Done and done!

First semester of my Master's finished. Boy does it feel good!

I and many of my fellow students spent an entire day from 9:00-7:00 in a case study competition. What a long day!!!

In the end I thought everything went well and my presentation went well.

Boy am i glad that case competition is over...

Here was my opening slide. I enjoyed it very much.

Stressed out grad students... they're everywhere

So it's been quite some time since my last post, maybe I'll add "attempt to blog more frequently" to my forthcoming (at some point in the future) new year's resolutions.

Anyways I am currently struggling to finish a 20 page paper due tomorrow, and figured it would be a perfect time to blog. Anything to pass the time, and procrastinate a little longer...

I've noticed that a lot of my fellow grad students are quite stressed out, and to be honest I am too, but I don't think i could live like they do. Maybe it's a woman thing (I don't have to be politically correct on here, and all the anecdotal evidence I have collect comes from women, and besides they make up a large substantial majority of the students in my program...)

Maybe these students are taking things more seriously than I am, maybe they cope in different ways. I just find that a lot of my fellow students are busy "freaking out" and I just don't get it. I'm enjoying the ride, and trying hard, and keeping my cool as much as I can.

I can't be bothered to get all worked up, I did that in my undergrad and it didn't end well. Perhaps, It's that sense of perspective I gained through those trying times..

Anyways I'm off now to get that paper done, wish me luck

A world without us

Well I've been busy with school and haven't had much of an opportunity to post on this blog.

However I am compelled to post because I have just finished an interesting book called the world without us by Alan Wiesman. It's an interesting premise, the idea being to explore what would be the legacy of the human race, if everyone disappeared tomorrow. Not through war or through a catastrophic event, but simple vanished.

The scariest chapters for me had to be the one on nuclear reactors, and also the one which describes the inability of nature to break down and biodegrade plastic. Every piece of plastic created by us since the 1950s is still with us. This coupled with the fact that much of it ends up in the oceans is quite disturbing.

Another chapter highlights the chemical complex that produces many of our everyday household products, the oil refinery complex in Houston. This chapter was just plain interesting, the way that different types of fuels and inputs for plastic making are separated and how the refineries are so connected and linked together.

It's definitely worth reading, although towards the end it gets a bit odd, and sticks less to its main theme.

Vote for MMP

There are clear advantages to a proportional system. I think the one proposed by the Ontario citizens group that we here in Ontario are voting on, in a few weeks is one I think it better than the current system. They are proposing Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation.

It stops the practice of strategic voting and stops the wasted votes. It is it truly democratic to have someone who received 35% of the vote receiving 100% of the representation? If you have a 4 way race it may even be less than that.

Now I don't think anyone would suggest removing the directly elected MPs and system that are the hallmark of the First past the post system(FPTP). The MMP system merely tops this number up with MPs who come off party lists, in order to make the end result more equal to how voters actually voted.

Now you can vote for your local MP and vote his party, or even vote for the green party and have that vote count and matter.

Now you don't have to worry that voting for the NDP will lead to a conservative government. The system is designed to fix some elements of the FPTP that lead to small changes in voting leading to huge impacts on the results.

In the current system a small change of say 5% in the vote can lead to ridiculous swings in results.

Under MMP you also would be able to have representation from MPs you might not get under the current system. For example even though the Liberals have a stronghold in Toronto, under MMP you might be able to elect a conservative from TO. Or if taken federally, an NDP MP from Alberta (ok maybe it's a long shot).


Anyways I think putting together a new system is worth it. The entrance of new parties would have a refreshing impact on the political system, and hopefully on voter turnout.

Oh and that canard about having more MPs is wasteful, we're talking about making important decisions that affect all of us here, we shouldn't base our decision on how many MPs there are, but on which produces the best decisions.

More Naomi Klein

What an interesting book, it makes the explicit link between economic violence and actual violence, mostly at least to start in Latin America. It's well researched and I think shows that she has matured as a writer and as a critic of corporate power and modern capitalism (or as she and others have pointed out it's closer to corporatism.

Anyways it was with an eye to the her explosion of the idea that there is a direct and simple link between economic freedom and democracy, or the free market and democracy.

There are many many people who have taken issue with this tautology. It's funny how deep it seems to run in American discourse over the last 25 years. Anyways I saw another blatant example taken from Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYtimes.

