The video focuses on the United States but for all intents and purposes, it can be applied to Canada.
Yes. We succeed in spite of government interventionism.
2016-04-05
We're Wealthier, Healthier And Safer Than We've Ever Been
The video focuses on the United States but for all intents and purposes, it can be applied to Canada.
Yes. We succeed in spite of government interventionism.
Air Canada Lobbies Government To Hand Money To Bombardier
So the story goes something like this.
The President of Air Canada lobbies the government to encourage them to give tax money to Bombardier. You know, because Bombardier is a 'gem and a winner' of a company and that Air Bus, Embraer and Boeing all get government support.
As I read on, it became clear to me what he was saying was Bombardier is gonna sell us 45 planes well below the listed price and the tax payers are going to subsidize the rest so we can get our shiny new toys.
One incompetent ward of the state supporting another welfare corporatist bum.
I'm surprised they didn't scare us into thinking we'd have no planes to fly anywhere if we don't do this deal with Bombardier.
Ah, Canada.
So open and transparent.
The President of Air Canada lobbies the government to encourage them to give tax money to Bombardier. You know, because Bombardier is a 'gem and a winner' of a company and that Air Bus, Embraer and Boeing all get government support.
As I read on, it became clear to me what he was saying was Bombardier is gonna sell us 45 planes well below the listed price and the tax payers are going to subsidize the rest so we can get our shiny new toys.
One incompetent ward of the state supporting another welfare corporatist bum.
I'm surprised they didn't scare us into thinking we'd have no planes to fly anywhere if we don't do this deal with Bombardier.
Ah, Canada.
So open and transparent.
$650 Bought Me Peace Of Mind
Today I went for an MRI.
My doctor referred me to a public hospital but I declined and went to a private clinic.
And I don't regret a second or dime of it. My appointment was for 11:15am and my name was called at 11:15am. Who knows how long it would have been on the public side? And heaven forbid you ask them how long it could take lest they view your question as 'aggressive'. My time is just too valuable to be sitting in a waiting room.
By 11:50 I was done. My day wasn't shot like it usually is on the public side.
The whole process was so patient-centric, peaceful it made for a pleasant experience.
It's impossible to put a price tag on your time and peace of mind but today, it was $650.
That's how the Canadian system measures it anyway.
My doctor referred me to a public hospital but I declined and went to a private clinic.
And I don't regret a second or dime of it. My appointment was for 11:15am and my name was called at 11:15am. Who knows how long it would have been on the public side? And heaven forbid you ask them how long it could take lest they view your question as 'aggressive'. My time is just too valuable to be sitting in a waiting room.
By 11:50 I was done. My day wasn't shot like it usually is on the public side.
The whole process was so patient-centric, peaceful it made for a pleasant experience.
It's impossible to put a price tag on your time and peace of mind but today, it was $650.
That's how the Canadian system measures it anyway.
2016-04-04
Provable Historical Fact: Bernie Sanders Ideology Kills People
Progressives can try and ignore and rewrite history all they want and like and they will always have to face the truth so long as blogs like this one exist.
"Gov. Walker has allowed his right-wing ideology to prevail and to deny some 120,000 people in Wisconsin options to get into Medicaid and maybe, for the first time in their lives, have health insurance," Sanders told a rally in Madison ahead of Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, where the Vermont senator is projected to narrowly beat Hillary Clinton.
This is truly amazing in its chutzpah.
First off, progressives go insane whenever you mention that people sometimes die waiting to get access or care in the Canadian public health system which is infested with a second-rate infrastructure.
Second, conservative principles pale in comparison to the murder rate hurled upon innocent people at the hands of socialists and communists. We're talking millions here and quite frankly can't understand how this is even up for discussion.
Bottom line? It's Grandpa Gulag's ideology who has not only murdered for ideology, but who knows how many untold lives were ruined and lost due to progressive policies in the 20th century?
"Gov. Walker has allowed his right-wing ideology to prevail and to deny some 120,000 people in Wisconsin options to get into Medicaid and maybe, for the first time in their lives, have health insurance," Sanders told a rally in Madison ahead of Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, where the Vermont senator is projected to narrowly beat Hillary Clinton.
This is truly amazing in its chutzpah.
First off, progressives go insane whenever you mention that people sometimes die waiting to get access or care in the Canadian public health system which is infested with a second-rate infrastructure.
Second, conservative principles pale in comparison to the murder rate hurled upon innocent people at the hands of socialists and communists. We're talking millions here and quite frankly can't understand how this is even up for discussion.
Bottom line? It's Grandpa Gulag's ideology who has not only murdered for ideology, but who knows how many untold lives were ruined and lost due to progressive policies in the 20th century?
Quote Of The Day
"Economically, minimum wages may not make sense. But morally, socially,
and politically they make every sense because it binds the community
together to make sure parents can take care of their kids."
Governor of California Jerry Brown.
/drops cigarette from lips.
