Occupy Canada

The Occupy [Insert Location] movement is coming to Canada.  Now, why can't the tea party movement come here?  It's not fair, dammit.  I guess Canada's conservatives are just too busy with their jobs and families (except for me).

Canadian organizers of the so-called Occupy movement are ramping up efforts to rally "against spiritual wickedness in high places" during a global day of action Saturday that now has the backing of at least a couple of major unions [unsurprisingly], and has put police and businesses on alert.

Thousands in at least 15 Canadian cities — from Vancouver to St. John's — were holding meetings Friday to complete plans for the weekend marches, sit-ins and other efforts to decry what the movement says is an uneven distribution of wealth caused by government policies favouring big business.

 So its communism they're demanding.

"I'm encouraged to see citizens rightfully stand up and take action against what are gross injustices in our economic and social structures," said CAW national president Ken Lewenza in a release Friday.

I thought that's what the tea party was for.

"It's time for people to take ownership of their streets, their economy and fight back against corporations and governments championing right-wing, neo-liberal policies that support a select few, at the expense of the majority."

I thought that's what left-wing policies did.

Canadian police units, notably in Toronto and Vancouver where the G20 protests in June 2010 and hockey riots this past June, respectively, have led to violence and arrests, have for days been planning their strategies for handling the Occupy protests. 

Police officials have been as tight-lipped about how they'll handle Saturday's mass events as the Occupy Canada organizers, who keep a low profile and let their Facebook, Twitter and other social networking efforts drive their planning.

No matter what happens, I predict there will be complaints of police brutality.  There always seem to be when left-wing protests are concerned.  However, when a large, unruly crowd is threatening the safety of people and businesses, the police should be able to do whatever they have to (with reasonable limits, of course), to contain that crowd and prevent any further escalation of violence.  If the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver are any indication, hooligans will use any excuse to create further disorder.

Tom Caldwell, chairman and CEO of Caldwell Securities Ltd., which has offices in Toronto and New York City, also isn't exactly sure about the Occupy movement's goals.

"The medium is the protest but what is the message?" he said.

I think the goal of the movement is communism, or at least socialism.  At the very least, it is an excuse for professional protesters to protest over nothing in particular.  I see this movement basically as a manifestation of an emotion-driven desire to turn North America into a left-wing "utopia".  But, with powerful American politicians that are sympathetic to the movement, such as Barack Obama, who knows how much influence this movement will have.  Perhaps Obama will take the movement as America wanting socialism, and I believe he is delusional enough to think that.  Maybe he will enact far-left policies in an attempt to appease the participants of this movement, thinking it will gain him votes.  Or maybe he will simply use this movement as an excuse to enact far-left policies.  Fortunately the Republicans control the House of Representatives.  I wonder what creative (/sarc) ad hominems Obama, the Democrats, and other liberals will use for the Republicans in this hypothetical situation.        

Another Example of Leftist Ugliness and Hypocrisy

Strangely, prior to yesterday, I had not heard of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests.  For the benefit of others who apparently live under metaphorical rocks, "Occupy Wall Street" is a leftist grassroots movement opposing "corporate greed" and "economic inequality."  With the rightist Tea Party movement in the spotlight for the past couple years or so, many people are comparing the two grassroots movements.  While OWS is protesting "corporate greed" and "economic inequality," the Tea Party is protesting government greed and economic inequality.  The reason I put the object of OWS in quotation marks and not the object of the Tea Party is that I believe in the Tea Party's cause, unlike that of OWS.  Corporations have every right to be greedy, so long as they are in compliance with the law.  I do not believe the government has this right, as its purpose is nothing more than to serve its constituents.  And, economic inequality, as I see it, is caused by the redistribution of wealth.

While the fundamental difference between the two movements is the political ideology that motivates them, another key difference is the method of protest.  Tea Party protests, in general, are peaceful and law-abiding (or so I hear).  OWS protests, on the other hand, are not.  Twenty-three OWS protesters were arrested yesterday in New York City for disorderly conduct, only a few days after a much larger arrest (see quotation below).  I can't remember ever hearing of anyone arrested at Tea Party protests, nor can I find any evidence in a quick Google search (I do, however, find links about anti-Tea Party protesters being arrested).  Keep in mind that the Tea Party movement is several years old, compared to the fledgeling OWS movement.  My Google search did result in me finding this fantastic article, however.  Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):  

One aspect of the Occupy Wall Street and other leftist activism that is a definitive divergence with the tea party movement is disruptive behavior.

On October 1, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested — mostly for disorderly conduct — during a march across the Brooklyn Bridge.  Despite two other peaceful marches across the bridge by other groups earlier that day, the Occupy Wall Street crowd couldn’t resist blocking traffic and scuffling with police. 

When not under arrest (approximately 100 other arrests occurred over the weeks of the protest), the Occupy Wall Street crowd is actually occupying the privately-owned Zuccotti Park, whose owners are working with city officials on plans to return it “to its intended purpose.” 

This rowdy attitude of the radical left is something that, by mistake or design, is grossly unreported in the media.  As the Tea Party must fend off allegations of being violent and racist, leftist protests that are unruly don’t get similar coverage. 

I’ve been active in the Tea Party movement since 2009.  As a black woman, I define the movement’s political diversity and have always been quick to defend its inclusiveness against those who would try to slur it with racist accusations.
I have had the amazing opportunity to meet thousands of freedom-loving Americans who are involved in the movement on their own time and these individuals are sincere in their efforts to reign in our government gone wild by holding our elected representatives accountable. 