"One way a country develops the software of liberty, Mr. Mandelbaum says, is by nurturing a free market. Kurdistan has one. The economy in the rest of Iraq remains a mess. “A market economy,” he argues, “gives people a stake in peace, as well as a constructive way of dealing with people who are strangers. Free markets teach the basic democratic practices of compromise and trust.”

What a bunch of crap. I can't believe anyone would actually believe this. The big elephant in the room of course is the example of China. Political repression exists and continues to exist, while the economic free market has taken hold since it's opening up in the 1970s.

I am shocked that anyone would continue to assert those kind of things in the face of such obvious evidence. There seem to be people who often complain about human rights in China and also speak about the economic miracle and the threat of Chinese growth, who cannot recognize the incompatibility of saying these things while mouthing the platitude "Free markets teach the basic democratic principles of compromise and trust".

This is what Naomi Klein explicitly links her in new book The Shock Doctrine. The anti-democratic nature (despite the rhetoric) of many of the interventions supported and promoted by the proponents of Friedmanism and Reganomics. I really do believe that this is the best contribution her thoroughly researched book provides.

Now I haven't finished the book but I am impressed, it's a pretty gruesome and disturbing portrait she paints. I am also curious to see what the reaction will be by her opponents. If it's anything like what i heard on the radio earlier this week, she has nothing to worry about.

Shock Doctrine

I can't wait to get into more of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

I've listened to her interview on the CBC by the radio program the current (which can be found in two parts here.) She is quite articulate and I think a lot of her arguments have merit. She also recognizes the limits of some parts of her argument. When asked directly whether for example torture is required to implement the economic program her response was not directly. She did note however that in many of these countries violence was used to suppress dissent of the policies and that in many of the examples torture did occur. I think that gives credence and marks her out and somehow who has actually taken the time to really think through these issues. Now I may not end up agreeing with her, but it was in marked contrast to the tone of her critic (who was on the show. I'm sure there are more intelligent critiques of her book that will surface, I will also grant that she was given more time and that the expert brought in to criticize actually didn't have the same amount of time)

It was interesting also to note the criticisms of her critic on the show. He merely said she was a "conspiracy theorist " that her analysis lacked depth and that she conflated different arguments. He never really attacked the substance of her argument. He also jumped into random tangents and sidestepped the issues often. He ended up talking about random things about Iraq which didn't address really the question or Naomi Klein's argument.I thought that was the most fascinating part of the response part of the segment.

I have a feeling she will be attacked and dismissed, I just truly hope that people will actually take the time to read it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The connections she brings out are not necessarily new, but do provide a new platform and highlight the connections that remain between the economic fundamentalists of today and their predecessors and the impact they have had.

Being a grad student

So far it's pretty fun. I am really looking forward to starting my classes, so far they have been fun but I'm ready to get into the program and start meeting people and generating ideas for projects and getting together all the readings..

One of the strangest things it that 4 classes is considered normal, that's what's expected. Which I have a feeling means each one of those will exert its toll because I'm sure the level of reading is going to be quite high.

Anyways so far so good.. I've met a few interesting people and I also met an old friend I hadn't seen for quite some time.

Things are looking good now that classes have started

Well here's an old post

I just deleted my other blog. I hadn't written there in quite some time, the last post was September of last year. I was trying to find a place for some more political posts, but I think the best thing to do is concentrate on one blog and work on that. I should have more time to do this as I am returning to my student roots (heh heh).

Yesterday was my last day of work for the time being as I return to Carleton to pursue my MPA full-time. I have kept some of the old posts and I thought i'd repost one of my favorite and best written pieces here. So here goes, This was first posted in September of 2006.

About GM.

After watching the movie Who killed the electric car, I went and had a discussion with a friend of mine about the movie; in particular it was about the role of GM as a political actor.

Now my friend criticized me for my lack of understanding of business. But I still strongly believe that you have to understand the modern corporation as a political actor.

A few days ago about a week after my debate I was reading a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith. In his book A new Industrial State, he talks about how the modern corporation has moved beyond the profit maximizing entity described in the economics textbook.

Now JKG was an economist, but it seems to me that he was one of the few who realized the impact of power on economic relations. Economists still to this day largely ignore the social context in which their theories apply.