In one, clear sentence we see once and for all what is exactly wrong with government.
Economically it indeed doesn't make sense. Besides arbitrarily settling on $15 an hour of course. Since they seem to think business owners purposefully keep wages down (never mind about margins), why stop at $15 right? In *theory*, you can go to 18. Or 20. Or even eleventy-five!
Morally it's repugnant, and socially it will wreak havoc not only on people who hold jobs that suddenly are too expensive for owners to keep but to those entering the job market. It only makes "sense" politically so they can tap each other on the bum at cocktail parties.
And now New York under Cuomo is following suit.
The unintended consequences. When it hits. Will they admit they had a role to play in it?
Of course not because A) they don't give a shit and B) they'll find anything to blame.
Governor of California Jerry Brown.
/drops cigarette from lips.
In one, clear sentence we see once and for all what is exactly wrong with government.
Economically it indeed doesn't make sense. Besides arbitrarily settling on $15 an hour of course. Since they seem to think business owners purposefully keep wages down (never mind about margins), why stop at $15 right? In *theory*, you can go to 18. Or 20. Or even eleventy-five!
Morally it's repugnant, and socially it will wreak havoc not only on people who hold jobs that suddenly are too expensive for owners to keep but to those entering the job market. It only makes "sense" politically so they can tap each other on the bum at cocktail parties.
And now New York under Cuomo is following suit.
The unintended consequences. When it hits. Will they admit they had a role to play in it?
Of course not because A) they don't give a shit and B) they'll find anything to blame.
2016-04-03
The Dangerous Face Of Evil: Elizabeth Warren
"This week, Senator Elizabeth Warren bemoaned the fact that businessmen have “become accustomed to saying whatever they want about Washington policy debates,” and she is pressuring the Securities and Exchange
Commission to file fraud charges against businesses that lobby against
regulations that they believe would hurt them. Senator Warren charges
that the businesses in question exaggerate the costs of regulations when
lobbying against them in public and do not do so when communicating
with investors and shareholders — which is to say, she wants to make a
felony out of what amounts to at most hyperbole or political spin."
Sit back and think what this cunt is proposing.
If your brain is calibrated properly you should arrive at the conclusion that this is a horrific totalitarian mindset with all sorts of dangerous implications.
Once again, conservatives (despite their imperfections and inconsistencies on such matters) and libertarians are the ONLY group willing to face this outrageous outgrowth of authoritarianism head on.
Liberals and progressives, as lovers of coercive power, are too busy making excuses for this like the little, cowardly, sniveling, twirps they are.
Prove me wrong lefties.
Never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever vote Liberal or Democrat or left-wing until they DEMONSTRATE they're will protect and defend freedom.
They will shove the full boot of totalitarianism straight into your sorry asses.
Sit back and think what this cunt is proposing.
If your brain is calibrated properly you should arrive at the conclusion that this is a horrific totalitarian mindset with all sorts of dangerous implications.
Once again, conservatives (despite their imperfections and inconsistencies on such matters) and libertarians are the ONLY group willing to face this outrageous outgrowth of authoritarianism head on.
Liberals and progressives, as lovers of coercive power, are too busy making excuses for this like the little, cowardly, sniveling, twirps they are.
Prove me wrong lefties.
Never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never, ever vote Liberal or Democrat or left-wing until they DEMONSTRATE they're will protect and defend freedom.
They will shove the full boot of totalitarianism straight into your sorry asses.
Mechanics Of A Bail Out And Subsidy
"Hey, Paul. We got all this money. It doesn't matter who gets it and in which industry or what happens to it, as long as we look good doing it and give the impression something, anything is being done for the environment and jobs! Have any friends we can spend it on? There may also be something in it for you. /wink."
2016-04-01
Quebec Needs To Grow Up
I have to admit, I thoroughly enjoy watching Quebec nationalists lose their minds whenever a foreign business swallows up a Quebec business. In this case, the foreigners being Ontarians - shock! - from Swiss Chalet buying St-Hubert.
Nothing says a Canadian cat-fight involving Quebec nationalists like mediocre chicken.
How dare les maudits anglais buy a pure laine company! La bataille de poulet!
Le Journal de Montreal - that paper of "record" - blared on the front page 'Acheter par les Ontariens!' as if criminals bought the hallowed chicken place.
The whole episode is repugnant as it is third rate.
Once again, Quebec's insecurities shoot right to the forefront with the reaction. Not too long ago they got their pigtails all twisted up because American company - shock! - Lowe's wanted to buy Ro-Na. Or witness the reaction when Guy Laliberte dared sell Cirque du Soleil.
In any event, maybe the acquisition will stop St-Hubert messing up our take-out orders.
Apparently identity politics must take precedence in Quebec over even business. It's irrational as it is dangerous for the progress of this place.
