A Cheap Loonie

A common Canadian misconception states that a low valued loonie is good for domestic business. The logic is simple to follow. Since our biggest trading partner is the States having a dollar worth less than theirs encourages them to buy goods from us due to their increased purchasing power — which is good for the expansion of Canadian business interests. Our competitive edge is our cheap dollar interpreted as beneficial to the manufacturing based export industry and politically we have tried to keep our dollar worth less to appease these manufacturing interests.

But this logic is faulty in a couple of ways. First manufacturing industries are now globally competitive. For instance our cheap labor advantage has been completely negated by countries like China who manufacture their goods much cheaper according to the worth of their dollar comparative to Canada’s.

Instead Canada’s competitive edge lies in our technological capabilities and a low valued dollar inhibits Canada’s ability to purchase technology abroad. The best way to negate the advantage of cheap labor is with better technology. Picture eight men pulling a cart filled with 100 bottles of milk compared a single driver transporting 2000 bottles via gas powered van. Sure you got to pay the driver 10 times the wage of the cart puller plus owing $30,000 for a van, but the ability to distribute 20 fold the product more than makes up for the initial capital investment. Canada needs a strong dollar to buy better technological capabilities abroad.

These technologies are usually developed in free counties with strong dollars—United States and Britain—and with a low valued dollar it is increasingly hard to purchase needed technologies so Canadians can compete against cheap labor pools. So in a sense instead of buying a van to deliver the milk Canada has chosen to hire more cart pullers forgoing the chance to be a nation of engineers, scientists, artists and doctors for the servitude of being a wage earning mule.

The worst aspect of this tragic logic is the fact our dollar naturally wants to climb—see dollar climbing 15 cents in the last 18 months. Being a resource nation, oil, gas diamonds, electricity, fish… with an unlimited ceiling, investors are frantically buying Canadian dollars which drives up the dollar’s worth on international markets (no matter how much inflation liberals have tried to create with massive amounts of spending). Instead we should be encouraging this climb and reaping the rewards of the increased purchasing power that a higher dollar provides.

The Wheat Board... ahh socialism

Harper finally announced that if the Conservatives win power than they will make participation in the Wheat Board voluntary. About time! This archaic policy dictates that farmers are forced to sell their individually produced harvests to the government for a set price regardless of their preferences. This “progressive” policy invalidates the farmers right to freedom and self determination by confiscating the rewards of his labor and then determining their worth. Farmers that have refused to sell their grains to the government and instead chosen to do their own negotiating have been arrested by federal government. In a free country men that produce noble bounties of sustenance through the virtues of hard work and intelligence are not imprisoned for negotiating a price for them.

Besides the moral and philosophical reasons to end the coercive Wheat Board there are also practical economic reasons to end the monopoly. Funding any bureaucratic administration is expensive. Government employees are well paid have generous benefits and little is expected of them so there tends to be a lot of them doing very little. This is cost is burdened by the farmers. The government offered price for harvests will always have to factor in these costs. With these mandated inflated expenses take into consideration that the government has little incentive to search out new markets or expand current ones as their salaries are guaranteed by the public which would be the exact opposite of competing private marketing firms.

Wheat is not just wheat. There is high quality wheat that is used for breads and such and then there are low quality wheat that can only be used as cattle feed. In a free market the higher the quality of the wheat the higher the price it will fetch. Since the government sells the wheat collectively-- for instance to Sudan-- there is little incentive to grow the highest quality grains as the price the farmer receives is not determined by his own particular crop but rather the average of all the crops. So if there are locusts down south and drought out west should you waste your money and time digging an irrigation canal to improve your own harvest? If everyone else is having a poor year why struggle to produce the highest quality of grain when there is no reward for doing so?. There is absolutely no incentive left to produce a better quality crop. Should you invest the time to research a new technology that makes crop resistant to drought when your crops will valued according to your neighbors? No because you will receive the set rate. A set collective rate for all crops penalizes the virtue of diligence, hard work and innovation and rewards the vices of apathy and laziness.

This is also a government that doles out subsidy based on losses. Picture a bunch of farmers consistently trying to demonstrate their farming misfortunes instead of improving their product. It easier to con the government than it is to grow top quality crops in a competitive market.

