against outside nations, etc) would have existed.

That treaty, in turn, was punishment for another war that Germany got involved in as a result of a combination of factors, most notably its agressive arms race against Great Britain and the imperial nature of the governments involved. Although the factors that led to WWI were more complex than just these two, without them the war would likely not have happened.

So to summarize, imperial agression led to war led to resentment figureheaded by Hitler led to another war. And this is used as an example of why we should preemptively start more wars and cause more resentment? It just doesn't work that way.
Bruce on 01.05.07 @ 06:27 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

More thoughts on debt reduction

Following up my own post involving debt reduction, I've had another thought to add. Well, actually I've had several more thoughts, this is just the only one I've remembered to write down so far.

In his letter, Alex Thumm said:

Parents don't cut piano lessons or quality of food for their children so they can pay off their line of credit.

This too shows a significant difference between how debt impacts individuals and how it impacts governed citizens. As a result of dealing with some financial issues with a parent, we have determined that debt dies with the estate. That is, if you screw up bad enough so that you die with more debt outstanding than assets, at least your inheritors don't have to pay for your excesses. On the other hand government lives as long as its collective citizenship does, which will leave our children to pay for the excesses of our government.

Updated: My sincere apologies to Alex Thumm. I have no idea where I got the idea (ahem) that he was a she. Mea culpa!
Bruce on 01.04.07 @ 12:49 PM CST [link] [1 Comment]

An Introduction to Value Theory

The Mises Institute ran a short essay from the writings of F.A. Harper recently entitled An Introduction to Value Theory. This is a concise and readable introduction to the history, current state, and political impact of economic value theory, which is the framework used to evaluate what things have value and how much value they have.

The most critical parts of this theory are that things (and services) only have value where there is a scarcity, that things have no intrinsic value, and that the value of a thing can only be evaluated by individuals in comparison with other things. Each of these parts are critical to understanding economics, and have large impacts on many issues. The article briefly notes on some of these implications, and also describes previous theories, why they were inadequate, and how they came to form the current theory.
Bruce on 01.03.07 @ 10:50 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Today's Accu-Terror Forecast

This skit by Bill Maher is just too funny!

h/t to Bruce Schneier
Bruce on 12.21.06 @ 05:41 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

I've been published

It took almost two weeks for them to get around to it, but the Saskatoon StarPhoenix did finally publish my letter to the editor. The editors significantly reduced the length of the message, but most of the important bits got through.
Bruce on 12.20.06 @ 03:30 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Seven people in a boat

mbaron writes in response to a post on Small Dead Animals regarding the CWB monopoly:

Democracy isn't six people in a lifeboat voting to eat the seventh.

Sadly, the above quote is actually a very good summary of how democracy works and incidentally why the CWB monopoly deserves to be scrapped.

In a democracy, in general, we vote for one of (hopefully) several people to represent our interests in government. That representative will take actions in favor of and opposed to various issues that he is involved in depending on what he things his constituents would prefer him to do, what would get him re-elected, and what would give him more power. In all cases, the people who would be harmed by those issues have no say in the matter, other than writing to their representative and complaining, hoping to sway their opinion. Even if they do change the opinion, it likely only transfers the harm to another group of people. Furthermore, those people harmed by the action have no redress. No way to choose differently, and no way to exact compensation for the harm done to them.

In the same way, while the CWB monopoly is likely beneficial to at least some farmers, it is equally likely harmful to some. Keeping the CWB monopoly is the will of the majority eating the minority.
Bruce on 12.11.06 @ 11:45 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Vista will create new jobs?

TG Daily in a recent report states that Windows Vista will create 100,000 new jobs. This is apparently being reported by a report from IDC. Unfortunately, IDC has a reputation for churning out reports specifically taylored to their sponsors, and this one is no exception.

Throughout the report, one very basic economic fallacy is being made, most commonly known as the broken window fallacy. Simply put, the parable used to introduce the fallacy claims that breaking windows is a net economic benefit. In the report, IDC trumpets that mass adoption of Windows Vista will "create" 100,000 new jobs and pump dollars into the IT industry.

While that may be true on the surface, there is no way to ascertain where those people would have been working and those dollars would otherwise have been spent if Vista was not adopted. There are some significant changes in the Vista OS that will cause porting efforts for companies that want their products to stay compatible with the new OS. It also has much higher base hardware requirements, meaning many new computer purchases. Unfortunately, the consequence of these two items alone means that less effort may be available to produce new software, and more money spent on both purchasing hardware that otherwise would not be necessary, and on disposing of the old unusable hardware (since it is becoming expensive or illegal in some places to just throw out computer equipment).