The CAQ under Normand Legault are especially disappointing for stooping to such inane, counter-productive, nationalism. For a party that claims to be pro-business they sure know how to show their colors as a pro-Quebec business party - which isn't that far off from being the PQ if you ask me.
Then they wonder why Quebec is sometimes referred to as Mississippi North.
Quebec needs to mature and change its mentality where its business model is concerned - fast. Lest it continues to wallow in nothingness getting worked up over the silliest of things they have no control over.
If culture is that important to nationalists, then ban all trade.
Otherwise, as Michael told Sonny, 'it's not personal. It's business.'
Conflating culture with business is unhealthy for enterprise. There is just enterprise in my view.
What are the options? To overpay for chicken because St-Hubert can't maintain its margins? To let Ro-Na fail or worse, become a ward of the state like Bombardier?
It's absurd.
And the CAQ should know this. Shame on them. If this is their idea of pushing Quebec forward, then all I can say is expect more of the same.
To think I almost voted for these yokels.
I mock because Quebec leaves itself open to mocking. I don't see how this kind of parochial populism in response to a buy out is any different than the rants of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
All 'get off my lawn' nonsense.
Above all, and this is what I find distasteful, is it's perfectly fine for a Quebec business to buy companies outside its boundaries.
It seems turn about is fair play is not recognized among the nationalists.
***
Once upon a time during a debate, Legault brought awareness to what many of us outside the Quebec tribe already knew. That by all measures and metrics, Quebec lagged most jurisdictions in North America. We wallow near the bottom with Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
I was surprised a Quebec politician would be so blunt and frank. I thought to myself there could still be hope since we're finally acknowledging it.
Alas, Legault ended up displaying the very mentality that keeps Quebec persistently a laggard. Which, I reckon, isn't all that surprising given he is at the heart of it a former Pequiste and separatist.
And there it will stay.
Not even Mississippi or Alabama are backward places anymore as they're now attracting more and more businesses from across the USA and increasingly the world.
Nothing says a Canadian cat-fight involving Quebec nationalists like mediocre chicken.
How dare les maudits anglais buy a pure laine company! La bataille de poulet!
Le Journal de Montreal - that paper of "record" - blared on the front page 'Acheter par les Ontariens!' as if criminals bought the hallowed chicken place.
The whole episode is repugnant as it is third rate.
Once again, Quebec's insecurities shoot right to the forefront with the reaction. Not too long ago they got their pigtails all twisted up because American company - shock! - Lowe's wanted to buy Ro-Na. Or witness the reaction when Guy Laliberte dared sell Cirque du Soleil.
In any event, maybe the acquisition will stop St-Hubert messing up our take-out orders.
Apparently identity politics must take precedence in Quebec over even business. It's irrational as it is dangerous for the progress of this place.
The CAQ under Normand Legault are especially disappointing for stooping to such inane, counter-productive, nationalism. For a party that claims to be pro-business they sure know how to show their colors as a pro-Quebec business party - which isn't that far off from being the PQ if you ask me.
Then they wonder why Quebec is sometimes referred to as Mississippi North.
Quebec needs to mature and change its mentality where its business model is concerned - fast. Lest it continues to wallow in nothingness getting worked up over the silliest of things they have no control over.
If culture is that important to nationalists, then ban all trade.
Otherwise, as Michael told Sonny, 'it's not personal. It's business.'
Conflating culture with business is unhealthy for enterprise. There is just enterprise in my view.
What are the options? To overpay for chicken because St-Hubert can't maintain its margins? To let Ro-Na fail or worse, become a ward of the state like Bombardier?
It's absurd.
And the CAQ should know this. Shame on them. If this is their idea of pushing Quebec forward, then all I can say is expect more of the same.
To think I almost voted for these yokels.
I mock because Quebec leaves itself open to mocking. I don't see how this kind of parochial populism in response to a buy out is any different than the rants of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
All 'get off my lawn' nonsense.
Above all, and this is what I find distasteful, is it's perfectly fine for a Quebec business to buy companies outside its boundaries.
It seems turn about is fair play is not recognized among the nationalists.
***
Once upon a time during a debate, Legault brought awareness to what many of us outside the Quebec tribe already knew. That by all measures and metrics, Quebec lagged most jurisdictions in North America. We wallow near the bottom with Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
I was surprised a Quebec politician would be so blunt and frank. I thought to myself there could still be hope since we're finally acknowledging it.
Alas, Legault ended up displaying the very mentality that keeps Quebec persistently a laggard. Which, I reckon, isn't all that surprising given he is at the heart of it a former Pequiste and separatist.
And there it will stay.
Not even Mississippi or Alabama are backward places anymore as they're now attracting more and more businesses from across the USA and increasingly the world.
Quote Of The Day
And so the insanity against plastic bags continues.
Council Member Alondra Cano
said the issue was simple: The human race managed to survive for a long
time without plastic bags, and it can do so again."
I'll let you sit on that for a second. This is where we're at as a species.