As a frequent speaker at Tea Party events nationwide, I’ve never seen the same behavior as described during Occupy Wall Street’s Brooklyn Bridge demonstration.  Tea Party activists, in my experience, police themselves.  Additionally, I’ve never been to a rally in which the grounds weren’t as clean or cleaner than when the first activist arrived. 

Doing a Google search of “tea party activist” and “arrest” brings up nothing of merit.  On the first page, I found three articles about people described as tea party activists, but the arrests were unrelated to rallies. 

Another article, about the demonstrations outside the U.S. Capitol Building on the weekend of the Obamacare vote in the House, reports one man — one single person — was detained after being accused of spitting on a congressman.  But that person was immediately released, and no one has come forward to legitimize the claim and collect conservative Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward for providing proof. 

Furthermore, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa told people waiting to see President Obama speak at a Labor Day rally that they need to “take these [Tea Party] son of a bitches out.”  And there was a January 30 rally in Rancho Mirage, California in which progressive protesters, many of whom were attending a nearby conference sponsored by Common Cause, were caught on video saying they wanted to “torture” and “hang” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 

Salacious allegations against the tea party will get more coverage than actual law-breaking by the left.

It is evident that leftist protests embody the negative attributes that conservative protests are wrongly accused of embodying.  Not that you would ever be able to tell by watching the news, though.  Do we have enough proof now that many leftists are hypocrites?

And, a final note: this is not meant to apply to all leftists.  Only the crazy ones.  

Alberta's New Premier

Alison Redford is the new premier of Alberta, after winning an upset election to determine the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, over Gary Mar.  I am disappointed in the result, as Redford promises to put "progressive" back in Progressive Conservative Party.  In other words, she will likely move the party leftward.  She also promises "change."

I haven't been paying very much attention to Alberta politics, but I didn't really think change was necessary in Alberta.  Given Alberta's relative success (relative to the other provinces) and conservative politics, the concept of "change" makes me uneasy.  Will a less conservative premier more heavily regulate the oil industry, thus weakening Alberta's economy?

Here's a chilling passage from the Edmonton Journal:

Jacquie Eales voted for Alison Redford on her way home from her 13-year-old daughter’s basketball game.
The 47-year-old Edmontonian, a liberal at heart, didn’t vote on the first ballot. In truth, she says, the Progressive Conservative leadership race wasn’t on her radar. 

Then, on the way into work one morning, she heard Redford on the radio.
“She talked about the importance of education and health care, and those are two things that are important to me,” Eales said Monday. 

“It’s unlikely that there will ever be a Liberal leader in Alberta, so I thought, if I want to make a difference in terms of education and health care, perhaps I need to buy a PC membership and vote for a candidate who might have a chance.” 

But she didn’t immediately buy a membership. That point came when a friend involved with the advocacy group Friends of Medicare sent her an email highlighting Redford’s support for public health care. “I thought, if I want to make a difference, I have to vote.”

Redford might as well be a Liberal.  The thought of a Liberal leading Alberta is frightening.  One of my favorite things about Alberta is its relatively conservative politics.  Here's an even more chilling passage (from the same article):

“I don’t think Mar did himself any favours musing about having a debate about privatizing health care,” Duffy said. “I don’t know which is worse, talking about it or trying to run away from it, but that’s the worst of both worlds.” 

He said Redford’s campaign ran on a classic public-services platform. 

“So here you’ve got Redford talking about education, reaching out to soccer moms, and then Mar starts talking about privatizing medicare,” he said.
“At that point, you’ve got a classic set up between an in touch, family-responsive candidate who wants to deliver public services, and an out-of-touch business guy. ... It’s a perfect contrast.

So, not only does Alberta now have a CINO (Conservative in Name Only) premier, but the favourite would have considered privatizing health care.  Think about what Alberta could have had!

Hopefully, Redford's premiership ends after the next election, which will apparently be soon.  While the Progressive Conservative Party has governed Alberta for about 40 years, that is because Alberta is a conservative place.  Fortunately, conservatives in Alberta have another option, the Wildrose Party, a formerly minor party, that has been making significant gains in polls, even winning one by a wide margin (in 2009).  To me, this party resembles the Tea Party movement.  It is a fiscally conservative, right-libertarian party with a social conservative branch.  With the Progressive Conservative Party moving leftward, the Wildrose Party's niche is expanding, and the Progressive Conservative dynasty in Alberta may hopefully end soon.  It is worth mentioning that the election Redford won had two parts.  Voters wrote two names on their ballots.  In the first part, only the first name on each ballot was counted.  If there was not a majority, the third place candidate's votes were given to the candidate whose name appeared on the ballots that originally went to the third place candidate.  After the first round, Gary Mar had a plurality of the votes, while Alison Redford gained a narrow majority after the second round.  What this means is that Redford did not win the election convincingly, which is good for the Wildrose Party, which will likely attract disgruntled Conservatives next election.  It is also worth mentioning that many people apparently joined the Progressive Conservative Party just to vote for Redford.  