Anyways the main thing that my friend kept repeating (which seems to be to be a conservative mantra) is that GM is a profit maximizing entity, if it doesn't make business sense they won't do it. While this is true in the long run, is GM doesn't make a profit it will cease to exist, modern corporations are political actors.

Galbraith seems to understand this implicitly in his work. He suggests that the corporation as an entity can have other goals that the maximization of profit. It might be a steady return on investment (i.e. they do not take risks that might endanger a steady level of profit) or it might be the return to shareholders , or it might even be that the CEO wants the largest pay possible with stock options this has become a more common problem).

Companies as large as GM also have a lot at stake, and thus become risk averse as well. They might simply decide that because of their weight in the market, they can prevent competition and keep making profits out of what they are already doing.

This is the profound failure examined in Who killed the electric car. As mentioned in the film, GM had a 2-3 year lead on its competitors in terms of it work on the electric car. Largely because they deemed the stakes too high, they fought tooth and nail against the imposition of the Zero emission vehicle regulations that were in place in California rather than exploiting its edge in R&D and product development of the electric car. In other words they chose steady profit doing what they were doing, rather than disrupt their other product lines and face real competition.

In other words they chose certainty over the uncertainty of developing a new product.
This is the problem with the large corporations, they are no longer innovators.

While it is true that companies need to be a certain size in order to attract capital and create interesting products there becomes a certain point where they are too big and too unwieldy to compete and they start becoming defensive.

The most interesting example in modern times is the degree to which Apple even though it is a small company makes Microsoft shake in its boots. Apple has become the leader through its innovation, and creativity while its competitors defend their positions and copy what Apple does. Microsoft has for years depended on its ability to buy upstart competitors in order to actually acquire and create new products. Microsoft because of its size doesn't seem to need to innovate; it simply buys the innovations of others and repackages them as if they created it themselves. This is why a truly innovative company like Apple scares Microsoft silly.

Imagine a competitive market of small and medium sized companies; this is truly what we should be aiming for rather than the oligopolies and cartels we are busy constructing now.

Go Riders Go!

Green is the colour
football is the game
We're all together
and winning is our aim
So cheer us on in the sun and rain
Saskatchewan Roughrider is our name


Well as I have just finished my first season of summer flag football, I thought I'd put in my two cents on how awsome it is that the Roughriders are 6-2 this season.

It's nice that in the first season on Kent Austin back with the riders (He was their quarterback the last time they won the Grey Cup) that they are having some success. What a move it was to get Kerry Joseph. I was a long suffering fan of the team for 12 years, it's nice to have one that looks as good as they do now.

My dad bought season tickets the year after they won the Grey Cup in 1989. I went to almost every game over the next 10 years, and the occasional game after I moved to Ottawa in 2000. I have never seen fans like the Rider fans, they eat bleed and sweat green! A lot of them have to come in from several hours away just to see the games. I remember one guy telling me that because he had inherited the tickets from his dad, he's been considered a season ticket holder since before he was born! (he has been going to games since he was 3 years old!)

I miss the sense of community that comes with the sort of communal emotional experience that is being a football fan. 10 years of 9 games a season. They are not what you would call friend but the feeling of cameraderie is there. I mean how many people can share the ins and outs of a CFL team with you, given that so many players switch teams so often these days.

I really hope for all those long-suffering fans that we may be at the beginning of something good, hell we might even have a home playoff game! (There hasn't been a home playoff game since like the mid 80s if not earlier..)

Interesting debate

I just read a post on my friend Pat's blog and it got me thinking. I also managed to stumble upon a particular series in the " Great Debates Series which highlighted again some of the same issues. Now I am not one to necessarily agree with Ignatieff on everything, particularly since his support of the Iraq war (which he sort of maybe recants here and his somewhat failed entry into Canadian politics, but he has a good point in this instance.

Igantieff simply asks the question "Whose history are we talking about?" in response to Jack Granatstein's contention that we don't teach enough history to Canadian and that Canadians do not know their history. Now the larger point they both agree with but Granatstein seem to imagine that there is this central "Canadian" history that emerges, and needs to be taught, and dismisses to large degree the movement towards social history.

Now I am a person who focuses mostly on economics and politics and so even though I think these are important there needs to be a role for social history. For what is history but the story of a people? The move towards social history also adds colour and diversity to the understanding of Canada. We need to appreciate that the history of Canada is not only the history of the white Canadians.