And now think how this can apply to anything these irrational morons may hate to send us back to a more 'pristine' time.
This is not good and Montreal under Coderre is on board with this.
Let's drive the cost of everything up to make us feel better and have politicians brag at cocktail parties they were the "first" to be an idiot with such bans!
On The Way To Real Competition: The End Of Monopolies
Lol. The bullies are out on the street with baseball bats swinging at all sorts of bad pitches.
Old statism versus new ideas. This is how I see this whole Uber v. Taxis "fight". Fight in quotations because unless the government goes full blown draconian mental cases and outlaw Uber (which has become a euphemism for all things modern at this point), it's a fight they will not win. It will be like Mike Tyson knocking out Michael Spinks.
Guess who plays the part of Tyson and who is cast as Spinks in this feature?
No contest because left to the market, consumers will choose Uber.
The key - the one ultimate key difference - that distinguishes Uber and Amazon (I'm waiting for the Quebec government to attack the Internet for all its Englishness) and all sorts of new companies is the service. Not the service they provide but the customer service experience.
They completely smash traditional businesses on this front. For example, Amazon will actually follow-up on issues related to your problem if you have one. Uber allows for drivers and customers to rate each other.
It's an instant activity.
You can't mistreat a customer on ebay or Amazon because your credibility is instantly affected by the community who review and rate you. Same with Uber.
But to statists and control freaks who are out of their minds and left field, this is an example of 'people making the wrong choice'. Just like how they decide to drink Dr. Pepper or eat at Wendy's. It shocks the Nanny-class. The mere fact they're even making an issue of this is a waste of time, money and energy.
It's irrational.
The two excuses they throw out are 'it's unfair' Uber doesn't pay for permits and is subjected to government regulations and the other questions its safety.
On the permit, has it occurred to anyone a permit scheme is a gateway to a monopoly? And when you have a monopoly you get no competition and little incentive to improve a product or service? The rise of Uber is directly connected to the fact Taxis were not sizing up the market well. They weren't because they didn't have to. Even if they noticed a possible niche to enter, there was no incentive to do so. Customers were at the mercy of Taxis.
With Uber this is no longer the case. Companies like Lyft and Uber wipe out the leverage held by Taxis and brings an equilibrium between customer and service. Not only that, can you imagine what will come out of the competition between Lyft and Uber? Now suddenly, you have competition and this can but be fantastic for users. Arguing otherwise is as futile as shadow boxing (or Quebec's tiresome fall back position of engaging in identity politics). Yes, I know the concept of shadow boxing is to 'fool' the boxer into thinking they can be faster than their shadow thus increasing speed. But for my purposes here, it's meant differently.
On regulations, again, this is not Uber's problem. Maybe the regulations are outdated and outmoded (as I think they are). No one should have to 'invest' $250 000 into a monopoly. Besides, this is all besides the point. It's not Uber that made things unfair. It's the government and cronies in the Taxi business. And all these protests - sometimes violent - are just confirming to be the end of the line is here.
Good riddance.
On safety, that's baseless and rooted in good old fashioned fear-mongering (not unlike the rubbish you see on climate change).
Uber and Lyft and other innovative companies have the parasite class scrambling to figure out ways to skim off them.
Uber, for example, probably knows the government is gonna get its cut - the mob always gets a piece of the action - and have likely factored this into their model.
I hope they can hold out because mobsters can get pretty vicious.
Old statism versus new ideas. This is how I see this whole Uber v. Taxis "fight". Fight in quotations because unless the government goes full blown draconian mental cases and outlaw Uber (which has become a euphemism for all things modern at this point), it's a fight they will not win. It will be like Mike Tyson knocking out Michael Spinks.
Guess who plays the part of Tyson and who is cast as Spinks in this feature?
No contest because left to the market, consumers will choose Uber.
The key - the one ultimate key difference - that distinguishes Uber and Amazon (I'm waiting for the Quebec government to attack the Internet for all its Englishness) and all sorts of new companies is the service. Not the service they provide but the customer service experience.
They completely smash traditional businesses on this front. For example, Amazon will actually follow-up on issues related to your problem if you have one. Uber allows for drivers and customers to rate each other.
It's an instant activity.
You can't mistreat a customer on ebay or Amazon because your credibility is instantly affected by the community who review and rate you. Same with Uber.
But to statists and control freaks who are out of their minds and left field, this is an example of 'people making the wrong choice'. Just like how they decide to drink Dr. Pepper or eat at Wendy's. It shocks the Nanny-class. The mere fact they're even making an issue of this is a waste of time, money and energy.
It's irrational.
The two excuses they throw out are 'it's unfair' Uber doesn't pay for permits and is subjected to government regulations and the other questions its safety.
On the permit, has it occurred to anyone a permit scheme is a gateway to a monopoly? And when you have a monopoly you get no competition and little incentive to improve a product or service? The rise of Uber is directly connected to the fact Taxis were not sizing up the market well. They weren't because they didn't have to. Even if they noticed a possible niche to enter, there was no incentive to do so. Customers were at the mercy of Taxis.
