Ok, so this is an ad produced by the so-called Friends of CBC or something along those lines. It's a group which is strongly opposed to any defunding of CBC. Well, I'm all for defunding CBC and I think everyone ought to be.
CBC receives $1.1 billion per year from Canadian taxpayers. That's more than education in Newfoundland. Anyway, it's totally unnecessary, and it is taking hard-earned income which could be used to improve people's lives and instead used to produce shows on the CBC.
The CBC should not be abolished, it should be privatized. If people love it so much, it should be able to survive just like CTV, Global, and others.
Stop wasting tax dollars on pet projects like this.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Sad, desperate caller on VOCM Night Line and the Government's unfairness!!
So a lady called into VOCM Night Line complaining, as do virtually all callers, that the government is simply not doing enough! She was upset because she does not qualify to receive Canada Pension until she is 60, which is a few years away. She got injured on the job and cannot work. The story seems sad. But later you find out her husband is working (at an undisclosed location) and she receives compensation from Workplace Compensation Commission. But the evil government will not give her her pension 3 years early.
This is absolutely absurd. First of all, she did not make a special contract with the government at any point to start receiving funding early from her Canada Pension. Why should she receive some special benefit that no one else in the country can receive? Who does she think she is?
Secondly, she is receiving an income from Workplace Compensation Commission and her husband also has an income. Perhaps she needs to consider living more frugally to make ends meet.
Once again, people have a special sense of entitlement and believe the government should cater to their every whim. Otherwise the government is evil.
In any event, this should never happen because the government should not be involved in pensions or in workplace compensation for injuries. These should be privately acquired by citizens either individually or within the company for which they work. Why should everyone get the exact same thing whether they want it or not.
Little do people realize, when an employer considers hiring someone, they have to take into account ALL expenses associated with that person. Even if they are only paid minimum wage of $10, the employer might end up having to pay $15 or $18 per hour once all the stupid government taxes are taken out.
Give the money to the employees instead and let them decide what they want to do with it.
But another important point is that this lady was whining about how she "paid into" this pension plan all her life and she owns it. Sorry, you're wrong. You don't own a particular pension plan. There is NO pension plan with your name on it. Instead, everyone is grouped together, they pay into an enormous fund and then it's doled out in some particular way once someone retires. The problem is that the whole thing is based on a certain working population which supports a smaller retired population.
But things are changing. Fewer children means the ratio is skewed. There used to be far more workers to support the retirees. But now there are more retirees and fewer workers. Eventually it will be completely unsustainable!
This is all just government mismanagement. Once again, the government needs to butt out!
This is absolutely absurd. First of all, she did not make a special contract with the government at any point to start receiving funding early from her Canada Pension. Why should she receive some special benefit that no one else in the country can receive? Who does she think she is?
Secondly, she is receiving an income from Workplace Compensation Commission and her husband also has an income. Perhaps she needs to consider living more frugally to make ends meet.
Once again, people have a special sense of entitlement and believe the government should cater to their every whim. Otherwise the government is evil.
In any event, this should never happen because the government should not be involved in pensions or in workplace compensation for injuries. These should be privately acquired by citizens either individually or within the company for which they work. Why should everyone get the exact same thing whether they want it or not.
Little do people realize, when an employer considers hiring someone, they have to take into account ALL expenses associated with that person. Even if they are only paid minimum wage of $10, the employer might end up having to pay $15 or $18 per hour once all the stupid government taxes are taken out.
Give the money to the employees instead and let them decide what they want to do with it.
But another important point is that this lady was whining about how she "paid into" this pension plan all her life and she owns it. Sorry, you're wrong. You don't own a particular pension plan. There is NO pension plan with your name on it. Instead, everyone is grouped together, they pay into an enormous fund and then it's doled out in some particular way once someone retires. The problem is that the whole thing is based on a certain working population which supports a smaller retired population.
But things are changing. Fewer children means the ratio is skewed. There used to be far more workers to support the retirees. But now there are more retirees and fewer workers. Eventually it will be completely unsustainable!
This is all just government mismanagement. Once again, the government needs to butt out!
Way too much government in Newfoundland!!
I guess that's the point of this entire blog. But more and more I realize just how pervasive the government is in every aspect of our lives in Newfoundland and Labrador. You can't turn around without the government having a committee look into what you're doing and having its hand deeply embedded in every transaction. Whether it's business, healthcare, the fishery, oil and gas, welfare, social workers, committees, bureaucracy, feasibility studies, transportation, free trade, tariffs, farming, arts and culture, and the list just goes on and on. There isn't a single area of Newfoundland life where the government doesn't have a dominating presence, and I for one am sick of it.