And perhaps the worst intentionally orchestrated result of this communist program is its discouragement of secondary industry. The Wheat Board is a subsidy to the raw export of grains. An artificial value is added to the export of grain to the government which discourages the development of the grain locally. Where is the thriving food processing industry that should be present in Saskatchewan? There isn’t one because grain can’t be easily purchased by private companies. Rather the farmer is forced to sell his grain to the government and then the government decides where and whom they wheat will be sold. This is why there is a more food processing in Ontario than in Saskatchewan. In a government controlled market the local mill’s advantage of proximity to agricultural markets (proximity ensures any competent businessman can produce milled grain cheaper then the Ontario mill as he will have to factor in export costs) is nullified by government policy. Saskatchewan and Manitoba should both have thriving economies based on their access to agricultural markets and because of interventionist Government policy they do not.

Who's right on Gay Marriage?

Say the words gay marriage and everybody has an opinion. Liberals and dippers see it is a human rights issue and conservatives model it as democratic problem. But in truth both are wrong as gay marriage, as usual, has been miscategorized by both sides of the political elite.

Liberals claim that the gay marriage is a question of human rights-- that denying gay people access to a sanctioned marriage is in effect denying them their rights to exist as free entities. This is wrong. For being gay to be synonymous with a lack of fundamental rights then there would have to be examples of state coercion against their basic freedoms of which there is not . Gay people are free to associate with, how and who they want and they state is powerless to say otherwise. Gay people are free to live and work and learn where they want without interference. Gay people are free from being censored in this country. They are free to speak, publish, debate and express what they want in this country. Granting marriage to the gay community is not an issue of the limitation of the basic fundamental rights of homosexuals is any way.

Conservatives on the other hand see gay marriage as a democratic issue which is equally naïve. They believe that there should be debate and then a vote held-- whether the vote is held in the House of Commons or it is a national referendum is unimportant. More importantly though just as the individual’s right to his basic freedoms-- association, movement and expression-- should never be limited by the arbitrary whims of government neither should they be limited by the arbitrary whims of the majority. For example if vegetarians constituted the majority-- something which may happen someday-- should they have the right to make meat consumption illegal? Should an underachieving majority have the right confiscate the earned wealth of their most virtuous producers-- see socialism. No to both of these things. The doctrine of individual rights declares that man should be equally free from the arbitrary coercion of government and the public alike.

Now the Liberals are close when they recognize gay marriage as a rights issue, but wrong when they think it is a gay right’s issue. Traditionally marriage is a privilege that is bestowed by the church and the church has the right to grant or deny that privilege to whomever they want. Complicating the issue is the state‘s involvement in a religious or social issue. But the state is only acknowledging the religious foundation not determining it. When they state seeks to alter the definition they are in fact violating the church’s fundamental right to be free and self determining. The state has no legal right to the definition of marriage and any attempt to control or coerce the definition from the church is statist and immoral. Gay marriage is in fact a human right’s issue for the religious community.

The government should recognize gay unions on equal status as married couple (personally I believe there should be no state sponsored advantage to either, but since there is it should equal). Gay communities should be free to call the union whatever they want and essentially marriage would be open to them if the church granted them the right to use the term “marriage” but until that time there should be no such thing as gay marriage.

As a child that my father always told me that if you see a large crowd of people moving one way then it is probably best to start moving in the other direction.

NDP Platform

Last week I supported the NDP for starting to separate themselves from organized labor in BC. The decision to not support union block voting is a chance to start the party in a new direction I thought. Then Buzz Hargrove climbs into bed with Paul Martin which got me thinking about the party and its direction. Previously NDP’ers have been known for their unabashed support for socialism and over regulation. Since socialism has been proven to be rampant with corruption and is known to be an economic failure demonstrated by immeasurable amounts of historical evidence it may be the party’s chance to break its ties with the economic aspects with which they are identified and begin somewhat anew.

My NDP platform.

As they already are they should be against all corporate welfare. No more taxpayer funding to Bombardier, Air Canada or Nortel. Corporate welfare is counterproductive to efficiency and expansion. It is also unfair to competing private citizens when one business is backed by the government. It is also morally wrong to steal the earned wealth of private citizens to support unproductive businesses.

The NDP should cease to support labor union activities .Unions are counterproductive to productivity, and overall lower the average citizen’s standard of living. They also add to unemployment. Block voting is antagonistic to freedom and is a democratic flaw that should be absolved and the NDP should strive do this.