With Uber this is no longer the case. Companies like Lyft and Uber wipe out the leverage held by Taxis and brings an equilibrium between customer and service. Not only that, can you imagine what will come out of the competition between Lyft and Uber? Now suddenly, you have competition and this can but be fantastic for users. Arguing otherwise is as futile as shadow boxing (or Quebec's tiresome fall back position of engaging in identity politics). Yes, I know the concept of shadow boxing is to 'fool' the boxer into thinking they can be faster than their shadow thus increasing speed. But for my purposes here, it's meant differently.
On regulations, again, this is not Uber's problem. Maybe the regulations are outdated and outmoded (as I think they are). No one should have to 'invest' $250 000 into a monopoly. Besides, this is all besides the point. It's not Uber that made things unfair. It's the government and cronies in the Taxi business. And all these protests - sometimes violent - are just confirming to be the end of the line is here.
Good riddance.
On safety, that's baseless and rooted in good old fashioned fear-mongering (not unlike the rubbish you see on climate change).
Uber and Lyft and other innovative companies have the parasite class scrambling to figure out ways to skim off them.
Uber, for example, probably knows the government is gonna get its cut - the mob always gets a piece of the action - and have likely factored this into their model.
I hope they can hold out because mobsters can get pretty vicious.
2016-03-29
Quote Of The Day
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ...
gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks
they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is
a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
― Milton Friedman
― Milton Friedman
2016-03-28
2016-03-24
Liberal Budget: Not Wise
I can't say that I'm surprised by what the Liberals put out in the budget.
So, what's my take on it?
You know the chase scene in Fury Road where Furiosa heads into an epic sand storm?
I can't help but think we're heading straight into one for a couple of reasons.
First off, there's a global recession and a threat of inflation, and add to this the fact there's low demand for resources and one has to wonder the wisdom in creating a deficit.
"It's no secret - central banks and policy makers around the world are intentionally manufacturing inflationary pressures in the hopes of countering the global economy's prevailing deflationary headwinds. In theory, the use of monetary policy to induce inflation eventually sparks a self reinforcing cycle of economic growth, but there is growing room for doubt that injecting paper money into the system only shows growth on - dare I say it - paper. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than Japan, which has been losing the fight against deflation for nearly three decades now."
Even with global central banks acting as inflation factories, the global economy continues to exhibit deflationary tendencies and lackluster growth. On the surface this may seem to imply there is nothing to be concerned about, after all, the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, the PCE Index (Personal Consumption Expenditures) has shown little cause for alarm.
The thinking, so goes, is spending to spur growth and as long as Canada hits its projected forecast of 1.2% GDP growth, we don't have to worry about paying for it! But given the scenario mentioned, it doesn't take much for this delicate game to be blown apart. And with oil prices down coupled with environmental pressures to not lay down pipelines, it's really hard to see this ending up somewhere other than where the Liberals predict.
I'm not a fan of basing budgets on 'what if' scenarios. If the target misses ever slightly it will have serious implications for the economy.
Then comes to undo the burden on middle-class families (I'm surprised more has not been made of the fact they put a stop to income splitting which was a fantastic tool for families) and small and medium sized businesses. The former will be paying higher taxes (and don't forget the Liberals are committed to the climate change nonsense which will cost us in the form of still more taxes) while the latter were promised corporate tax cuts only to have been callously ignored.
Canada is back, eh?
Finance Minister Bill Morneau's explanation (a successful guy like that has to deep down know this is a risky gamble given the situation) that spurring growth this way is great for business and Canada as a whole but it rings hollow for me. I hope he's right but I doubt it.
It's unfortunate because, well, we're already over-stimulated. Sure, progressive economists claim we don't spend enough but we spend plenty. When economists start talking 'negative interest rates' you know things are getting a tad too, erm, Japanese.
We saw this play out in the United States (never mind the lessons of FDR's New Deal programs that prolonged the recession under Obama. He - and Bush - used stimulus as a means to an end and it went nowhere.
The Liberal strategy of spending and increasing deficits without provisions to pay for them in the future in an eroding global economic environment that will impact demand for our resources is a dubious play.
Coupled this with higher taxes for the middle-class, an aging population putting severe strains on the social safety net; a net young population are not paying enough into and we have one serious - serious - problem coming.
And the Liberals are not helping matters.
So, what's my take on it?
You know the chase scene in Fury Road where Furiosa heads into an epic sand storm?
I can't help but think we're heading straight into one for a couple of reasons.
First off, there's a global recession and a threat of inflation, and add to this the fact there's low demand for resources and one has to wonder the wisdom in creating a deficit.