Here are some Wildrose Party ideas/observations that I particularly like:

• Restore the role of elected MLAs by mandating that all votes in the Legislature and caucus be free and reported to the public
• Non-confidence votes would be held as separate and stand-alone votes, allowing MLAs to vote on proposed legislation based on the interests of their constituents
• Implement legislation allowing for citizen-initiated referenda and voter recall (support thresholds to instigate both processes must be sufficiently high to eliminate frivolous initiatives)
• Institute fixed dates for general elections, senate elections, budgets, legislative sessions, and Speeches from the Throne
• Establish an independent Cabinet and MLA pay and benefits review process that prevents the Premier, Cabinet, and MLAs from setting their own salaries
• Create transparency in finances and budgets by ensuring government debts and cash deficits are reported accurately and in a timely manner
• Post MLA expenses online
• Take an aggressive stance with the federal government in regards to the equalization program in order to ensure that billions more of Albertans’ hard-earned tax dollars remain in the province, working for the benefit of Albertans
• Exercise our provincial constitutional rights by demanding that the federal government not regulate our industry or property in the name of “environmental protection”
• We will dismantle Alberta Health Services and gradually decentralize the delivery of health care to locally managed and integrated hospitals, Primary Care Networks, family physicians, specialty centres, long-term care facilities and other health services
• We will reduce wait times for specialists and procedures by opening delivery of publicly paid services to any accredited private and non-profit provider
• In terms of policing, our province is facing significant challenges as it tries to deal with organized crime, gangs, child exploitation, identity theft, and white collar crime. Too often, the rights of the accused and convicted criminals seem to supersede the rights of victims.
• Protect the rights of victims by advocating for federal legislation that would see convicted criminals financially compensate the victims of their crimes without the need for costly civil trials
• Over the last 20 years, the Human Rights Commissions in Alberta have probably been the single worst offender of Rights: i.e. freedom of speech; politically correct activists have used them to punish religious and right-wing social commentators. Even when found not guilty, its expensive and time-consuming
• Restrain per capita infrastructure spending to a level consistent with the national average.
• Streamline and decentralize procedures to ensure more funding flows directly to individuals and families in need, and would phase out regional PDD boards in favour of a more localized approach to funding decision-making
• Encourage small and medium business investment and growth by ensuring Alberta is the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in North America
• End the current government’s failed strategy of picking winners and losers by handing out corporate welfare grants to hand-picked corporations
• CFIB say over-regulation costs Alberta $4B per year. Their 2010 report says Alberta and Manitoba are ranked the lowest among the provinces when it comes to reducing this burden
• According to a Fraser Institute report, a sweet gas well that should take 10 days and $1,000 to get regulatory approval takes almost three years and cost $100,000
• Actively review and reduce the unnecessary regulatory burdens that compromise the competitiveness of our key industries

There were some ideas I didn't like, and many more that I did, but I like the party's overall message.  

Perhaps the election of Alison Redford is a blessing in disguise, as one-party dynasties tend to engender corruption.  Hopefully, the Wildrose Party will continue to gain momentum and make Alberta politics more competitive.

Greece: The Economic Black Hole

Thanks in part to the establishment of the Eurozone, Greece’s terrible economic situation has affected the rest of Europe immensely.  Greece doesn’t have a large economy itself, but Europe as a whole does.  Add to that the economic situation in the United States, and Canada’s relative economic stability is becoming more and more unsound.  We are teetering on the event horizon of the black hole that is Greece.

I don’t know what is wrong with Greeks.  They don’t seem to understand the situation; unless they embrace severe austerity, they will default.  I can’t imagine why anyone in Greece would be so outraged at the prospect of austerity.  I mean, they don't pay their taxes, and they still expect the government to pay for everything.    

How to Create Jobs

Instead of attacking corporations in an attempt to get them to create jobs (as some union thugs have apparently suggested), which won't work, a better idea would be to minimize the impact of regulations and cut spending (to reduce uncertainty and the debt).  

Watching the US economy is like watching a slowly dying animal that is in agony.  The humane thing to do, in that case, would be to kill the animal to put it out of its misery.  Similarly, people in the US are suffering because of the economy.  For these people, the humane thing to do would be to get the recession over with so economic expansion can resume (and preferably not a "bubble" (i.e. artificial economic expansion)).  

When Obama gives his speech on the subject (which is on the 8th, I think), I am guessing his plan will not involve any of what I have said above. 

After I study economics a bit, I will write a post with a detailed plan for the US economic situation (I promise, I think).   

But They're Obviously Racist

Most business economists favor spending cuts over tax increases (h/t Instapundit).  This is not a surprise to me, but it may inspire a few ad hominems from leftists (seeing as how that seems to be their preferred method of "debate").

The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts. 

The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way, while 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases. 

As for how to reduce the deficit, nearly 40 percent said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions. About 15 percent said the government should enact tough spending caps and cut discretionary spending. 

The latest survey by the NABE was conducted in the two weeks ending Aug. 2, the day that the Senate passed and President Obama signed legislation to cut spending by more than $2 trillion and raise the nation's debt ceiling. 

The agreement managed to avert a potential default, but Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. credit from AAA to AA+, citing the political wrangling over the deal as a reason.

The Omniscent Obama Passively Impugns Those Destructive Republicans

What follows are some excerpts from this article detailing President Obama's first day on the campaign trial his bus tour to "flyover country" (h/t GayPatriot).

"If your voices are heard, then sooner or later these guys have to start paying attention," Obama said in Iowa on Monday. "And if they don't start paying attention, then they're not going to be in office and we will have a new Congress in there that will start paying attention to what is going on all across America."

...

While the White House insisted in the lead up to the tour that the trip was about official business because Obama was talking to Americans, the president was clearly talking to voters. With his sleeves rolled up, tie missing and campaign cadence on full display, Obama appeared to be in total campaign mode.