The NDP should be against excessive and arbitrary licensing. There is no reason is why a Vietnamese beautician should be legally forced out of the trade because she doesn’t have the financial holdings to acquire an arbitrary license to give manicures. These policies are racist, in the sense that lots of licensed industries are filled with new immigrants, and meant to protect the competitive market for the already established businesses—cab drivers, estheticians and truck drivers. Licenses can easily be replaced with certification which is much cheaper and still allows the government to track business.

In breaking all ties with business they should go even further and become a watch dog for illegitimate relationships between the Government and private business. For example they should investigate Powercorp. and the Mo Strong syndicate. They should investigate Paul Martin and Shipping companies and even Chreitien and Shawinigate.

The NDP should be against all deficit spending as that is a financial burden passed on to the next generation. 35% percent of all collected tax revenues are used to pay the interest on our enormous debt. This is in no way compassionate or benevolent and they NDP in their mantra of protecting people should be against all debt accumulation. Imagine the improvement that could be made to healthcare with an extra 30 percent in collected revenues.

The money saved, which would be an enormous amount, could then be diverted to the provide universal access to social programs like healthcare and education. Platforms could focus on regimented adoption of strict environmental standards. The protection of clean water and wildlife habitat are supported by a wide range of the voting public. A voucher method for education and healthcare would give Dippers economic credibility like they have never had before with maintaining universal access at much higher standards than is seen anywhere else in the world.

The Role of Government

Governments cannot make men smarter, more loving, more industrious, more caring or even better citizens. Governments only power is negative-- in the sense that it can only prevent and coerce. For example Government can steal wealth form productive resources but it cannot make unproductive businesses productive. Government can regulate artists through censorship (the CRTC and the attempted banning of 50 cent) but it cannot make artists better. Governments power rest with its monopoly on the use of force in society-- a necessity-- but forces only power is to destroy and not create.

An institution that only wields negative powers should never be involved in artistic, intellectual or moral matters. These fields of human endeavor are based on the positive-- the power of creation. Creation requires a free mind. A coerced mind is unable to create and is bound for stagnation. A free rational mind is unlimited in its potential.

Governments proper function is to protect freedom so that the mind is free to think, make value choices and produce.

The Nationalization of Daycare is an example of this. The conservatives want a tax break-- should also have income splitting-- that would allow parents to "choose" how to raise their children while LIberals want to nationalize daycare which through further limitation of parents income-- even higher taxes-- would coerce both parents into working and by default force their kids into the Government daycare.

The Mixed economy and Air Canada

Air Canada has always got my blood boiling and here is a longer post detailing what it means to subsidizes business with coorporate welfare. The NDP should be all over this type of stuff, but they only get upset when businesses are successfull???

Thanks to the lawful court of Canada and their “bankruptcy protection”, the good folks at Ace Aviation Holding were free to take over the failing airline, while wiping out seventy-five per cent of the company’s debt. Business owners everywhere should be thankful that our benevolent government provides such a thing as bankruptcy protection. Oh wait, there is not? There is only something known as “bankruptcy protection” when your board members have political ties you say!

Whenever Air Canada finds itself in financial trouble based on poor decisions and mismanagement, it’s consistently bailed out with favorable legislation, including bankruptcy protection, guaranteed loans, and tax breaks. These breaks come at the expense of smaller, successful companies that make wise and responsible business decisions, but don’t have board members with strong political ties -- companies such as WestJet and Jetsgo. These productive, responsible companies are penalized for the very virtues that made them successful for the sole purpose of paying for the failings of “nationally supported” and “well connected” companies. What standard of fairness is this type of principal based upon? How are these principals of fairness arrived at?

Furthering the corruption is the statist and mixed economy advocate’s (liberal) favorite viewpoint, which uses the insulting argument which describes Air Canada as culturally essential, that there is danger of losing our identity without a national airline. Dubiously implying that Canadians would rather pay twice the amount for a plane ticket to Hamilton as long as the wings are red and the pilot is bilingual. Then, once we’ve been exposed as vacuous and culturally lacking by our benevolent government, we’re treated to the next altruistic message: protection for the workers! They fear monger, claiming that thousands of jobs would be lost forever if Air Canada went out of business, forsaking the facts of competition and reality, in favor of a system dishonesty and immorality.