Politicians have an insatiable desire for more and more of our money. First they impose burdensome taxes to fund its innumerable programs, but that is not enough. Then the government has to control alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, gambling, and many other "sin" taxes. The government will stop at nothing to dominate more and more of our everyday lives.
But who really benefits? Mainly those with connections. The squeaky wheels benefit. You see, the government doles out money in a way which is always unfair. The constituent who knows how to work the system can receive far more government funding than the person who doesn't know the system or how to navigate it.
"Poor me" cries all these people looking for handouts. Then the politician, whose ONLY goal is to get re-elected, doles out someone else's money and claims to have helped the "people of Newfoundland and Labrador". No, that wasn't the politician's money. That was money generated from the productive sector of the economy!
Politicians have an insatiable desire for more and more of our money. First they impose burdensome taxes to fund its innumerable programs, but that is not enough. Then the government has to control alcohol, cigarettes, gasoline, gambling, and many other "sin" taxes. The government will stop at nothing to dominate more and more of our everyday lives.
But who really benefits? Mainly those with connections. The squeaky wheels benefit. You see, the government doles out money in a way which is always unfair. The constituent who knows how to work the system can receive far more government funding than the person who doesn't know the system or how to navigate it.
"Poor me" cries all these people looking for handouts. Then the politician, whose ONLY goal is to get re-elected, doles out someone else's money and claims to have helped the "people of Newfoundland and Labrador". No, that wasn't the politician's money. That was money generated from the productive sector of the economy!
Monday, November 28, 2011
Newfoundland fishing processors need to move on
Ok, so in Newfoundland there is a debate about processing fish once it's caught. The problem is once Newfoundland processors are finished with it, the fish isn't really worth much on the open market because it's so expensive to process here. Right now, because of the law, fish MUST be processed in Newfoundland, ostensibly to give certain Newfoundlanders a job. They argue that shipping the unprocessed fish products out of the province will cause their industry to fail.
The CEO of Ocean Choice International says in order to stay competitive, they have to ship the fish off to other countries to be processed. So this comes down to protectionism. One of the suggestions to keep the processors happy is to subsidize the industry with tax dollars. So if it costs them $1000 per ton to process, but the open market pays $500, the gov will subsidize them by $500 per ton.
That's what I like to call a stupid idea. You could say that for any industry. Why doesn't Newfoundland have a pencil industry? Why do we import pencils from China? Because it's cheaper to make pencils in China. They have a competitive advantage. But we could just as easily say the government of NL should subsidize pencil manufacturers. The same arguments could be made - it would save jobs, employ x number of people, stimulate our economy, etc. But we can clearly see this is an enormous fallacy.
We might as well market in fairy dust. That market could also be sustained with government funding. I say this because it's much easier to see the absurdity of this when you phrase it in a certain way.
The reason for this problem is that the interests of the few is concentrated, unlike the interests of the many which are diffuse. Think about it. If the government subsidizes this unsustainable industry, it may cost each taxpayer $50 per year. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a make or break for most people and it will typically get forgotten in the grander tax-collection scheme of things. However, for the processor working at the plant, this could mean their immediate livelihood. They could lose a lucrative job.
So, when the rubber meets the road, who do you think is more motivated to express their point of view? Obviously the plant worker. This is the general problem with taxes anyway. A few people benefit a lot, but it is to the detriment, on a small scale, to countless people.
What should happen is these people move into sectors where Newfoundland has a competitive advantage. Stop whining about "slave labor" from other countries, that only hides the fact that we are uncompetitive in certain areas. We have competitive advantages in the oil and gas industry, in certain types of fishing, etc.
We must stop funding the unproductive sectors of the economy with the productive ones.
The CEO of Ocean Choice International says in order to stay competitive, they have to ship the fish off to other countries to be processed. So this comes down to protectionism. One of the suggestions to keep the processors happy is to subsidize the industry with tax dollars. So if it costs them $1000 per ton to process, but the open market pays $500, the gov will subsidize them by $500 per ton.
That's what I like to call a stupid idea. You could say that for any industry. Why doesn't Newfoundland have a pencil industry? Why do we import pencils from China? Because it's cheaper to make pencils in China. They have a competitive advantage. But we could just as easily say the government of NL should subsidize pencil manufacturers. The same arguments could be made - it would save jobs, employ x number of people, stimulate our economy, etc. But we can clearly see this is an enormous fallacy.
We might as well market in fairy dust. That market could also be sustained with government funding. I say this because it's much easier to see the absurdity of this when you phrase it in a certain way.
The reason for this problem is that the interests of the few is concentrated, unlike the interests of the many which are diffuse. Think about it. If the government subsidizes this unsustainable industry, it may cost each taxpayer $50 per year. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's not a make or break for most people and it will typically get forgotten in the grander tax-collection scheme of things. However, for the processor working at the plant, this could mean their immediate livelihood. They could lose a lucrative job.