My issue with Pat's posting is that he falls into a similar as many who in general tend towards the Conservative side of the political spectrum. He suggests that the reverence Americans have for the office of their Presidency is something to which Canada should aspire. I profoundly disagree. We have never had the temerity to imagine that we have a manifest destiny, that somehow we are a chosen people, like our friendly (most of the time) neighbours to the South. Pat is right however to link his ideas to imperialism. I would imagine that most Canadians would shrink away from any attempt at overt Canadian imperialism. Canada as a country with Colonies? How is that compatible with democracy is the first question one must ask. (whether Canada fits into the American imperialism or is itself an imperial power today I leave to the Marxists)

As John Ralston Saul writes in Reflections of a Siamese Twin" The United states ... is the natural prolongation of the European idea. It is the European state personified. It has become what France, Germany, England and Spain dreamt they might become if only they had had the space", this is compared and contrasted with the Canadian nation state. In fact the central argument of his entire book, or at least a large portion of it, is that we have to understand that Canada is not in the European model. It is not, and cannot and has never been an example of a tradition European based nation state. He argues that this is our central strength. And while I certainly do see things that can be improved upon and things that are done better outside our borders, to ignore that central reality is to betray our Canadian identity.

Conservatives still have to follow the law

Thank god someone had the good sense to stand up to the conservatives on the issue of the wheat board monopoly. They were told today that they have to get a vote in parliament in order to remove (or destroy) the wheat board's monopoly in the Western Canadian trade in barley.

Now I personally disagree with this policy for a number of reasons but most troubling for me, has been the totally disrespectful and irresponsible way they have been trying to implement this policy. They started by not allowing any debate on the issue and censuring the head of the wheat board with a gag order. Then they held a plebiscite on the issue in which they muddied the waters with unclear questions, they did not receive majority support for the option they are promoting and called it a success! You can see the questions here

Anyways at least there was a judge willing to stand up the bullying of the Conservatives!!

I think they really need to remember their roots and their supposed democratic credentials. They seem intent on doing everything in the dark and not having public debates. I suppose they've taken some lessons from the Liberals.

I think the real question is whether the conservatives actually have any of the feigned outrage left after they have basically become the new Liberals. They deserve all the criticism they have received. I wonder if they can come up with any ideas that aren't stolen from the Liberal playbook this fall.

Sicko!

I just realized it has been months and months since my last post. Wow. I have thought a few times about posting some random comments on here but I guess I haven't gotten around to it recently.

I just got back from seeing the movie Sicko! by Michael Moore. Interesting movie! I also found it interesting in that he seemed to step back from being such a big presence in this film. I enjoyed that, because it meant that he could focus on the stories themselves. I suppose one should throw out the usual caveats, in that he focuses very much on individual cases which don't easily paint the broader picture.

However in the case of healthcare I found that the cases speak for themselves. The fact of the matter is that it is those extreme cases that illustrate the problems with the US healthcare system. The main problem is that it is not universal. The actual method and way of getting towards a universal system matter less than the fact that it is not universal. He is merely presenting some examples of where the health care system breaks down. In fact it is a classic caes of market failure.

Now I happen to be reading an excellent book on efficiency by Joseph Heath called The efficient Society and in it he explains the two problems with your typical insurance market which includes the market for healthcare. The first problem is Adverse selection, and the other is moral hazard. They are both important aspects to consider in an insurance market.

Adverse selection is created when there is imperfect information. So for example in most cases without the huge questionnaires and forms the insurance company has no way of knowing how sick you really are. Because of that sick people will want insurance and will be willing to pay more for insurance than those that are healthy. Healthy people will not want insurance at the same price as those who are sick.

The company will essentially end up with high costs and high premiums because those who are healthy will not be willing to pay high prices and those that have high costs will choose to have insurance and be willing to pay more.

The fact that the insurance company will in general all things being equal attract more sick people than healthy people is called adverse selection.

Basically that was the main example that we kept seeing in the movie. The fact that insurance companies spend an inordinate amount of time trying to deny claims and trying to gather more information on which to asses their policies. They are trying to overcome the adverse selection involved in the health insurance market.

I was also glad in away that Moore did not go into too much detail because I think that would have detracted from his more general point. Americans get poor outcomes for the money they spend. Also for all the money they spend they fail to have universal coverage. This is unlike in any other western country!!