... 

"And if they don’t get it done, then we’ll be running against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people, and the choice will be very stark and will be very clear," Obama warned.
The president also sought to make peace with his liberal supporters, explaining and defending some of the compromises he has made on healthcare and tax cuts and blasting Republicans in the process.
"Look, the bottom line is we’re moving in the right direction," Obama told one questioner. "But I know it’s frustrating, because the other side is unreasonable.  And you don’t want to reward unreasonableness.  Look, I get that.  But sometimes you’ve got to make choices in order to do what’s best for the country at that particular moment, and that’s what I’ve tried to do."

I wonder if anyone else is made as speechless as I after reading that.  This is the president?  He sounds like a liberal troll commenting on a conservative website.  First, Obama accuses Republican congresspeople of "not paying attention."  Then, he accuses Republican congresspeople of "not doing anything for the American people."  Then, he accuses "the other side" of being "unreasonable."  Do I sense projection going on here?  I mean, replace "Congress" with "President" in the following quote*, 

"And if they don't start paying attention, then they're not going to be in office and we will have a new Congress in there that will start paying attention to what is going on all across America."

and I concur (with it).  I really, really hope Obama will receive a sober awakening on November 6, not only for the schadenfreude I will experience, but also so the economies of the US and the rest of the world will be able to get back to normal.  Obama sure is lucky he has the media to obfuscate his incompetence.  Here is a stunning misrepresentation of reality courtesy of Maureen Dowd (h/t GayPatriot):

Three years ago, Barack Obama’s unlikely presidential dream was given wings by rapturous Iowans — young, old and in-between — who saw in the fresh-faced, silky-voiced black senator a chance to leap past the bellicose, rancorous Bush years [courtesy of liberals] into a modern, competitive future where we once more had luster in the world. 

“We are choosing hope over fear,” Senator Obama told a delirious crowd of 3,000 here the night he won the Iowa caucuses. 

But fear has garroted hope, as America reels from the latest humiliating blows on the economy and in Afghanistan. The politician who came across as a redeemer in 2008 is now in need of redemption himself.

...

“We just wish he’d be more of a fighter,” said one influential Democrat with a grimace. Another agreed: “You can’t blame him for everything. I just wish he would come across more forceful at times, but that is not the dude’s style. Detached hurts you when things are sour. You need some of Clinton’s ‘I feel your pain’ compassion.”

The president has been so spectacularly unable to fill the leadership void in Washington that the high-spirited Michele Bachmann feels free to purloin Obama’s old mantra. 

“The power behind our campaign is hope and a future,” she chirped to a sparse crowd Monday in Atlantic, Iowa [what do you expect in a town of 7,112 people?]. “That’s all I believe in.” That and making America safe for old-fashioned light bulbs and not those weird curly ones.

...

Obama has spent a lifetime creating his persona — superior, wise, above all parties and interests, all-seeing, calm, unflappable. 

But as Drew Westen, a liberal psychology professor at Emory University wrote in The Times on Sunday, puzzling about what has happened to his former hero’s passion, the president never identifies the villains who cause our epic problems [does he mean Obama himself?]. It’s unclear, Westen wrote, whether that reflects his aversion to conflict or a fear of offending donors, or both. 

Obama’s assumption that you can rise above ascribing villainous motives has caused him to waste huge chunks of his first term seeking bipartisanship from Republicans who were playing him for a dupe. And it has led to Americans regarding the nation’s capital as a place of all villains and no heroes.

(Emphasis added)

Granted, there are a lot of criticisms (of Obama) in that article.  In fact, I was surprised to find this apt summary (of Obama):

His withholding and reactive nature has made him seem strangely irrelevant in Washington, trapped by his own temperament. He doesn’t lead, and he doesn’t understand why we don’t feel led.

There appears to be a disconnect between what Obama says and what these liberal columnists think he says.
My hypothesis is that (some) liberals have constructed this idealized image of Obama (as a brilliant, cerebral, eloquent, post-partisan, pragmatic professor whose only imperfection is being too smart and virtuous), and that is how they see him, regardless of reality.  Similarly, they have constructed an idealized image of Republicans (as idiotic, uneducated, backwards, evil, racist, homophobic, warmongering villains who wish to eat kittens, kill elderly people, and destroy the environment and who wish to enforce their evil Christian morals on everyone and to destroy the economy (i.e. the public sector) so black people in the inner-city are unfairly forced to contribute something to society) and that is how they see them, again, regardless of reality.  That is their perception of reality, and they won't be persuaded otherwise.  And those in the media will obfuscate the facts so as to report reality so it is in accord with their perception of it.  I will say that, if my hypothesis is correct, there surely must be liberals that don't adhere to this lack of reason.  Keep in mind that that is simply a hypothesis.

In summary, methinks Maureen Dowd (and some other people) should pay attention to what the "detached, passive, unflappable" Obama says.  Because he certainly doesn't come off that way.  

*and pronouns and verbs (so they are in agreement with the pronouns)

Steam, Baby, Steam

Here is a fascinating article (h/t Instapundit) on the scientific process involved in mining oil from sand that occurs in Alberta's oil sands.  And, here is a very salient point (from that article):

Modern capitalism and the technology it engenders has lifted a significant proportion of humanity out of our natural state of abject poverty for the first time in history. 