So, when the rubber meets the road, who do you think is more motivated to express their point of view? Obviously the plant worker. This is the general problem with taxes anyway. A few people benefit a lot, but it is to the detriment, on a small scale, to countless people.
What should happen is these people move into sectors where Newfoundland has a competitive advantage. Stop whining about "slave labor" from other countries, that only hides the fact that we are uncompetitive in certain areas. We have competitive advantages in the oil and gas industry, in certain types of fishing, etc.
We must stop funding the unproductive sectors of the economy with the productive ones.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Will be on Back Talk with Paddy Daly
I will be on Back Talk with Paddy Daly soon to talk about Health Care in Canada.
Food and the Market
This video speaks primarily about farmers in the agriculture and dairy sectors. This discussion also applies to areas of Newfoundland's economy which employs similar price-fixing strategies.
I believe any subsidy or tariff or whatever is always a bad idea. In this case, there is a board which markets dairy products throughout Canada mostly. This board controls the supply and thus the price of these products. Their reasoning is that unless they do this, the prices will be pushed down and farmers will lose out. I understand that. But farmers make up only a tiny percentage of people in Canada. With this system, the price of milk is artificially high. In Newfoundland it's around $4 for 2L carton. Without this artificial price hike, the price could possibly be $3, maybe less. This affects every Canadian in the country.
We must end all subsidies. If you cannot compete, then that is an indicator to say you are not productive enough and should seek out a more profitable area in the economy. Without this system of profits and losses, there can be no progress.
I believe any subsidy or tariff or whatever is always a bad idea. In this case, there is a board which markets dairy products throughout Canada mostly. This board controls the supply and thus the price of these products. Their reasoning is that unless they do this, the prices will be pushed down and farmers will lose out. I understand that. But farmers make up only a tiny percentage of people in Canada. With this system, the price of milk is artificially high. In Newfoundland it's around $4 for 2L carton. Without this artificial price hike, the price could possibly be $3, maybe less. This affects every Canadian in the country.
We must end all subsidies. If you cannot compete, then that is an indicator to say you are not productive enough and should seek out a more profitable area in the economy. Without this system of profits and losses, there can be no progress.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Opposing Occupy with Randy Simms
I called into Randy Simms' Open Line show this morning on VOCM to voice my opposition to the tenets of the Occupy Movement. I think I learned a few things from calling in. First of all, Randy sort of took control of the conversation and I don't think I was clear or definitive enough on my purpose for calling.
Randy started talking about the Scandinavian countries and said they are the best places to live in the world and they do not have free-market capitalism, but they have limits placed on it. My topic was going to be why the capitalist system is the best, but also why it's a fallacy to think the rich are getting richer at the expense of the "poor". Also, I wanted to point out that more economic freedom was better for everyone.
Anyway, Randy made some irrelevant points, after I listed the most economically free countries and said they also have the highest standards of living, Randy responded by saying they are just tax havens because they are so small, even though I named Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada. Combined, these countries have a population of 80 million. Randy pointed to Norway and other Scandinavian countries as examples of mixed-systems. Ironically, Norway has only 5 million people which is less than Hong Kong and the same as Singapore.
What I learned from this encounter is I really have to narrow down my topic to one small item. I cannot try to tackle too much on a single call. I have to narrow it down to a single topic and focus on that.
Also, Randy kept changing the goal posts. Whenever I would make a point, he would immediately go to another topic. That's why I have to keep things on track.
One interesting thing is that Randy made indirect reference to me with another caller, a CEO from the fishing industry. He said basically should we open up the market as a previous caller has suggested, which was a reference to me.
Anyway, it was a learning experience, and I hope to have many more.
Randy started talking about the Scandinavian countries and said they are the best places to live in the world and they do not have free-market capitalism, but they have limits placed on it. My topic was going to be why the capitalist system is the best, but also why it's a fallacy to think the rich are getting richer at the expense of the "poor". Also, I wanted to point out that more economic freedom was better for everyone.
Anyway, Randy made some irrelevant points, after I listed the most economically free countries and said they also have the highest standards of living, Randy responded by saying they are just tax havens because they are so small, even though I named Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada. Combined, these countries have a population of 80 million. Randy pointed to Norway and other Scandinavian countries as examples of mixed-systems. Ironically, Norway has only 5 million people which is less than Hong Kong and the same as Singapore.
What I learned from this encounter is I really have to narrow down my topic to one small item. I cannot try to tackle too much on a single call. I have to narrow it down to a single topic and focus on that.
Also, Randy kept changing the goal posts. Whenever I would make a point, he would immediately go to another topic. That's why I have to keep things on track.