Obviously, at least some (and probably a large part) of the economic activity apparently "created" by Vista would otherwise be directed at other activities, most of which would be considered to be more productive efforts. Whether or not Vista is a good or better operating system is actually completely irrelevant to both the IDC report and this discussion.
Bruce on 12.11.06 @ 12:05 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Letter to the Editor on program cuts

In the Editorial section of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix on Monday December 4, 2006, Alex Thumm of Saskatoon wrote a rather misguided missive complaining against recent budget changes by the Conservative government.

Program cuts short signted way to retire Canada's debt

The recent announcement by the conservative government that it wants to fully pay off the national debt by 2021 will not benefit the majority of Canadians.

This is false. Eliminating the debt will in fact benefit all Canadians. Simply having a debt means that we are obligated to pay the lenders interest on that debt. That interest must be paid through taxes, which are paid by all of society, both rich and poor. Lower debt means lower taxes, which means more money in your pocket.

Of course, I believe that having low or no debt is preferable, but it matters on how you reach that goal. "Canada's New Government" has significantly cut programs in the short time it has been in power, just so it can lower the debt.

These were programs that benefited Canadians' quality of life and our economy, because you need educated and healthy people to have a strong economy.

Contrary to the claim that the Conservatives have "significantly cut programs", they have actually increased spending in a number of areas and, as was stated, are committed to increasing expenditures on programs. Many of the most visible budget cuts involved funding conferences and advocacy groups. In other words, parts of the programs that had nothing to do with educating people or helping them to health.

On the Department of Finance's own website, it states that, "The government is committed to keeping the growth of program expenses below the growth of the economy over the medium term."

Committing to keeping the growth of program expenditures below that of the growth of the economy should be applauded. To see why, consider the opposite. If program expenses grow faster than the economy, eventually we will reach a point where our economy cannot produce enough to pay for the programs. This requires taking on debt, which means paying more in future years, producing a vicious cycle of paying more to achieve less.

How can we accept that our government is "committed" to cutting programs for Canadians, for the sole purpose of lowering the debt? Parents don't cut piano lessons or quality of food for their children so they can pay off their line of credit.

Families with expenditures larger than their income have to make hard choices of where they want to end up in the future. Money doesn't simply come from nowhere. If parents want to provide "programs" for their children, we have to produce the money to pay for those programs from somewhere. We can choose to do so by taking on more work to increase our income, by cutting other expenditures, or by borrowing money. The latter will get increasingly difficult as the debt load increases, since there will be less collateral to use to base the load on and more interest to pay. Finally, when the children leave, the parents will be left with hard to pay loans, and migrate into the classes of the impoverished elderly, and the children will be given a lesson in misguided priorities.

Much of the above applies to governments equally when too much is being spent. They can choose to increase taxes, cut expenses, or borrow money. The former and the latter choices are not sustainable, especially in the light of increasing numbers of society who are inelegible or unable to pay taxes. The approaching retirement of millions of so-called baby-boomers will put a large strain on our existing programs, as they start to take more out of government programs than they put in.

If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Saskatoon, I'd like to tell him one thing: A government is supposed to do what will benefit the vulnerable and average Canadians.

If Finance Minister Jim Flaherty was in Saskatoon, I'd like to congratulate him on making a small step of progress benefiting all Canadians. There is still a long way to go, and many more hard choices to make along the road.
Bruce on 12.08.06 @ 04:44 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Gay marriage defeat?

CBC and CTV are both proudly proclaiming how voters have rejected a gay marriage ban based on the results of the amendment vote in Arizona. What they very carefully bury way down in the article is that 7 of the 8 other states with similar questions voted in favor of amending their constitutions to say that marriage consists of one man and one woman. This brings the total up to 27 states, over half of them.

How is this "fair and balanced" news reporting?
Bruce on 11.10.06 @ 10:12 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Poverty and Health

Yesterday's newspaper ran an article entitled Rich-Poor Health Gap Shocking. In today's paper, there was a followup article about how the statistics came as a surprise to Premier Lorne Calvert. The subheading of this story proclaims that "Poverty influences health, report shows".

Bollocks!

While I have absolutely no doubt that there is a positive correlation between poverty (or people living in "poor" neighbourhoods) and sub-standard health, nothing in the original article describing the report nor this follow up displayed any kind of evidence that this is a causal relationship. In other words, poverty and poor health go together, but may both be caused by some other phenomenon.

For example, the first article says that "only 46 per cent of inner-city tots are up to date with their measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations, 95 per cent of kids in affluent areas are covered." Simply being affluent can itself not account for this dramatic difference. Getting your children vaccinated is a completely free affair. All you have to do is find the local community clinic (information that is regularly sent to parents), take your child in on the appropriate day, and receive the shots.