Let us examine a mixed economy more closely with the dichotomy of West Jet and Air Canada in order to reveal whom policies of altruism favor. The article will do so through the asking of one crucial question: of benefit to whom?
For decades, Air Canada’s favorite competition strategy has been hiring high priced lobbyists to work in Ottawa, for the sole purpose of gaining favorable legislation. How else is it that a company’s outstanding debt gets reduced from twelve billion dollars to 2.8 billion dollars if not for favorable legislation? Favorable legislation is achieved through hiring corrupt attorneys and lobbyists to influence, or more astutely pay off even more corrupt bureaucrats, government officials and politicians. This allows Air Canada to do things like default on creditors, which means you and I, to the tune of nine billion dollars. Compare this to the fact that smaller companies cannot afford to divert millions of dollars for the unproductive purpose of hiring Ottawa lawyers and politicians. Their money is spent on increasing capital, the amount of workers they can afford to hire, and furthering their research and development. An increase in productivity is the sole method of expansion for the small airline. This means achieving more with less. So when the government is allowed to pass legislation granting special rights for some companies at the expense of others under the banner of “for the greater good”, we ask ourselves for “the benefit of whom”? To the benefit of the self made pilots and entrepreneurs that first started, and organize West Jet and Jetsco, that started their companies with their own wealth or to the benefit of the lazy, unproductive managers, corrupt lawyers and bought lobbyist of Air Canada? To the benefit of the taxpayers and investors, which are being paid back ten cents on the dollar owing on Air Canada’s outstanding loans. Loans I am sure at some point were guaranteed. Allowing Government to control competition with the monopolistic use of legislation is morally wrong. A company’s fate shouldn’t be dependent on the arbitrary whim of bureaucrats and politicians. Government interference into the market paves the way for a system that redistributes wealth into the hands of the most corrupt instead of to the most productive, stagnating an entire industry’s growth, and eventually an entire country’s.

What types of business man is attracted to such a system of competition, where his success is dependent on achieving favors instead of increasing production based on his industry knowledge and experience? Possibly, the type of manager that has no way or interest in increasing production or advancing an industry’s technology, but is attracted to free “easy” government money. This type of manager stays in business for three to five years, collecting a generous taxpayer subsidized income at the expense of his “self made” competition and the taxpayer. Eventually this type of business man files for bankruptcy, claiming capitalism too ruthless (a complete misrepresentation of capitalism), then moving onto a new subsidized (statist) industry, and paving the line for the next wave of corruption to begin again, with an even fatter bank account, to buy more lobbyists. Once again we ask ourselves: fair to whom?

The end result of a stagnant, unproductive government protected company without the threat of competition is higher prices for fewer services, which are ultimately passed onto the unsubsidized public for a second time. It is no coincidence, or feat of luck why West Jet and Jetsco flights are cheaper than Air Canada flights, no matter what leftists try to tell you. West Jet and Jetsco are better organized, more efficient and productive than Air Canada, and yet they are penalized for these very virtues in the name of altruism.

The final cliché of altruism is based on the idea that Air Canada has to have “bankruptcy protection” for the benefit of the thousands of workers, whose livelihoods depend on the airline. This is only true for the droves of lawyers and lobbyists, and obsolete management that depend on Air Canada for “illegal” paychecks. Whenever any company goes into actual bankruptcy, the first thing a court does is appoint managers to run the company and recover as many assets as possible, in order to meet as much debt obligation as possible. Even if Air Canada ceased to exist as separate identity, its facilities, planes, manufacturers and workers would be contracted out to smaller companies left competing to fill the void left by Air Canada. And at the very worst, another company buys all of Air Canada’a assets at ten cents on the dollar and begins anew. Not too worry, mechanics, pilots, baggage handlers, traffic controllers, and stewardesses are skilled workers that are not easily replaced and thus will be in high demand from whichever company would replace Air Canada and take over its airports, warehouses, repair and manufacturing facilities. Government would have you believe that they create jobs, but in truth it is people that create jobs, more specifically: entrepreneurs create jobs, through their own means of increased production and expansion. West Jet’s expansion comes at the expense of nobody but the entrepreneurs and investors who were willing to invest, unlike government sponsored expansion, which comes at the expense of everyone but the company doing the expanding.