One interesting thing is that Randy made indirect reference to me with another caller, a CEO from the fishing industry. He said basically should we open up the market as a previous caller has suggested, which was a reference to me.
Anyway, it was a learning experience, and I hope to have many more.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Busing issue for Newfoundland schools
So there is a lot of debate, as there is with all government programs, with the school bus situation in the province. Right now the policy is kids who are more than 1.6 kms away have to get a ride in the bus but anyone who is closer finds their own way. People within the 1.6kms are complaining because they think they should qualify too. So here's the solution.
Vouchers for transportation. Similar to educational vouchers, these vouchers are given to every student in the province. Then let the market take care of the needs. As usual, when you have the top-down approach, central planning, there is a lot of waste. There are buses arriving at schools with 5 students on them, even though it has capacity for 50. There are way too many rules about how kids can get to school. Plus, the money has to be filtered through the school board which hires "experts" to determine all this stuff. It's a total waste of money.
Instead of all this nonsense, just give the money directly to parents and let them decide. I'm not sure how much each parent would get, but it could depend on distance from the school. Perhaps $400 per km per year from school. That would all have to be worked out. So if a kid is 5km from school, he'd get $2000 per year for transportation. From this money, the parents could decide how to use it in ANY way possible. Don't put any restrictions on it. If they want to get a family friend to transport the kid to school and give them the money, go right ahead. A company might buy a large van which can hold 10 students, and parents may give the voucher to this entrepreneur.
The main thrust of this system is that by giving the money to each individual, they can decide what is best for them. As economist Frederick Hayek says in that internet rap song "I want plans by the many, not by the few". How can a single individual or small group of people know what's best for every student in the province? Imagine if the government planned from the top-down what types of food everyone would be provided with. Sure, they would hire experts in nutrition and food distribution, and every other field, but it would require an overwhelming level of knowledge. Yet, somehow leaving the decisions up to non-experts, i.e. moms, each child gets what he or she needs. Allergies are taken into consideration, preferences are factored in, etc.
If the government did run the distribution of food, there would also be many complaints from parents, but anyone who suggested giving the money to families to decide on their own would be labelled irresponsible. The argument would say that we need experts to determine proper nutrition and that these laypeople could never understand all the intricacies of food preparation.
Of course, this is absolute nonsense. The same goes for transportation. Let the parents decide. If a mom wants to drop off her own kids, she can pocket the money herself. This may be the best option for that family. I think people are better off making their own decisions.
Vouchers for transportation. Similar to educational vouchers, these vouchers are given to every student in the province. Then let the market take care of the needs. As usual, when you have the top-down approach, central planning, there is a lot of waste. There are buses arriving at schools with 5 students on them, even though it has capacity for 50. There are way too many rules about how kids can get to school. Plus, the money has to be filtered through the school board which hires "experts" to determine all this stuff. It's a total waste of money.
Instead of all this nonsense, just give the money directly to parents and let them decide. I'm not sure how much each parent would get, but it could depend on distance from the school. Perhaps $400 per km per year from school. That would all have to be worked out. So if a kid is 5km from school, he'd get $2000 per year for transportation. From this money, the parents could decide how to use it in ANY way possible. Don't put any restrictions on it. If they want to get a family friend to transport the kid to school and give them the money, go right ahead. A company might buy a large van which can hold 10 students, and parents may give the voucher to this entrepreneur.
The main thrust of this system is that by giving the money to each individual, they can decide what is best for them. As economist Frederick Hayek says in that internet rap song "I want plans by the many, not by the few". How can a single individual or small group of people know what's best for every student in the province? Imagine if the government planned from the top-down what types of food everyone would be provided with. Sure, they would hire experts in nutrition and food distribution, and every other field, but it would require an overwhelming level of knowledge. Yet, somehow leaving the decisions up to non-experts, i.e. moms, each child gets what he or she needs. Allergies are taken into consideration, preferences are factored in, etc.
If the government did run the distribution of food, there would also be many complaints from parents, but anyone who suggested giving the money to families to decide on their own would be labelled irresponsible. The argument would say that we need experts to determine proper nutrition and that these laypeople could never understand all the intricacies of food preparation.
Of course, this is absolute nonsense. The same goes for transportation. Let the parents decide. If a mom wants to drop off her own kids, she can pocket the money herself. This may be the best option for that family. I think people are better off making their own decisions.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Anti-capitalist Newfs need to stop whining
I turn on the radio to VOCM open line and all I hear is Newfies blabbing about how evil capitalism is and how terrible companies are and how we need a revolution to overthrow all these corporations. Their rants are so unspecific that it's nearly impossible to address all their misinformed blabbing.