Now when it comes to Canada, I hope that they will begin to realize that there are many other models we can emulate. I find in this country we tend to end up in a situation where it is either the status quo or the American system. Nothing could be further from the truth. The French get better outcomes and do include some aspects of the private system.

The structure of our system does have all sorts of inefficiencies. The fact that private insurance is not allowed in Quebec has been ruled illegal in the Chaoulli decision. The impact of this decision is still rumbling through Quebec and will soon have effects in the rest of the country. We need to have a more honest debate and sooner rather than later.

Why Mexicans don't drink Molson

I have finished reading the book Why Canadians don't drink Molsons by Andrea-Mandel Campbell. I first heard of it on the radio program the Sunday Edition. I had high hopes for it, but unfortunately I found it lacking, not necessarily with its message but I found the way it was presented lacking.

Now I found the second part of the book more impressive than the first half. I suppose because I heard the radio interview the first part lacked anything new, because all her examples on the radio and the stories were from the first half of the book. I found the book chock full of anecdotes and smaller examples but I found that the author had problems painting the bigger picture. She does a better job in the second half of the book, but I found the larger context missing a bit.

Now this isn't to say that she doesn't try, she constantly worries about the challenge posed by China as of course many business people are becoming increasingly interested. I found it hard to figure out who her audience was. I found the book itself in the business section, but it seems in some sections to be aimed towards a larger audience.

I guess my biggest complaint was that it really didn' take aim at any specific myths or problems. Its central thesis has been examined by other claiming the Canadian business sector has failed. Including George Grant's lament for a nation (although of course this was from what we would now consider the 'left') It had the opportunity to go beyond that, and I don't think that it did. Of course being a largely pro-market commentary it blamed government for pretty much everything even while showing that it did have potential. I think this paragraph is a good example and deserves to be quoted here

“If Canadians don’t believe in themselves, it’s largely because government is sending them signals that it shouldn’t. If Canadians think big business is bad, it’s because government is confirming their suspicions. If Canadians glorify the middle of the road it’s because that’s what government espouses. If Canadians are indecisive and risk averse, it’s because that’s how they see the government behave. If Canadians don’t know their place in the world, it’s because their government is lost” (page 311)

For someone who largely sees government intervention in a negative light, she sure ascribes a lot of power there to government.

I will be posting a longer review in the future my other
blog

Spiderman 3

Well i went to go see it, and I was pretty impressed with the story line, but I hope they don't make a 4th! To be honest I think they were a bit out of gas, and I liked the 2nd one the best. At least i think I do. I may have to go see Spiderman 3 again.

The fight scenes were amazing, and I thought the idea of having two bad guys team up, was a pretty good idea. Venom was cool!!

I haven't been doing a good job of posting here over the last little while, but I'm hoping to get back at it. I still have a lot to say. I'm hoping actually to do a few books reviews over the next couple of months, to practice writing and I think it'll be a good experience to do it. I'll post them on here of course, and criticism is welcome. I'll decide on a book sometime in the next 2 weeks.

Virginia

Well I think this whole Virginia event is overblown to the utmost degree. I can't fathom why an event which though tragic, suddenly becomes a national tragedy. I truly find it ridiculous how every event in which something bad happens becomes a tragedy. The word tragedy should be reserved for events which are truly sad, not for any event where someone dies. Yes it is tragic, yes it is sad, but something like 38 people, are killed very day in the US by gun violence.

I think that was it going on in Iraq is truly a tragedy, a country is being destroyed by its own people because of the actions of the United States. That is something that was preventable, has led to enormous suffering and really has had only negative consequences.

However I find it puzzling that an event like today's killing of 171 people in Iraq gets way way way less coverage than the murders of 33 people in Virginia. Both were senseless , both were random acts of terror, and i do understand that the one is in the US and thus strikes closer to home, but I still find it hard to believe.

I also find it truly disturbing how the media sends out streams of meaningless information just to fill time. I mean how important is it to know every single detail of the last hours of this boys life? There is an entire network(CNN) devoted to finding out every detail. Finding out that the person who did this wore brown shoes today is not worth a live update!

It is a good example of losing the forest for the trees. The real job of the media would be to look at the larger picture and ask the tough questions. Why do these shootings happen in our country at all? What can be done to prevent this from happening? These are uncomfortable questions and I find that too often it becomes all about the victim in an attempt to avoid asking the larger questions. It comes out in a predictable manner that the victim was a 'loner'. Well golly gee that took some analysis!! It's the same line in every case!