"It's no secret - central banks and policy makers around the world are intentionally manufacturing inflationary pressures in the hopes of countering the global economy's prevailing deflationary headwinds. In theory, the use of monetary policy to induce inflation eventually sparks a self reinforcing cycle of economic growth, but there is growing room for doubt that injecting paper money into the system only shows growth on - dare I say it - paper. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than Japan, which has been losing the fight against deflation for nearly three decades now."
Even with global central banks acting as inflation factories, the global economy continues to exhibit deflationary tendencies and lackluster growth. On the surface this may seem to imply there is nothing to be concerned about, after all, the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, the PCE Index (Personal Consumption Expenditures) has shown little cause for alarm.
The thinking, so goes, is spending to spur growth and as long as Canada hits its projected forecast of 1.2% GDP growth, we don't have to worry about paying for it! But given the scenario mentioned, it doesn't take much for this delicate game to be blown apart. And with oil prices down coupled with environmental pressures to not lay down pipelines, it's really hard to see this ending up somewhere other than where the Liberals predict.
I'm not a fan of basing budgets on 'what if' scenarios. If the target misses ever slightly it will have serious implications for the economy.
Then comes to undo the burden on middle-class families (I'm surprised more has not been made of the fact they put a stop to income splitting which was a fantastic tool for families) and small and medium sized businesses. The former will be paying higher taxes (and don't forget the Liberals are committed to the climate change nonsense which will cost us in the form of still more taxes) while the latter were promised corporate tax cuts only to have been callously ignored.
Canada is back, eh?
Finance Minister Bill Morneau's explanation (a successful guy like that has to deep down know this is a risky gamble given the situation) that spurring growth this way is great for business and Canada as a whole but it rings hollow for me. I hope he's right but I doubt it.
It's unfortunate because, well, we're already over-stimulated. Sure, progressive economists claim we don't spend enough but we spend plenty. When economists start talking 'negative interest rates' you know things are getting a tad too, erm, Japanese.
We saw this play out in the United States (never mind the lessons of FDR's New Deal programs that prolonged the recession under Obama. He - and Bush - used stimulus as a means to an end and it went nowhere.
The Liberal strategy of spending and increasing deficits without provisions to pay for them in the future in an eroding global economic environment that will impact demand for our resources is a dubious play.
Coupled this with higher taxes for the middle-class, an aging population putting severe strains on the social safety net; a net young population are not paying enough into and we have one serious - serious - problem coming.
And the Liberals are not helping matters.
Garagiola, Cruyff, Shandling, Howard: All Gone Now
***Updated***
Well, that's been a tough week.
This week we saw the passing of star of The White Shadow Ken Howard, former MLB player and color commentator Joe Garagiola and comedian Garry Shandling. As well as one of the greatest soccer players in history - Johan Cruyff.
Man, did I love the Vin Scully-Garagiola duo calling ball games in the 1980s. Awesome. One of the all-time greats for sure.
And I loved The Larry Sanders Show.
***
Cruyff's take in footballing cultures:
'...German football, and in the Netherlands we like Dutch football. There are massive cultural differences. It's to do with winning, losing, attacking, defending, having fun and putting on a good show. The Italians are different from the Dutch character-wise. Perhaps you could even call it a matter of taste. We want to win and that has to be done playing attractive football at the same time. We're almost embarrassed to win a match through counterattacking football, and we refuse to play the game defensively. To the Italians there's only one thing that matters, and that's winning, whatever it takes. The clubs have some excellent players, yet they couldn't care less about entertainment value. It's the end result that counts.
Respecting all culturesWe may think that strange, but it's not our business to think anything of it. It's the Italian mentality and we ought to respect it. As a coach I've never felt ashamed of the attitude and performance of my team, but I still respect all cultures. Needless to say, I'd rather watch Spanish, English or Dutch football. German and Italian football don't appeal to me as much, although we have to say that results clearly show that their ideas are more than just a lot of hot air...'
Well, that's been a tough week.
This week we saw the passing of star of The White Shadow Ken Howard, former MLB player and color commentator Joe Garagiola and comedian Garry Shandling. As well as one of the greatest soccer players in history - Johan Cruyff.
Man, did I love the Vin Scully-Garagiola duo calling ball games in the 1980s. Awesome. One of the all-time greats for sure.
And I loved The Larry Sanders Show.
***
Cruyff's take in footballing cultures:
'...German football, and in the Netherlands we like Dutch football. There are massive cultural differences. It's to do with winning, losing, attacking, defending, having fun and putting on a good show. The Italians are different from the Dutch character-wise. Perhaps you could even call it a matter of taste. We want to win and that has to be done playing attractive football at the same time. We're almost embarrassed to win a match through counterattacking football, and we refuse to play the game defensively. To the Italians there's only one thing that matters, and that's winning, whatever it takes. The clubs have some excellent players, yet they couldn't care less about entertainment value. It's the end result that counts.