Indeed, Alberta's oil sands stimulated the economy and caused an economic boom there.  Alberta has, by far, the highest per capita GDP of all provinces.  Its median income, as recorded by the 2006 census, was $70,986 CAD (approx. $63,900 USD in 2006, or $71,631 USD now).  According to Canadian free market think tank the Fraser Institute, Alberta trailed only Delaware and Texas in economic freedom among US States and Canadian Provinces.  

Also, the oil sands tick off environmentalists, which is always a bonus.

A subsequent article, by the same author (Ronald Bailey), describes the benefits the US would amass by importing Canadian oil:

TransCanada’s Robert Jones, who is in charge of getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved and completed, pointed out the energy security benefits to the United States of importing oil from Canada. He asked, why would the U.S. want to depend on “conflict oil” imported from countries run by unsavory regimes like those of Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia? And whose oil is dirtier? After all, producing oil sands crude in Canada already includes the costs of reclaiming the land and a whole panoply of other environmental regulations.

 The assembled Canadian oil moguls cited studies [PDF] that project the creation of as many as 600,000 jobs and a $775 billion boost to the U.S. gross national product by 2035 as a result of importing Canadian oil. 

To environmentalists concerned about disturbing boreal forest, the percentage of Canada’s total area covered by boreal forest that is disturbed for oil development is about 0.019%.  That article also describes another method of extracting oil from sand that is used for oil 350 feet below the surface, steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) and its environmental impact:

Interestingly, anti-oil sands activists who eagerly highlight photos of the vast oils sands mining pits, don’t tend to show photos of SAGD facilities. Likely this is because such pictures would not do much to scare target audiences—the footprint of SAGD operations typically occupies only 5 percent of the land from which oil is being recovered, leaving most of the forests undisturbed. 

Back to "Dirty Oil Sands," to which I linked earlier in this post, they present a number of beautiful images on their website.  Personally, I have always been awestruck by massive industrial structures and works.  

I Love Sweden

About seven days, two hours, and forty minutes ago, I wrote a post about Norway.  Entitled "What is Wrong With Norway?," I quoted a description of Norway's economic model, called the Nordic Model, from Wikipedia:

This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilizing the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.

When I wrote that post, I said this:

I must say that I am disappointed in some of the information I am learning, as I have always been quite fond of Scandinavia...

Since then, I have learned a bit more about Scandinavia (and other Nordic nations).  And this time, I am not disappointed in the least.  Watch the following video.  Not only does it explain my new-found love for Sweden, but it also explains the benefit of a free-market economy. 

(h/t to GayPatriot reader ILoveCapitalism)

That video contains the URL of a CATO Institute policy analysis.  How can you not love a country whose economic model is praised (loosely speaking) by the CATO Institute?

Notwithstanding problems associated with a large welfare state, there is much to applaud in Nordic nations. They have open markets, low levels of regulation, strong property rights, stable currencies, and many other policies associated with growth and prosperity. Indeed, Nordic nations generally rank among the world's most market-oriented nations. 

Nordic nations also have implemented some pro-market reforms. Every Nordic nation has a lower corporate tax rate than the United States, for example, and most of them have low-rate flat tax systems for capital income. Iceland even has a flat tax for labor income. And both Iceland and Sweden have partially privatized their social security retirement systems. 

The Nordic nations offer valuable lessons for policymakers, but they do not fit the traditional stereotype. Conservative critics correctly condemn the large welfare states, but often overlook the positive results generated by laissez-faire policies in other areas. Liberals, meanwhile, exaggerate the economic performance of Nordic nations in an effort to justify welfare-state policies, while failing to acknowledge the role of free market policies in other areas.

Here is a link to the CATO Institute's policy analysis.  What follows are some excerpts from that analysis:

Before drawing conclusions about the desirability of the Nordic model, however, it is important to answer three relevant questions: 

1. Why are Nordic nations relatively rich?
2. Has the welfare state has helped or hindered these countries’ economic performance?
3. Does the Nordic Model create more prosperity than the (relatively speaking) limited-government model in the United States?

The answer to all of those questions is that Nordic nations are reasonably successful in spite of the welfare state. Nordic countries benefit from institutions—such as property rights, stable currencies, and the rule of law—that facilitate economic growth. And although they have large welfare states and concomitantly high levels of taxation, their economic systems in other respects are very market-oriented. Combined with the fact that before the mid-1960s the burden of government in Nordic nations was modest, these factors help explain why those countries today are relatively prosperous.

 ...

The two main ways of comparing economic performance are rate of growth and level of output. One measures how fast gross domestic product (or some similar measure of economic output) is expanding. The other compares the absolute level of economic output (or some similar measure of prosperity). By both measures, the Nordic nations generally do not fare well when compared to the United States. ... According to the OECD, the U.S. grew by an average of 3 percent between 1981 and 1991and 3.3 percent between 1992 and 2006 (mean-ing average growth of 3.2 percent for 1981 to2006). The Nordic nations, by contrast, grew by an average of 2.2 percent between 1981 and 1991 and 2.7 percent from 1992 to 2006 (meaning average growth of 2.5 percent over the entire period). The IMF, meanwhile,reports that U.S. growth averaged 3.1 percentfrom 1981–2006 compared to an average of 2.6percent for Nordic nations in the same period.

... 

...the tax burden in Nordic nations and America was remarkably similar until 1960. Not coincidentally, it was during this pre-1960 era that Nordic nations grew rapidly and became rich.  