A system based on and decided by the arbitrary whims of individual bureaucrats instead of the objective laws of capitalism succeeds only in creating an internalized war between lobby groups, each looking to succeed at the expense of another person’s production: the taxpayer and businessman. A system that provides welfare to certain companies at the expense of the others, is a system that punishes the productive, the ambitious, and general public and rewards the corrupt, inefficient, lazy, and well connected. Fair to whom?

Dear-- the once anonymous-- Joe Green

Dear Joe Green

I view man as naturally happy, sympathetic, curious, productive and innovative creature that seeks to improve and sustain the quality of his or her life.

You believe that man is a poor, greedy, sinning, easily manipulated, power hungry, violent and corrupted creature that cannot be given any freedom for fear of instant evil.

You view God as a wicked, punishing deity that seeks slavery and oppression from people.
I believe God would marvel at man using his highest mental capabilities to discern between competing values, especially when they are liberty and slavery.

Your feelings, just as mine are, a product of the rational premises that govern your mind. Since you view all men as cunning and wicked it is of no great surprise you view the world as unpredictable and scary and that you call for men to oppressed and forever humble.

Since I view man as a curious and cooperative creature it is also of little surprise that I view the world as one filled opportunity and excitement. That since the world is free I am consequently free to associates with who I want to-- to marry who I want, to be friends with those I respect and admire. I am free to voluntarily corporate with who I want-- to pursue endeavors with whomever I choose whether on an entrepreneurial level or contractual.

If a tree’s trunk is rotten it branches will slowly become sicker and paler as life is choked off from the roots. It is in this sense that there is no sense arguing about the branches. The trunk is needs to be chopped down. Your small idiocies are impossible to continually sort out and since you your trunk or intellectual foundation is rotten with evil premises you will continually perpetuate the same conceptual fallacies about ethics, politics and most certainly aesthetics. It is with this I will no longer be answering your vengeful and lusting personal attacks. You have failed to communicate even one rational thought to the conversation and everybody will be free to judge the values you hold and thus represent.

Liberal Debate Strategy

Earlier this week on CTV I watched a slap fight break out Anne Mclellan and Pete Mackay surrounding the conservative announcement of endorsing the creation of an independent office of the director of public prosecutions. An appointed non-government and non partisan prosecutor that has the ability to prosecute the government without the threat of retaliatory coercion.

In light of recent developments in the Canadian government-- the sense of entitlement, rampant pork barreling, corruption and coercion-- the idea is certainly worthy of intellectual consideration. Rational debate is unheralded in Liberal academia. For example X is an intelligent idea as it provides another check on executive and legislative powers or X is an awful plan because the role is doomed to be political in this divisive country and then government will be at the arbitrary gun point of an ideologue, and then Peter could rebuttal…. This would be intelligent debate, but instead there was Anne’s response. “Peter this sounds like an all out attack on the integrity of the RCMP.” Over and over again all we got was the desperate attempt to invoke emotionalism in to the argument. “Peter I can’t believes you would accuse the fine members of the RCMP of overt corruption and lack of integrity.” She refused to debate the idea and appealed for emotion. Anne is smart enough to know that this is incredibly shallow and manipulative. Peter responded several times and further tried to exasperate on the intended consequences of the idea and she refused to accept anything continually retorting about the Conservative hatred for the RCMP. It sickened me to think of a respected member of Canadian government being so intellectual dishonest.

Some other Liberal Clichés-- these all have the intended purpose of preying on voter ignorance by appealing to emotional responses instead of rational discussion based on the merit of an idea. “Conservatives seek to rob women of their rights”-- not true abortion is not even part of a Conservative platform, “The Conservatives are a bunch of robber baron rednecks from Alberta that seek to divide this country”-- strengthening provincial rights would unite this country and besides provincial rights have nothing to do with the imaginary hopeful abandonment of Canada, “they hate homosexuals”-- Harper only intends to put gay marriage to a “free” legislative vote, to have the debate, and once again Conservatives have no desire to ban gay union they simply want it to be called a “civil union”. Then there is the “you hate Canadians and Canada!”-- because we are unhappy with a corrupt and thieving paternalist government means we are uncanadian. This is an all direct attack on thinking and somehow this call for blind allegiance is viewed as “progressive” and “moderate”.