First of all, no economic system has brought more prosperity to more people than capitalism. Don't be fooled. Look around the world. The countries with the most economic freedom are the most successful and people enjoy the highest standards of living. Countries which implement socialist policies to "spread the wealth" or "tax the wealthy" or some other version of that, the extent to which they do this, the people are worse off.
NO rich person in a free economy ever got that money through force or coercion. Everyone in these transactions gains from it. For example, the customer wants the milk more than the $4, and the store wants the $4 more than the milk. Both parties benefit.
This is unlike with government which simply CONFISCATES money against the will of people. You have no choice but to buy a government service. But you DO have a choice of whether or not you want to buy a Microsoft product.
Next thing is this vague "1%". 1% of income is a statistical bracket, not real people. In reality, people enter into and move out of the 1%. Also, other people move into it. Saying the top 1% are getting richer is false. In reality, only that bracket is getting richer. The real flesh-and-blood people are often getting poorer.
Also, people complain that the 1% own all the wealth. Well, guess what, they also pay all the taxes. The top 10% of wealthiest people in the US pay 70% of the taxes. The top 1% pay 40%. Half the people in the country pay 0 taxes.
Finally, companies compete for labour. We have this mistaken notion that companies can just pay people whatever they want. Well, they can't. Why? Because if McDonald's is only paying $5 an hour and Burger King is paying $8 an hour, no one will work at McDonald's. Only about 7% of workers make minimum wage. Obviously that wouldn't be the case is companies could pay any amount. If they did, everyone would just get minimum, not a measly 7%.
People need to realize that alienating and protesting rich people will not make the protesters richer. These rich people have this wealth for a reason. They provided products and services that people wanted. That's the only way.
First of all, no economic system has brought more prosperity to more people than capitalism. Don't be fooled. Look around the world. The countries with the most economic freedom are the most successful and people enjoy the highest standards of living. Countries which implement socialist policies to "spread the wealth" or "tax the wealthy" or some other version of that, the extent to which they do this, the people are worse off.
NO rich person in a free economy ever got that money through force or coercion. Everyone in these transactions gains from it. For example, the customer wants the milk more than the $4, and the store wants the $4 more than the milk. Both parties benefit.
This is unlike with government which simply CONFISCATES money against the will of people. You have no choice but to buy a government service. But you DO have a choice of whether or not you want to buy a Microsoft product.
Next thing is this vague "1%". 1% of income is a statistical bracket, not real people. In reality, people enter into and move out of the 1%. Also, other people move into it. Saying the top 1% are getting richer is false. In reality, only that bracket is getting richer. The real flesh-and-blood people are often getting poorer.
Also, people complain that the 1% own all the wealth. Well, guess what, they also pay all the taxes. The top 10% of wealthiest people in the US pay 70% of the taxes. The top 1% pay 40%. Half the people in the country pay 0 taxes.
Finally, companies compete for labour. We have this mistaken notion that companies can just pay people whatever they want. Well, they can't. Why? Because if McDonald's is only paying $5 an hour and Burger King is paying $8 an hour, no one will work at McDonald's. Only about 7% of workers make minimum wage. Obviously that wouldn't be the case is companies could pay any amount. If they did, everyone would just get minimum, not a measly 7%.
People need to realize that alienating and protesting rich people will not make the protesters richer. These rich people have this wealth for a reason. They provided products and services that people wanted. That's the only way.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
"Building Trades Union are Bullies" at Long Harbour, Newfoundland
A caller from VOCM Back Talk is bringing up a great issue. The bullies in the Building Trades Union. This union is a closed shop and refuses to allow certain people to have jobs. I've always said, unions are great as long as you're in one. But if you're outside the union, you're out of luck. The union demands that people get paid an exorbitant salary, say $50 per hour. Then a worker who is well-qualified and jobless is willing to work for $30 per hour CANNOT find a job, and he is forced to remain jobless.
Sure, have a union, but you should not force everyone to be in it.
Sure, have a union, but you should not force everyone to be in it.
Newfoundland Boil Orders
Ok, so there's a caller right now demanding that the government spend millions of dollars providing water-processing plants to little communities around the province. If these people want a water processing facility, they should pay for one themselves. If they can't afford it, they should move elsewhere where they CAN afford it. People in St. John's DO pay for their water through taxation and it covers the costs. Productive communities should not be forced to subsidize unproductive ones that can't support themselves. It weakens everyone.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
School Fundraising in NL Schools
People on Back Talk with Paddy Daly are talking about school fundraising and whether or not it should be allowed. Of course, no one is addressing the real problem here. The problem with the schools is lack of choice. Everything right now is centrally planned and all schools have to be identical. How can you determine the best methods if everything has to be the same? You can't. Quality suffers because there is no competition. Just cookie-cutter solutions.