Beginning in the mid-1960s, and accelerating through the 1970s and into the 1980s, however, the Nordic nations created large welfare states. Indeed, this is the key difference between America and the Nordic nations. The United States has a medium-sized welfare state and the Nordic nations have large welfare states. Otherwise, America and the Nordic nations have many features in common. Both the Nordic nations and America have sound institutions, including stable currencies, rule of law, and property rights. Both the Nordic nations and America have relatively open markets. Indeed, if the “size of government” factor is removed from the Economic Freedom of the World indicators, Nordic nations score an average of 8.35, ranking above the 8.25 score for the United States.

...

The Nordic nations also have excellent reputations for honest government. According to Transparency International, the five Nordic nations rank among the eight least corrupt nations in the world, with Finland and Iceland tied for first place. The United States also does well, with a ranking of 20 out of 163 nations, but the higher scores for the squeaky-clean Nordic nations presumably help offset the larger burden of government.

The Nordic nations also deserve attention for important reforms. Iceland, for instance, has a flat tax (albeit with a 36 percent rate), personal retirement accounts, and quasi-privatized fisheries. Sweden, meanwhile, has an extensive school choice system and personal retirement accounts.

... 

Before the 1960s, Nordic nations had modest levels of taxation and spending. They also enjoyed—and still enjoy—laissez-faire policies and open markets in other areas. These are the policies that enabled Nordic nations to prosper for much of the 20th century. Once their countries became rich, politicians in Nordic nations focused on how to redistribute the wealth that was generated by private-sector activity. This sequence is important. Nordic nations became rich, and then government expanded. This expansion of government has slowed growth, but slow growth for a rich nation is much less of a burden than slow growth in a poor nation.

What I take from this is that the Nordic nations can learn from the United States.  Based on that video, it seems Sweden is slowly returning to its pre-1960 model.  Because I have ancestors from Sweden, I feel a closeness to it.  This is very welcome information indeed.  

It is important to note that that CATO Institute analysis is from 2007, before the worldwide economic crisis.  The Nordic nation of Iceland has since undergone a major financial crisis, and so any reference to Iceland may not be reliable.  I think an analysis of Iceland's current economic situation is required to ascertain exactly how Iceland fits into all of this.  To my knowledge, the other Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) were relatively unaffected by that worldwide crisis.

Rhetoric, Fear and REAL Hope and Change

I can't get past Obama's rhetoric.  Many, many other people have pointed out what a hypocrite Obama is.  He promised post-partisanship, but it seems like every speech he makes contains some sort of vilification of Republicans (not to mention "millionaires and billionaires," and my personal favorite, "corporate jet owners").  Obama might have his rhetoric and the obsequious media to rely upon, but the reality of reality should hopefully be enough to evict Obama from the White House.  Obama's and the media's rhetoric cannot be enough to obfuscate the facts (low unemployment, high inflation, et cetera) when so many people are well aware of them, and since they are having such a profound effect on peoples' lives.

Any prosperity loving citizen of a Western nation should support the Tea Party Movement, given how inextricably linked the US's economy is to that of the rest of the world.  I really hope Americans nominate the right Republican to challenge Obama.  I do not believe a RINO like Mitt Romney would be able to effectively curtail government spending, and everyone in the Western world should be paying close attention.  It is too early to determine who the right candidate is, in my opinion, however.  At this point, I would probably support Herman Cain.  I think someone with leadership experience in the private sector may be the perfect person to deal with what the next president will inherit from Obama.  Yes, it would be a risk to elect an outsider, but, at this point, it would be a risk that is well worth taking.  Having said that, I would not support Herman Cain completely at this point.  It is too early.  And, if either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio enters the running, well, they are just too damn good not to support.  But that doesn't look like it will happen.

I am a concerned Canadian.  I am also a university student with a very tight budget.  I don't need a stagnant economy to make things more difficult than they will already be.  I don't have nearly as much at stake as most Americans, but the prospect of another Obama presidency, which will almost inevitably lead to an economic crisis the likes of which Americans haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression (if my amateur reasoning can be relied upon), and hence one the likes of which Westerners haven't seen possibly since the Great Depression, frightens me.

UPDATE: After re-reading this, I realized the last sentence didn't make any sense, so I fixed it.

The Green (and Red) Economy

An electric car company, based in Salinas, California, is the latest example of a "green" company that cannot sustain itself, even with the assistance of the taxpayers.  Here is an excerpt from an excellent article at Forbes  (and thanks to Vicki at Frugal Café for citing that article):

...in the name of environmental activism, and most particularly global warming, government is squandering billions of dollars each year giving taxpayer money to companies that have no hope of producing a marketable product. Companies like Green Vehicles pocket the money and then go bankrupt. Other companies, like wind and solar power companies, perpetually maintain their station at the government pork trough, yet never produce products at a remotely competitive price. As a result, money that could have and would have been invested in goods and services that actually improve people’s lives is instead flushed down the big green toilet.

There is nothing I need to say that isn't said in that article.

The Anger of the Green Party is Proportional to my Happiness

The government of Canada is cutting funding to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by 43.1%, shortly after a 6.9% cut.  Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party, is outraged:

Harper’s Throne Speech in June committed to improving the environmental assessment process, and instead he is driving a stake into its heart, it makes absolutely no sense to be giving $1.4 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry while allotting a measly $17 million to CEAA. In what way is that protecting our environment? 

I disagree with subsidies to oil companies, but this is good news to me.  Anything that infuriates Elizabeth May makes me happy (in general). 