Maybe I'm just cynical but I find the blanket media coverage of the events in Virginia over the last few days excessive.

Service Industry Jobs

Well I've started reading a book by Richard Sennett called the corrosion of Character and it's interesting in its criticism of the "new capitalism". I was also thinking about how we talked in one of my Canadian studies classes about "telework" and the call centre experience.

Now that I'm living it I can understand why everyone is so critical about it. I hate it, I find it ridiculous and to be honest I feel like I'm being de-skilled as I work. The lack of control is embedded in the very network idea that we are part of. The constant attempt to fit the normal human behaviour into our patterns and packages of information that are useful to us, is frustrating for us and it must be for the callers as well.

The lack of security and benefits is also an issue. I count myself among the lucky ones, I work for a government call centre though of course I'm not actually employed by the government itself. I can only imagine the hell that would be an outbound call centre.

The thing I'm really scared about it ending up being stuck there for any serious length of time. I already see a lot of people there who are talented smart people stuck in a call centre. It seems to be an employer (not of choice) but of last resort for many young (and not so young people) people. I am afraid of ending up like those people. Unfortunately especially in a "service" industry town like Ottawa the only jobs being created are in call centres, some high tech and financial services.

I tried the financial services angle and it sucked, I actually my time at the bank i worked at was the worst work experience I've ever had. I haven't had a whole lot but it was dismal. What a joke, i can't believe they really expect the bank tellers who have no input into anything, and have to deal with all the stupid mistakes that they make from up top, would actually buy into the system. What a joke!

In reading Sennett's book i realize the horrible language they use to describe what they are doing. Why the hell would my boss be "coaching" me? She's my boss not a coach. I think that's what bothered me the most about the job, they expected loyalty from me for nothing in return. That's the problem with work these days they are trying to extract the old values where people cared about their job without the commensurate responsibility on the employer side.

I've never worked in any other workplace so dominated by the measurement of every single type of activity and the focus on productivity. Being paid the12$ an hour I was making doesn't encourage loyalty especially when the job itself requires little or no skill and you are unable to take any sort of initiative. The attempts to force us into "volunteering" also put me off. I worked in another bank and there was none of that attempt to control everything we were doing.

The bank that I worked at in the past focused on simple customer service. That was all, and that's what people got.

One thing that really bothers me both as a customer and as a employee is the attempt made by companies to make you fit into their mold. "You have to do it this way", why? Because it's easier for us[the company]. If the customer is always right and these companies were serious about customer service we wouldn't have these problems.

A new project

I've been thinking about this particular project for quite some time.

I'd like to examine the ideological shift that took place in the 1980s in the economic and political thinking of countries like the US (with Reagonomics), the UK (Thatcherism) and New Zealand (Rogernomics) . Although the first two experiences are better known the last example, New Zealand is probably the best example of what the revolution brought on by this thinking could produce. In fact it is a shame that it is not better known.

I also would like to contrast that experience with the backlash that took place throughout the latter part of the 1990s and John Ralston Saul has characterized as the 'End of Globalization'. I think that enough time has passed now that it is possible to examine this period with a bit more dispassion. As someone who "came of age" politically at the end of the 1990s, going back to the 1980s presents a pretty interesting story.

A lot of the groundwork of the globalization ideology that had protesters up in arms in the late 1990s in Seattle came about in the 1980s. In large respect the internationalization of this movement was an attempt to 'lock in' the reforms done at the national level during the 1980s.

Canada also played a role in this, especially contentious for us was the GST but the same was done in most countries (notably excluding the US). Slashing income tax rates and increasing reliance on consumption taxes (which are regressive) was a key plank of the neo-conservative revolutionaries. Canada was to some degree protected by its federal structure which meant that the federal government could never have gone as far as the government of New Zealand could have gone, and thank god! What is interesting is the fact that New Zealand changed its electoral system as a result of the aggressive use of the powers conferred by its first past the post system, and the result was a moderating of the impulse to radically change things.

I see the possibility of using the New Zealand, US and UK possibly also Canada and Australia examples as case studies in the large trend of economic policy making during the period.

These countries are close enough in terms of culture and form part of the English speaking world or English speaking block.

Anyways it should be a huge project but one that I feel is worth exploring.