Respecting all culturesWe may think that strange, but it's not our business to think anything of it. It's the Italian mentality and we ought to respect it. As a coach I've never felt ashamed of the attitude and performance of my team, but I still respect all cultures. Needless to say, I'd rather watch Spanish, English or Dutch football. German and Italian football don't appeal to me as much, although we have to say that results clearly show that their ideas are more than just a lot of hot air...'
Never Laugh, Don't Scoff Where Nannies Live
It's not a secret there's a war on fat now. Politicians egged on by experts are scrambling to table all sorts of legislation to combat obesity.
Like all moral panics, it's destined to explode in their faces and fail spectacularly.
Mostly because, as is always the cases where the state is concerned, it eventually descends into a full blown attack on people and their liberties.
What starts out on a 'sugar tax' (affecting the poor of course because progressives are presumptuous paternalistic twats) ends up being this:
"Overweight people should pay higher taxes in order to cover the extra costs they create for German's healthcare system, a conservative MP has said. "
Those Germans. Either doing bad things (Hitler) or stupid things (see Merkel).
I jest of course.
Yes, that's a conservative who proposed it in there but as noted many times here political conservatives, liberals and progressives all get in on the control the masses for the own and greater good act. But of the bunch the progressives are the ones, to me and my perception anyway, who bow before state authority to govern our personal choices more than any group.
This is why I loathe 'universal' institutions. Within the system there are all sorts of multi-tiered realities that mock the idea of 'one size fits all'. Fat people today, skinny people tomorrow. What will be the 'epidemic' disease of choice tomorrow because 'overloading' the system must be prevented?
People should think this has the potential to go beyond fat people. 'Hey man, you know, being too skinny is dangerous. Let's tax people for being skinny. We'll redefine what being skinny is to include many people to save them all.'
If you can't be imaginative, just privatize already you jackasses. Capitalism, in all its adaptable and innovative glory, would not panic but look to find solutions that benefit people.
As opposed to the government side where all it seems to propose is to ban, tax, and expropriate things.
Regardless, this is what happens when you 'consent' to allow the government to step in and act as a third party in our lives. You give them an inch but they want a foot.
When will we learn that outsourcing our habits and general personal welfare to the government is not only inefficient but, I argue, immoral? Immoral to the extent we want to fine or put people in prison (see the latest example courtesy of Pamela Lampitt (D) Camden, NJ) for being human.
Like all moral panics, it's destined to explode in their faces and fail spectacularly.
Mostly because, as is always the cases where the state is concerned, it eventually descends into a full blown attack on people and their liberties.
What starts out on a 'sugar tax' (affecting the poor of course because progressives are presumptuous paternalistic twats) ends up being this:
"Overweight people should pay higher taxes in order to cover the extra costs they create for German's healthcare system, a conservative MP has said. "
Those Germans. Either doing bad things (Hitler) or stupid things (see Merkel).
I jest of course.
Yes, that's a conservative who proposed it in there but as noted many times here political conservatives, liberals and progressives all get in on the control the masses for the own and greater good act. But of the bunch the progressives are the ones, to me and my perception anyway, who bow before state authority to govern our personal choices more than any group.
This is why I loathe 'universal' institutions. Within the system there are all sorts of multi-tiered realities that mock the idea of 'one size fits all'. Fat people today, skinny people tomorrow. What will be the 'epidemic' disease of choice tomorrow because 'overloading' the system must be prevented?
People should think this has the potential to go beyond fat people. 'Hey man, you know, being too skinny is dangerous. Let's tax people for being skinny. We'll redefine what being skinny is to include many people to save them all.'
If you can't be imaginative, just privatize already you jackasses. Capitalism, in all its adaptable and innovative glory, would not panic but look to find solutions that benefit people.
As opposed to the government side where all it seems to propose is to ban, tax, and expropriate things.
Regardless, this is what happens when you 'consent' to allow the government to step in and act as a third party in our lives. You give them an inch but they want a foot.
When will we learn that outsourcing our habits and general personal welfare to the government is not only inefficient but, I argue, immoral? Immoral to the extent we want to fine or put people in prison (see the latest example courtesy of Pamela Lampitt (D) Camden, NJ) for being human.
2016-03-22
Don't Bother Us: How Canadian Hospitals Could Use Some Good Old Fashioned Customer Service Lessons
You've probably seen messages at court offices and in hospitals that have signs saying 'We will not tolerate rude behavior' or 'Don't ask us about wait times.' Or whatever.
Obviously, plenty of people have voiced or shown their frustration and displeasure at being treated poorly by government administrators or else those signs wouldn't go up.
Can you image Wal-Mart or Amazon or any other store putting up such signs? Amazon is a luxury Cadillac-Bentley-Maserati-Mercedes dream compared to the Lada-Skoda-Pinto-Micron services of public institutions in Canada.
It's enough to wonder if the government lives in a parallel Bizarro world universe independent from the rest of us rude, uncouth beggar-proles.
I mean to ask about wait times! How dare us!