Other issues arise from having a top-down approach where a few elites determine the course of action for all schools. For example, uniforms. Some parents believe they are good, some say they are bad. But different schools cannot offer different rules on this subject and there is less freedom and less choice. Same goes for religious schools vs. secular schools. Parents should have the choice of which type of school their child attends.
All of this would be possible with vouchers. Attach the funding to the student, not the school board. If many parents preferred a school with uniforms, they could choose that. If they preferred a religious school or a secular school, they could choose either. The schools which were most successful would attract the most students, and then other schools would have to improve their quality to compete.
This also address the issue of some students coming from wealthier families. The vouchers would create an even playing field. Where it has been implemented, students in charter schools have done much better.
The main objectors to such a system are teachers' unions, who are afraid the enormous control they have over education right now will be diminished. They do not want to have to work hard to keep their position, they want to remain unfirable (a new word I made up for this). Also, certain special interests want a captive audience. These include secularists who want religion out of schools, modern sex-advocates who want to teach young children about transsexuality, anal sex, etc. These groups realize parents will not willingly choose these things for their children automatically, so they prefer to have students mandated to do these things.
Choice is scary for those attached to the status quo.
There is TONS of money in education. On average, each student costs $12,500 per year. A classroom of 25 students has average funding of $312,500. Even if you spend $100,000 on overhead expenses per classroom per year, you'd still have $212,500 for a teacher. My gosh, you could afford 2 phd professors.
We could even have a program where special needs children received $20,000 per year, while everyone else would receive $10,000. Whatever the province decides on. The basic point is stop funding monolithic school boards, instead fund the students and let them decide.
Other issues arise from having a top-down approach where a few elites determine the course of action for all schools. For example, uniforms. Some parents believe they are good, some say they are bad. But different schools cannot offer different rules on this subject and there is less freedom and less choice. Same goes for religious schools vs. secular schools. Parents should have the choice of which type of school their child attends.
All of this would be possible with vouchers. Attach the funding to the student, not the school board. If many parents preferred a school with uniforms, they could choose that. If they preferred a religious school or a secular school, they could choose either. The schools which were most successful would attract the most students, and then other schools would have to improve their quality to compete.
This also address the issue of some students coming from wealthier families. The vouchers would create an even playing field. Where it has been implemented, students in charter schools have done much better.
The main objectors to such a system are teachers' unions, who are afraid the enormous control they have over education right now will be diminished. They do not want to have to work hard to keep their position, they want to remain unfirable (a new word I made up for this). Also, certain special interests want a captive audience. These include secularists who want religion out of schools, modern sex-advocates who want to teach young children about transsexuality, anal sex, etc. These groups realize parents will not willingly choose these things for their children automatically, so they prefer to have students mandated to do these things.
Choice is scary for those attached to the status quo.
There is TONS of money in education. On average, each student costs $12,500 per year. A classroom of 25 students has average funding of $312,500. Even if you spend $100,000 on overhead expenses per classroom per year, you'd still have $212,500 for a teacher. My gosh, you could afford 2 phd professors.
We could even have a program where special needs children received $20,000 per year, while everyone else would receive $10,000. Whatever the province decides on. The basic point is stop funding monolithic school boards, instead fund the students and let them decide.
Monday, November 14, 2011
N.L. reviewing policy on skin removal surgery - Health - CBC News
This is one of the problem with socialized healthcare ONLY. People cannot even choose the types of medical treatment that they receive, it has to be dictated to them. Some poor woman may not be able to have excess skin removed because the government has decided they do not want to cover it. She cannot pay any amount of money to have it done unless she travels to another country. This is just terrible. Even if you advocate public health care, people should at least have the option to pay for other services.
N.L. reviewing policy on skin removal surgery - Health - CBC News:
'via Blog this'
N.L. reviewing policy on skin removal surgery - Health - CBC News:
'via Blog this'
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Is The Government Endangering The Economy? | THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Na...
Some of the predictions by Judge Napolitano about what "might" happen with the American government are already happening in Newfoundland.
He mentions a quote by de Tocqueville. However, some believe this is misattributed. A similar, but more elaborate quote reads as follows:
That is exactly what is happening in Newfoundland as we speak.
He mentions a quote by de Tocqueville. However, some believe this is misattributed. A similar, but more elaborate quote reads as follows:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
That is exactly what is happening in Newfoundland as we speak.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Newfoundland Politician Dilemma
Our current political system has an inherent dilemma. It's been discussed in various ways. Now, I think we can change the system within the system. There is no need for any kind of revolution, but only a new awareness for people of how these things work.