Budget Time

Well no a very exciting budget. Not that I expected much.

I wonder if the provinces will actually shut up now about the "fiscal imbalance" somehow I doubt it. Maybe they'll come up with a different term for the exact same thing. that's what they usually do. It seems to me that everytime the federal government decentralizes or gives the provinces money no strings attached (just the way they like it) they just cut taxes.

I think the real fiscal imbalance is between provinces and cities. Unlike provinces cities do not have access to very many tax options and the taxes they do have mostly the property tax is inelastic and regressive. Cities need the help way more than the provinces do.

The real problem I have with it though is that the provinces just want money without having to raise it themselves. It's irresponsible and it lacks transparency. If you want to spend the money, raise the money. When the Conservatives formed a government, one of the strategies that I though was most likely to end this debate, was to actually lower federal taxes, so as to stop generating surpluses. Then challenge the provinces to take up that room, it would've been interesting to see if that had worked. I have a feeling the conservatives were too timid to actually try it, but if they ever form a majority we'll have to see if that strategy comes back.

Although I think the so called fiscal imbalance is non-existent, I think that if the provinces at least transferred that money to the cities it wouldn't be too bad. The cities are especially hard hit in Ontario (I know that people don't like to hear that), because Mike Harris downloaded tons of services to cities without any money to fund them.

Overall I think my feelings about this budget is the same as feeling about the government, they are accomplishing little, no big ideas but they are not pushing us in a negative direction either. I'm hoping that maybe if they continue to govern for a bit they might become more ambitious. Then again Conservatives don't tend to like government (or so they say) so my hopes aren't that high.

Sarko

So I know it's been over a month since I last posted, but I've been busy and I haven't had a lot to say (hard to believe I know!)

Anyways I caught some of a show on France's TV3 with Nicolas Sarkozy. I have to say the man had some interesting things to say. I've heard a fair about about in him in the media, although we hear a lot more about his opponent Royale.

He seems to be a pretty committed candidate and the one article referred to him being the 'Thatcher' of Britain, and he does seem to want to challenge the state to move in a more minimalist direction. He attacked the fact that France has such a huge public service, and like I think we will end up doing in Canada, he wants to use attrition to shrink the public service.

It's actually interesting to try and understand how France is organized, I did take a course on European politics and we were supposed to deal with France but the class was not that well taught and we ended up skipping a whole lot of stuff.

The other thing I am reading is A History of Postwar Europe. It's pretty interesting and I have for a while been interested in European politics, though that interest has been fading lately. It's an interesting book and tries to put the entire Postwar European experience into a narrative. I'm only about 2/5th of the way through but his focus on Eastern Europe I find particularly interesting and of course he does provide a huge reading list at the end, so maybe i'll do mroe reading about Europe.

One of the books I have had to set aside for the moment but that i think should be extremely interesting is A history of the English speaking peoples since 1900 (which in his case means the Uk, the US and the white dominions) . The thesis itself should prove to be fascinating, in that he argues the war on terror like the second world war as well as the cold war bring together the English speaking peoples in their particular project, which he hasn't quite defined yet.

I assume it is something like promoting peace and democracy for non-English speaking peoples everywhere. Should be fascinating read!

Brier Curling

Three missed shots!! As far as i am concerned Jeff Stoughton had one of the best teams in the Brier, and he could have won it all had it not been for 3 shots. Now in curling it always does come down to a shot or two in each game, and to be honest the Howard rink was the best during the week. I just hope he can keep that team together and win the right to represent Canada at the Olympics in 2010. As for those 3 shots, they are as follows

#1 He was light on a draw for one to beat Ontario
#2 He should have taken a single point in end #8 against Alberta, he would have been up by 3 and had the hammer in 10
#3 The decision to try that super difficult raise in end 4 (I think against Ontario)

All in all we saw some great curling despite the ice conditions, and of course it's very easy for me to say things watching from TV and not having curled more than once in my life, but hey thats what blogging is for, to express my opinions.

I have followed Jeff Stoughton for several years now at least in the Brier, and I really like him as a curler, and he seems like a pretty funny guy too.

Simcity 4

Well there seems to be a lot of my friends playing simcity 4 so in deference to them i am posting my coolest building. This building is like 3 or 4 times the height of the hospital in the game and it just plain looks cool. This is not from a mod or anything, but from the game itself.