Yet, rather than put up some counter-productive signs that help no one (except to induce mutterings under our collective breaths) there are simple steps and measures they can adopt and implement to keep people calm.
It's called communication. As in keeping people informed. I know. Rad idea, eh? When something is delayed all I want is an explanation. Even if it's a bad one (can't ask for too much) I don't care, as long as it's something. People just want to feel there's transparency. The second you meet their anxiety with a disapproving look or tone you threaten to escalate the issue needlessly. I get this at my daughter's school. Apparently, even school secretaries are in on the act.
It's not like public workers have never sat around talking as if you're not there sipping their crappy diarrhea they call Tim''s coffee while you stand at the wicket like a shlepp waiting for Doreen to finish her piece of shit story, right?
Everyone is too cool for the public.
It's basic fricken common sense. An axiom really. Treat people as you would want to be treated.
I can't tell you how often I have to proceed and act gingerly in front of precious administrators just to get basic information - information we're entitled to by the way - from them. I'm not asking you to read Tolstoy or Lee Iacocca or an essay on 'Why good customer service is the bed rock of civilization' or pinpoint how long the wait will be (heaven forbid we demand excellence from our bureaucracies) but to merely ball park it. Not even that they're willing to give.
Much easier to be surly and put up signs.
No, that they're under pressure or stress is not an excuse. We all face similar circumstances. It's how you deal with it that distinguishes the winners from the losers.
This is clearly a result of lack of leadership and communication among public sector staff probably exacerbated by the fact there is no incentive to improve the patient experience in hospitals or other institutions since, well, why?
What are the consequences exactly?
Canada is all about the cost-centric. Not patient or customer centric.
Until that mind set changes, it's who we are.
Second rate and you can expect more indignant signage designed to keep you, the taxpayer, in your place.
Obviously, plenty of people have voiced or shown their frustration and displeasure at being treated poorly by government administrators or else those signs wouldn't go up.
Can you image Wal-Mart or Amazon or any other store putting up such signs? Amazon is a luxury Cadillac-Bentley-Maserati-Mercedes dream compared to the Lada-Skoda-Pinto-Micron services of public institutions in Canada.
It's enough to wonder if the government lives in a parallel Bizarro world universe independent from the rest of us rude, uncouth beggar-proles.
I mean to ask about wait times! How dare us!
Yet, rather than put up some counter-productive signs that help no one (except to induce mutterings under our collective breaths) there are simple steps and measures they can adopt and implement to keep people calm.
It's called communication. As in keeping people informed. I know. Rad idea, eh? When something is delayed all I want is an explanation. Even if it's a bad one (can't ask for too much) I don't care, as long as it's something. People just want to feel there's transparency. The second you meet their anxiety with a disapproving look or tone you threaten to escalate the issue needlessly. I get this at my daughter's school. Apparently, even school secretaries are in on the act.
It's not like public workers have never sat around talking as if you're not there sipping their crappy diarrhea they call Tim''s coffee while you stand at the wicket like a shlepp waiting for Doreen to finish her piece of shit story, right?
Everyone is too cool for the public.
It's basic fricken common sense. An axiom really. Treat people as you would want to be treated.
I can't tell you how often I have to proceed and act gingerly in front of precious administrators just to get basic information - information we're entitled to by the way - from them. I'm not asking you to read Tolstoy or Lee Iacocca or an essay on 'Why good customer service is the bed rock of civilization' or pinpoint how long the wait will be (heaven forbid we demand excellence from our bureaucracies) but to merely ball park it. Not even that they're willing to give.
Much easier to be surly and put up signs.
No, that they're under pressure or stress is not an excuse. We all face similar circumstances. It's how you deal with it that distinguishes the winners from the losers.
This is clearly a result of lack of leadership and communication among public sector staff probably exacerbated by the fact there is no incentive to improve the patient experience in hospitals or other institutions since, well, why?
What are the consequences exactly?
Canada is all about the cost-centric. Not patient or customer centric.
Until that mind set changes, it's who we are.
Second rate and you can expect more indignant signage designed to keep you, the taxpayer, in your place.
Belgium Tragedy: Not Shocking
As the world continues to react to the the terrorist bomb attacks in Brussels, a predictable common theme is people expressing shock.
But here's the thing.
There's nothing shocking about it. It's only a shock if people are blind to ISIS and its intent to commit terrorist acts especially in Belgium where political correctness is a strategy in the fight to combat terrorism.
By now, Europeans (and to some extent North Americans) should already discount in the back of their minds that an attack is possibly.
Not a shock but expected.
But here's the thing.
There's nothing shocking about it. It's only a shock if people are blind to ISIS and its intent to commit terrorist acts especially in Belgium where political correctness is a strategy in the fight to combat terrorism.
By now, Europeans (and to some extent North Americans) should already discount in the back of their minds that an attack is possibly.
Not a shock but expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)