The Newfoundland political dilemma, which may already be gone past the point of no return, is that politicians are not incentivized to work for the general good, but only for the good of specific lobby groups. There is no group representing "everyone". There are teachers unions, nurses unions, community groups, seniors, disabled people, bus drivers, farmers, etc. etc. etc. They each have a keen interest in having their voices heard. What we don't see is the negative general impact these demands have when they are met.
Take for instance farmers. They demand subsidies for their crops. Everyone probably agrees they deserve this subsidy and we have no idea that it costs us anything. In reality, our food costs more, but not quite enough for us to notice. This death-by-a-thousand-cuts scenario stays under the radar so no one reacts with outrage.
On the other hand, the farmer whose entire life is dependent on this subsidy, will have a much different outlook on the issue. A government subsidy could mean a 20% or 30% or 40% increase in revenue. You better believe they will fight for this subsidy.
Now, the politician's main goal is to get elected. If this farming lobby is very vocal, it makes a lot of political sense for the person running to declare publicly that they support the farmers. So, they give them the subsidy. The farmers then campaign for the politician.
This happens with every area. Nurses, teachers, fisherpeople, etc. all have loud voices. Many people know people in these professions and are on their side. Powerful unions and lobby groups campaign for these special interests and everyone knows what they are looking for.
Yet, once again, there is no citizens' representative. No one runs an entire campaign against a special interest because they might lose $20 a year because of them. They are not even aware of the $20 and even if they were, they wouldn't be motivated to stop it.
Probably one of the best examples of all of this can be found in Newfoundland. All the political parties during the election spent their entire campaign going from one special interest group to another saying how they would "increase funding" or "continue to support" these groups.
These politicians will say whatever is necessary to get re-elected and they know it is political suicide to say they will not support one of these groups.
Imagine if a politician said the following:
or
Like I said, it would be political suicide.
The only way to turn the tide on this attitude is to advocate freedom and to let people know that they can spend their own money far better than the government can. People have to realize that taking money out of the productive section of the economy and handing it out as gifts to the unproductive parts will not improve the economy, only make it worse.
The Newfoundland political dilemma, which may already be gone past the point of no return, is that politicians are not incentivized to work for the general good, but only for the good of specific lobby groups. There is no group representing "everyone". There are teachers unions, nurses unions, community groups, seniors, disabled people, bus drivers, farmers, etc. etc. etc. They each have a keen interest in having their voices heard. What we don't see is the negative general impact these demands have when they are met.
Take for instance farmers. They demand subsidies for their crops. Everyone probably agrees they deserve this subsidy and we have no idea that it costs us anything. In reality, our food costs more, but not quite enough for us to notice. This death-by-a-thousand-cuts scenario stays under the radar so no one reacts with outrage.
On the other hand, the farmer whose entire life is dependent on this subsidy, will have a much different outlook on the issue. A government subsidy could mean a 20% or 30% or 40% increase in revenue. You better believe they will fight for this subsidy.
Now, the politician's main goal is to get elected. If this farming lobby is very vocal, it makes a lot of political sense for the person running to declare publicly that they support the farmers. So, they give them the subsidy. The farmers then campaign for the politician.
This happens with every area. Nurses, teachers, fisherpeople, etc. all have loud voices. Many people know people in these professions and are on their side. Powerful unions and lobby groups campaign for these special interests and everyone knows what they are looking for.
Yet, once again, there is no citizens' representative. No one runs an entire campaign against a special interest because they might lose $20 a year because of them. They are not even aware of the $20 and even if they were, they wouldn't be motivated to stop it.
Probably one of the best examples of all of this can be found in Newfoundland. All the political parties during the election spent their entire campaign going from one special interest group to another saying how they would "increase funding" or "continue to support" these groups.
These politicians will say whatever is necessary to get re-elected and they know it is political suicide to say they will not support one of these groups.
Imagine if a politician said the following:
I will not support an increased pension for seniors. This will save the average taxpayer $20 per year!
or
If I get elected, I will not invest in local business. I will let the private sector do that. I will not support rural communities with make-work projects through taxation from the productive sectors of the economy.
Like I said, it would be political suicide.
The only way to turn the tide on this attitude is to advocate freedom and to let people know that they can spend their own money far better than the government can. People have to realize that taking money out of the productive section of the economy and handing it out as gifts to the unproductive parts will not improve the economy, only make it worse.
Newfoundland seniors need more money?
A caller phoned into Back Talk with Paddy Daly, of course looking for more money from the government because her meager seniors' pension is simply not enough in her opinion. She wants more from the government. She says the Harper announced more funding for seniors but did not deliver on that promise.
But the most shocking part of all this is how much this particular senior says she pays for heating her house. She says she has an oil stove and electric heat. She says in the winter she sometimes pays $400 for each, for a total of $800 for one month. Really? How does she pay this much? She is a single person because her husband passed away. So it's $800 for a single individual. I find this number rather shocking.
