Contact: james.frazer@gmail.com
Categories: [/ (8) ] [Ideas/ (6) ] [UI-Design/ (1) ]
"As with other Canadian free-trade agreements, the deal prohibits Colombia from exporting to Canada farm products such as eggs, poultry and dairy items."
Maybe the media (or Canadian government) has a different definition for 'free' than I do. When are governments going to stop playing Orwellian word games? Free trade means no restrictions. "Less restrictions than before" is NOT free trade.
posted at: 18:17 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry
"Gasoline prices were a big factor in both the 12-month inflation rate and the one-month rate."
What you have just read is a lie. The price of gasoline has nothing to do with inflation. Inflation has one source and that's the central bank.
Can gasoline affect prices? yes, maybe even many prices, but that is not true inflation. The measurement of inflation is supposed to make negligible the effects of things which are already known to be highly unstable (eg: energy prices).
Think about it -- what gives money its value? green pieces of paper only have value because there is a limited quantity of them (setting aside the fact that people must also have confidence that they have value). If someone could control the supply of money then they could control the value of money.
If you stopped printing money what would happen? Well, the quantity of goods and services produced would increase but the money supply would stay the same, consequently money would increase in value relative to goods and services: prices would have to drop.
If you printed a lot of money the opposite would happen. Prices would go up because more money would be produced relative to the goods and services produced.
This is somewhat simplified, but it's the gist of what the central bank does when it adjusts its interest rates. However, I am not here to debate whether inflation is good or bad (it is generally always bad)... my issue is that someone is either ignorant or intentionally trying to confuse/mislead the public.
posted at: 00:51 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry
Why do I keep reading this nonsense? Who are these doublethink fools who keep advocating this nonsense? Our financial troubles cannot be remedied by taxes. Taxes don't create wealth, production does; taxes only serve to steal wealth from those who create it (in this case drug dealers).
Furthermore, nobody ever advocated higher or newer taxes before. Our problems stem from too much government spending and too much macroeconomic meddling, and increasing either is doubtful to fix the problem. Why don't we start addressing the cause of our problems instead of trying to offload the costs on someone else?
posted at: 16:25 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry
"It has been argued that meeting a contraction arising from non-monetary forces with a larger than normal rate of increase in the money supply floods the market with liquidy, encourages investment in housing and other areas that is not viable in the longer run, and stimulates 'speculation'." --Milton Friedman (A Program For Monetary Stability)
posted at: 18:57 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry
The size of a company is reflective of the market conditions at a given time. A company may work under certain conditions but fail under others. It is therefore desirable to structure a business in such a way as to be able to tolerate a certain amount of variation in the environment in which it operates.
When small or medium sized businesses fail nobody seems to notice, and the function of the market is that of "survival of the fittest". This ensures only the strong (or lucky) survive. This is how the market is supposed to work.
The failure of big businesses is a different story however -- as their failure can have many far reaching third party effects. Apart from direct losses, you have massive job losses and political pressure to do something about it. Therefore there is always a tendency (spoken or not) to try to save (or bailout) big businesses.
But is the cure worse than the disease? If you eliminate the market feedback of "hey this business model isn't working any more" and bailout these businesses, then you help fragile businesses continue being fragile -- and encourage more fragility in the future, therefore increasing future liability for sustainment.
If the consequence of a weak business model is that government will bailout with tax payer money, then large businesses will act upon the notion that they don't need to plan for changes in the economic environment. As long as the books work during the boom then future losses during the bust can be blamed on uncontrollable changes in the economy, and certainly warrant a bailout.
This is convenient for extremely large businesses, as they can keep their high position without having to change their business model. The mere fact that they have a lot to lose creates a political environment suitable for tax payer bailout.
And the smaller rivals who might be able to seize some market share and create more competition? -- don't -- because the big dog on top is held up each time its about to fall.
It's a classic case of:
The power of special interests to protect a small number of people at the expense of the many;
The ignorance of the less favourable long term consequences (increased fragility, less competition, increased future liability) outweighing the more visible short term benefits (saved jobs);
Encouraging the seeking of short term profits at the expense of future stability.
The last point should be reiterated -- in that it costs money to plan for the future. Maximum short term profits can always be attained using a business model that ignores the future. Businesses that only think about today deserve to fail tomorrow. Their failure will pave the way to the stronger businesses of the future.
posted at: 13:10 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry
It's funny how perceived inequalities in statistics have led to legalized discrimination against the perceived majority in the form of affirmative action programs.
I applied for a job at the Bank of Canada the other day, and at the end of the application process was a questionnaire. The questions were mining to see if I was: female; aboriginal; disabled; or part of a visible minority group. The questionnaire was 'voluntary' but it was a series of yes/no questions, and obviously not taking it meant 'no' for all the answers.
I find it hard to believe that we have this kind of nonsense in a free country. My gender, race, or physical status should not make any difference as to whether or not I am going to be considered for a job. Isn't this exactly the point groups purportedly discriminated against intend to make?
I'm sure there are instances in the past where certain groups were discriminated against for whatever unjust reasons -- and that is unfortunate, but I do not believe that the solution is to alienate today's generation with the inverse of yesterday's prejudices.
Nevertheless, people are not all equal, undermining the notion of equality in statistics. Certain kinds of people are better suited for, or prefer certain kinds of work, and sometimes these certain kinds of people are of a specific gender and/or race.
For example, notice how most nurses are female? or how most NBA players are black men? or how most employees in Chinese restaurants are Chinese? Is this the result of discrimination? Not likely. Neither is it a reason to justify affirmative action programs.
The idea of affirmative action programs has three major flaws:
A free enterprise system, in its very design, discourages discrimination upon non-relevant reasons. Businesses operate upon the principle of hiring the best candidate for the job, and if a business turns down the best candidate for reasons of race or gender, then that business will be at a disadvantage: 1. losses due to hiring a less able worker; and 2. losses due to a competitor hiring the more able worker.
People who benefit from affirmative action programs should think twice about their stance on them -- the program might be helping them in today's political climate, but tomorrow things could be the exact opposite.
posted at: 03:24 | path: /Ideas | permanent link to this entry