The priorities of the Harper government are obviously not in line with those of Canadians.

Really?

A poll released this week found 45 per cent of surveyed Canadians said the federal government should make health care — a topic the government and federal politicians are often shy to talk about — a priority in next week's budget.  That's compared to 35 per cent who chose the economy, and 15 per cent who picked the environment.

Emphasis added.
In a throne speech, Harper stated:

“Our Government is committed to developing Canada's extraordinary resource wealth in a way that protects the environment. It will support major new clean energy projects of national or regional significance, such as the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectricity project in Atlantic Canada. It will engage the provinces, territories and industry on ways to improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects, while ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities, including Aboriginal communities.”

Perhaps eliminating excess spending on this environmental agency is what Harper meant when he said the government will “improve the regulatory and environmental assessment process for resource projects.”

I direct you to Bjørn Lomborg, whose views are similar to mine:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

 I don't agree with him about spending money on fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and water, but with everything else I agree.

The radical environmental movement is largely based upon emotion and fear rather than rational analysis.  Protecting the environment should be a priority, but it should be done within reasonability.  The Earth belongs to humans, and it is ours to exploit for our own personal gain.  But we have to keep in mind that protecting the environment is also in our best interest.  We just can’t let emotion dictate how we approach environmental protection.

Industrial activity does not equal environmental destruction.  Industrial sites can be reclaimed. In addition, the environmental friendliness of industrial practices has drastically improved in recent decades.  The role environmental regulations has played in that should not be ignored, but, in my opinion, the reach of environmental regulations is overkill.  It just doesn’t make sense to impede business with regulations, especially regulations that have questionable efficacy.  In some cases, environmentally friendly business practices are good for business.  For example, environmentally friendly products are ubiquitous and the efficient use of energy saves money.  

This brings me back to the original topic of this post, the federal government’s cut on the funding for the CEAA.  In addition to the obvious advantage (decrease in government is (generally) always good), I applaud this move for the reasons above.  That Elizabeth May and the Green Party are angry is always a bonus.  

Crisis in Greece

The various debt crises in Europe started in 2008 because of the worldwide late 2000's financial crisis.  Greece has suffered the worst economic crisis.

In 1974, when Greece established democracy after the right-wing military junta fell, the government began running large deficits so it could finance public sector jobs and social services in an attempt to mainstream its left-of-centre population.  Because of widespread tax evasion, corruption, and inefficient bureaucracy, Greece has had to rely upon borrowing to sustain its spending.  In recent years, the cost of borrowing has increased dramatically (because of the debt), so Greece entered an economic crisis and it could no longer sustain its level of spending.  This led to the enacting of severe austerity measures.

The citizens of Greece have been protesting these austerity measures, which has resulted in riots.  My question is, what do they want to happen?  There is no other realistic alternative to these austerity measures (at least, none that I am aware of), so why are they protesting?

The crisis in Greece presents a problem to the entire Eurozone because of how interconnected the economies of each of its member states are.  Measures designed to stabilize the Eurozone have been enacted by many other Eurozone members, most notably Germany.  In 2010, Germany made a multi-million euro payment to Greece and other financially unstable nations.  The constitutionality of the bailout is currently being contested in Germany.

The European nations of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and Iceland have also suffered economic crises.

Cut, Cap and Balance

Conservatives in the house have proposed a plan called “Cut, Cap and Balance” that would consist of “substantial spending cuts, ...a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.” 

Senators McConnell (R-KY) and Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have proposed a plan that the conservatives who have proposed the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” have deemed the “Cut, Run, and Hide Plan.”

This plan consists of a debt ceiling increase of $2.5 trillion “without any guaranteed spending cuts or reforms.” 

According to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), the real problem isn’t the debt ceiling, it is the debt.  If the disaster is to be averted, then whatever plan is adopted must have a realistic, long-term solution to the debt problem. 

In my opinion, the only real solution would be harsh budget cuts.  Because of President Obama, the US has immense debt and the best solution would be to cut spending harshly, which would stimulate the economy, which would provide government revenue.  

Marco Rubio's Wisdom

On CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says this on the debt problem:

Well, certainly the debt limit is an issue but I think the bigger issue here is the debt and I think what troubles me, Bob, is that no one is focusing on the real problem here. The real-- the real problem here is not the debt limit, the real problem here is the debt and a lack of a credible plan to deal with the debt. And it’s not me saying, it is the rating houses are saying it. If you read the S&P report, they made it very clear that simply raising the debt limit is not enough it needs to be accompanied by some serious effort to credibly deal with the American’s debt problem. And if that is not what we do we’re going to have a big problem, perhaps bigger than anything the administration has been talking about.  

...I think everybody in Washington would like to see more revenues. The question is number one how do you get more revenues? And number two, what do you do with it? I think more revenue should come from economic growth. And I think it should come from that because I think it’s impossible for it to come from tax increases. None of the tax increases the President is proposing solves the problem. They don’t raise enough money. In fact, they make it worse. They kill jobs. And by the way, I don’t trust Washington, because they have shown time and again that any time they get their hands on more money, they don’t use it to pay or avoid debt, they use it to grow the government. So, that’s what I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of-- of more revenue that comes from economic growth, the creation of new jobs. And if you talk to job creators, not politicians, not presidents, you talk to job creators, they will tell you that what they are looking for is a fair and simpler tax code, so I do support tax reform and I think there is a lot of support for tax reform in Washington. And they are looking for some regulatory reform as well because they think these regulations that are being imposed make America a more unfriendly place to do business.