Immigration

Well after seeing an article in the G&M that talks about the problems that immigrants seem to be having these days i'd offer a few thoughts.

One thing I learned was that our ridiculous and stupid insistence on accepting only well educated immigrants was actually a fairly recent decision, apparently this changed a lot in 1993. The focus became trying to attract more skilled workers and highly educated people.

The real shame in this country is the lack of will to try and get these workers credentials recognized. We bring in PHd engineers and they can only work as taxi drivers. We cannot continue to do this. These people are realizing that in some cases they can make more money and have more opportunities in India and China now rather than coming to Canada an washing dishes.

The stories are pretty ridiculous, but nobody seems to pay much attention to them. The credential recognizing bodies (which are provincial) are shockingly bad at accepting foreign credentials.

A while ago i heard the story of a woman from Afghanistan who was told she needed original documents in order to qualify as a teacher, only problem was her school was blown to bits in Afghanistan. Was she given any other options, nay other way to get her credentials recognized, no, original documents only. Many others are refugees who have flown the country because of persecution. These people cannot contact their governments for fear their families will be hurt, or in many cases the governments will do everything to stop these people from getting what they need.

This country has a shortage of doctors and yet there are many many capable doctors working below their capacity not as doctors, but working for minimum wage somewhere at a tim hortons.

In essence I think our policy makes absolutely no sense. We should bring in people who are willing to work lower paying jobs. We should not be stealing the elites of poor countries and then they waste their talent here.

It's no wonder that these highly educated people get discouraged. It seems like it's reaching a point where the whole thing needs to be reexamined.

Alright here goes!

Well I was talking to my friend Pat last night about why I have a hatred of economics. Now first of all this is not only because I failed a few higher level economics courses in university. The reason I abandoned the discipline (because after all I started out in university wanting to be an economist), goes deeper than that.

I think at a fundamental level any attempt to reduce human behaviour to a few variables and equations will inevitably fail. The increasing sophistication of mathematical modeling still cannot accurately predict human behaviour.

The first thing any economist will do when they develop a model is make assumptions. Fair enough, you can't make a model without eliminating some variables and simplifying things. However an increasing number of the assumptions made by economist are made to make the math fit. Now in my economics classes I didn't have the guts to suggest that some of these assumptions were leading to false conclusions, but I think this is often the case.

A perfect example of this is from the book freakonomics, a book touted to show the amazing power of economic analysis and the way that it can be used on non-traditional subjects and still have value. I suppose one could argue that taking economics out of its traditional domain is part of the reason that it fails to carry as much weight, but it still highlights some of the shortcomings of economic reasoning.

The author uses the example of falling crime rates in NYC and he links them to abortion rates. Now this seems to be to be problematic. He claims that the link between rising abortion and lower crime exceeds the impact of crime prevention strategies implement under then mayor Rudolph Juliani. Now I don't doubt that there might be a link, but the claims he makes are way out of proportion to the evidence presented. (He ended up making an error in his calculations which damaged the credibility of his argument further).

In many of the other examples of the book he also uses proximate measures. He will take something he can measure, for example test scores and through regression analysis link it to something else say marital status of the parents and then make claims based on this research. However he makes claims that exceed his limited view. In almost every case because he cannot measure the social factor directly, he takes approximations to back his claim.

Again I see the same problem in economics ore generally, the attempt to be value neutral when in fact economics and economists present an analysis full of values. The sacredness of individuality for example permeates everything economics does, because it is an analysis based in western values about individuality. Try even getting an economist to even admit that there may be values hidden in their analysis.

Back after a short holiday break!

First of all, I have to say I am proud of the Indianapolis Colts and their well deserved victory last Sunday. I was quite scared that they might have been blown in the second half. I missed most of the third quarter but to my surprise they had mounted a huge comeback! I think they said it was the biggest comeback in AFC championship history!!!

We also now have two black coaches facing off in the superbowl final! Good for both of them!

In other news I am enjoying my new job, it pays better than the previous one and I like the people more. I am slowly getting used to giving information over the phone, and of course it's always nice that I am able to keep up my French language skills. I really need to work on my French writing though, even writing a quick email seems to pose problems for me.

I hope everyone had a great holiday! I bought a new racket shortly after Christmas and now I play badminton at least twice a week, I also found a new place to pay for a third time every week. I am excited and enjoying it.

That's all for now