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]
Bruce Guenter's Thoughts
Random musings about stuff that crosses my path.
Home
Archives
Subscribe via RSS
My favorite blogs:
- Small Dead Animals
- National Newswatch
- Bruce Schneier
- Computerworld's Shark Tank
- Freedom to Tinker
- GrokLaw
- Dan's Data
- The Angry Economist
- OSNews
- Michael Geist
Thursday, December 21st
Wednesday, December 20th
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]
Monday, December 11th
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]
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]
Friday, December 8th
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.
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.
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.
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 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]
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]