And this on entitlements:

I come from a state that has a massive number of retirees and I’ve stood before cameras like this and made it very clear that if we don’t do something to save Medicare and Social Security they will bankrupt themselves and bankrupt our country. That those-- those programs are unsustainable as they are currently structured, that we are going to lose those programs unless we do something to deal with it. I did that during the campaign and everybody told me I’d lost my mind in terms of talking about these issues. So I think as far as I am concerned and many like me, we have stepped up and talked about some of these issues that face America. I mean, senator, I’m sorry, Representative Ryan, Congressman Ryan has played a terrible political price early on this year for even offering a potential solution to some of these problems. 

...we don’t have to do anything for current beneficiaries, people like my mom or people near retirement. I do think we have to look at the retirement age. I do pe-- do think that people like me, I’m forty, just turn forty a month ago, people like me have to accept the fact that there will not be a Social Security for us, unless we are willing to retire a little bit later. That’s-- that’s-- and people in my generation are going to have to accept that. And I am open to other people’s suggestions. Absolutely, I’m open to people’s suggestions, because I want to save Social Security and I want to save Medicare. As far as our solutions are concerned to the overall problem I think a credible solution to our debt problem has to have two components. It has to have budgetary reforms, in essence a de-- decrease in spending, of at least four trillion dollars or more and it has to come with some sort of growth enhancers, something that helps grow our economy. You cannot get yourself out of this debt problem at nine percent unemployment with over twenty-four million Americans either unemployed or underemployed.

This Isn't Bush's Fault

Whatever the results of the debt talks in  the United States are, and whatever happens to the US economy as a result of its debt, it is important to remember that it was President Obama and his stimulus that are what got the US in this situation.  Sure, this economic crisis started while George W. Bush was president, but it was Obama's stimulus that caused the US's current debt problem.  He failed to deal with the economic situation, and, if the US does default, and even if it does so because Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, Obama is ultimately responsible.

Furthermore, since it is Obama's fault that the US is in this situation, I will say that is it Obama who has the responsibility to compromise.

I hope people can see through Obama's rhetoric and fear mongering:

 Let's "set politics aside" and "do some tough stuff," Obama told reporters at a White House news conference. But "if Washington operates as usual and can't get anything done, let's at least avert [uh] Armageddon."

If Obama is so hell bent on averting "Armageddon," then why doesn't he listen to Republicans?  Surely he recognizes the roll he played in the US's debt problem, so, if he's reasonable, he will do what is necessary to prevent "Armageddon."  In addition, he could have raised the debt ceiling when Democrats controlled congress.  Like I said, it Obama's responsibility to compromise here.  He caused the problem, he failed to act when he could have, and he is the one claiming how terrible things will be when the US defaults.

I hope the Republicans don't compromise and demonstrate that they actually have metaphorical spines.

A Thought on Taxes

If you use the justification that businesses are making good profits to raise taxes on businesses, what will they cut from their budget to pay for the new taxes?  Since the purpose of a business is to make profit, I would guess that the business would cut from the budget whatever would have the lowest impact on their profit.  I highly doubt that they would take that money that they need to pay for the new tax directly out of the profit.  And I highly doubt that that business's executives would cut their own salaries. They might lay off some employees instead.  Who knows, I do not have experience in business, so I could be way off.  However, it goes against my reasoning that any taxes on business would be a good idea.

A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma

The fact that President Obama failed to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity and is now saying how vital it is to do so is confusing.  My hypothesis is either he was expecting the Democrats to keep control of the house in 2010, or that he didn’t think that he would ever have to raise the debt ceiling because he thought his stimulus would have worked and that the revenue the government would have gained because of that would have allowed them to reduce the debt.  Or, maybe Obama has some sort of ulterior motive, or maybe he is just clueless.  

What is even more confusing is Obama's attitude:

When Democrats were in power, they ran up the tab, acting as if they [sic] would never be no consequences to their spendthrift policies.  And now they’ve left the Republicans to clean up the mess they left behind and is now faulting them for not doing it the way the Democrats (claim they) would have done it when they had the chance.  They had the chance but didn’t take it.

Is it just me, or is Obama really, really confusing?  Maybe, in order to understand him, you need to let go of any sense of reason.  Kind of like analyzing abstract art.

Debt Talks Continue

The negotiations between the Republicans and the Democrats have resumed.

 House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said afterward that Democrats are "still hopeful for a large bipartisan agreement," one that will do "no harm to the middle class or to economic growth (and) protect Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries."

Is Nancy Pelosi supporting Paul Ryan's proposed budget?

"What is really appalling is to see our Republican colleagues essentially providing a form of extortion -- if you don't agree to deficit reduction the way we want it, we'll put all the jobs at risk, because we will allow the United States to default on its debt," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, on the CNN show "State of the Union." "That's irresponsible."

Wait... what?  The Democrats have been putting jobs at risk since they gained power.  But, I guess it wasn't irresponsible of them because they're Democrats. 


My question is which scenario is more desirable:  the United States defaulting on its debt now, and all the repercussions; or having this economic crisis dragged out indefinitely.  Look how the Democrats have handled the economy thus far.  Their leftist economic policies have failed.  However, the Republicans may have a way to avoid both scenarios.  The leftist approach has proven not to work, so why not try something that has proven to work in the past (see Reaganomics)?  To me, to allow the Democrats to enact their proposals is what is irresponsible.