Also, the levels of several common sexually-transmitted diseases are more than 10 times higher than in affluent areas. How does being poor cause higher rates of STDs?

It seems that it is more likely there is a shared cause to both poverty and poor health. As such, it is unlikely that merely adding more dollars to the situation will improve things measurably. We already give the poor a large amount of money, through the many social assistance programs, and they are still poor.

When my wife was growing up, she lived among some rural communities that would be categorized in this class of people. With a few exceptions, the people there had little to no interest in educating themselves, and had a similarly lack of desire to do anything better than their parents did. In fact, she has quoted them as saying things that, were I to repeat here, would get me labelled as racist.

Without an attitude change, none of these people will ever become affluent, no matter how much money we give them. Similarly, none of them will take their health seriously. It will take a lifestyle change to make these improve, not more free money.
Bruce on 11.10.06 @ 12:11 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Incidents grab headlines?

In today's paper, there is yet another article bemoaning Conservative MP Peter MacKay's alleged slur against his ex, Liberal MP Belinda Stronach. In the article, the reporter says that the incident has "grabbed national and international headlines." This statement is somewhat misleading, trying to imply that stories just make themselves up and push themselves onto prime placement in papers and journals.

No, the reality is a journalists have had to write the articles, and editors have had to make decisions about what they think is most important for the public to read about from their newspapers. Evidently, these people have decided that this nearly inaudible comment is worth more attention than (for example) Minister of International Co-operation Josee Verner making a surprise visit to Afghanistan.

Amusingly, the article ends with a quote from another Liberal MP judging MacKay's attitude based on this incident and concluding that "Canadians will draw their own conclusions on the basis of [the public record]." Well, apparently the readers of CTV.ca have drawn their conclusion, and decided (mostly) that it should just be ignored:

What do you think of the latest MacKay Stronach dust-up?

Apologize. Sexist behaviour which must be addressed. (32%)
Ignore it. Typical of workplace romance gone bad. (68%)

(The original poll is no longer available, but I've found it reported here and here.)
Bruce on 10.31.06 @ 01:00 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

Rush Limbaugh and Parkinson's Disease

Rush Limbaugh has recently gone on record deriding Michael J. Fox for exaggerating the symptoms of Parkinson's disease. While I strongly disagree with Fox's advocacy of government sponsored embryonic stem cell research, I think Limbaugh is being a real jerk for trying to smear Fox based on his symptoms.

My father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease about 15 years ago, and some of the symptoms likely showed up before that. His father also had it, as did several of his relatives. He is taking a number of advanced medications under the direction of the foremost Parkinson's disease researchers in Canada. Even so, his symptoms swing wildly from hour to hour, completely unpredicably. He doesn't have much shaking, but does sway like Limbaugh saw Fox do, and has severely impaired mobility and speech. When he is good, his speech is as clear as it was 20 years ago. When he is bad, he is in constant motion, and it takes all his concentration to get his words out, and even then it's only slightly better than mumbling.

It's frustrating to watch, sometimes. I wish he could just slow down and stop sometimes. It is impossible to predict, for him and for us, when he will be coherent and when he won't. And as indicated earlier, it can change in as little as a half an hour from one extreme to the other. The only thing we know is that stress frequently makes it worse.

Mr. Limbaugh, given the number of years M. J. Fox has had Parkinson's disease, and that (from what I know) it is progressing fairly rapidly, I can say quite confidently that it is highly unlikely that Fox was faking anything. It really does get that bad, and it really is uncomfortable to watch. You owe him a public apology.
Bruce on 10.26.06 @ 05:49 PM CST [link] [No Comments]

PM Harper shows he has a backbone

Congratulations to Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper for having the resolve to stand against a biased resolution recognizing the suffering of only the Lebanese people in the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. His actions, together with a few other countries resulted in the resolution being fixed. I am quite pleased with the position our government has taken on the recent attacks against the people of Israel. Thank you for taking a firm positive position and standing up for the rights of the victim.
Bruce on 10.03.06 @ 01:45 AM CST [link] [No Comments]

30 Things You Can Do About DRM

Michael Geist's set of articles entitled 30 Days of DRM has now concluded with an article entitled 30 Things You Can Do listing 30 concrete actions you can take to make a difference in the debate over government controls over DRM technology. The 30 previous articles highlights a number of issues and problems surrounding legislation and DRM, including problems with the USA's DMCA and alternate approaches used by other countries. The articles are short, concise, well balanced, and highly informative. They are well worth reading especially for Canadian readers, who have a chance right now to act as the government is expected to be working on this issue in the near future.
Bruce on 09.21.06 @ 11:53 PM CST [link] [No Comments]