I live by myself also in a fairly spacious apartment, considering it is for one person. I don't have my receipts here with me, but I recall my highest heat bill ever, and that includes all power that I used, was around $130. Even if I had the heat on bust 24 hours a day in all rooms and had all hot water taps running, I doubt I could get my bill to $800.
So it seems from the little information this lady provided, she is living in a relatively large household. That is completely her right. But the thing that sort of annoys me is people think they can simply choose whatever lifestyle they want and that the government must support them. The government has moved very far away from making sure everyone has a certain standard of living to raising taxes to ensure a small elite group of people are catered to in their every whim.
I'm sure this lady is a very fine person, but if she is really struggling the way she says, she should consider moving into a smaller abode. If she has a house, maybe she could sell it and move into an apartment or smaller house and perhaps collect a difference of $100,000 or more which she could use to pay for energy.
This reminds me of a documentary I saw one time about credit cards. They showed these sob stories of people who could no longer afford their houses and they spoke of how evil the credit card companies were for trying to reclaim their money. One lady in particular had an enormous house, which she could afford when her husband was alive, but now that he died, she could not afford such a huge house. However, she refused to even consider moving.
I understand people are very attached to their houses, and it's a sad situation, but you cannot expect other people to pay for your expenses, even if you have other options. In this case, she could have easily moved into a smaller house and used the extra money to pay her debts.
But this is what happens when you believe the government is there to take care of you. If your way to increase your income is to campaign the government then that's what people will do. And no one will ever say the government is giving them too much or even enough. Everyone in this scenario has a vested interest in demanding more.
But the most shocking part of all this is how much this particular senior says she pays for heating her house. She says she has an oil stove and electric heat. She says in the winter she sometimes pays $400 for each, for a total of $800 for one month. Really? How does she pay this much? She is a single person because her husband passed away. So it's $800 for a single individual. I find this number rather shocking.
I live by myself also in a fairly spacious apartment, considering it is for one person. I don't have my receipts here with me, but I recall my highest heat bill ever, and that includes all power that I used, was around $130. Even if I had the heat on bust 24 hours a day in all rooms and had all hot water taps running, I doubt I could get my bill to $800.
So it seems from the little information this lady provided, she is living in a relatively large household. That is completely her right. But the thing that sort of annoys me is people think they can simply choose whatever lifestyle they want and that the government must support them. The government has moved very far away from making sure everyone has a certain standard of living to raising taxes to ensure a small elite group of people are catered to in their every whim.
I'm sure this lady is a very fine person, but if she is really struggling the way she says, she should consider moving into a smaller abode. If she has a house, maybe she could sell it and move into an apartment or smaller house and perhaps collect a difference of $100,000 or more which she could use to pay for energy.
This reminds me of a documentary I saw one time about credit cards. They showed these sob stories of people who could no longer afford their houses and they spoke of how evil the credit card companies were for trying to reclaim their money. One lady in particular had an enormous house, which she could afford when her husband was alive, but now that he died, she could not afford such a huge house. However, she refused to even consider moving.
I understand people are very attached to their houses, and it's a sad situation, but you cannot expect other people to pay for your expenses, even if you have other options. In this case, she could have easily moved into a smaller house and used the extra money to pay her debts.
But this is what happens when you believe the government is there to take care of you. If your way to increase your income is to campaign the government then that's what people will do. And no one will ever say the government is giving them too much or even enough. Everyone in this scenario has a vested interest in demanding more.
Newfoundlanders and Sense of Entitlement
I'm just listening to Newfoundland Back Talk with Paddy Daly and maybe it's just these particular callers, but it seems like everyone has a major sense of entitlement. However, I don't necessarily blame the people, I blame the system. We have become far too reliant on the government for everything. People have willingly given away their freedom to government programs and schemes in order to have a parental figure "take care of them".
There are so many callers on this show demanding the government give them more entitlements, more payouts, higher wages, etc. They want the government to use its power of coercion to increase taxes in order to pay for all these perks. The government needs to get out of all this wealth redistribution and destruction.
There are so many callers on this show demanding the government give them more entitlements, more payouts, higher wages, etc. They want the government to use its power of coercion to increase taxes in order to pay for all these perks. The government needs to get out of all this wealth redistribution and destruction.
Newfoundland Wages
A lot of people campaign for an increase in wages. The usual way this is done is by raising the minimum wage. People have been led to believe that in order to increase wages, government must be involved. Otherwise, goes the argument, greedy companies will just pay people 50 cents an hour. But is this really true?
Only about 7% of Newfoundland workers get minimum wage. So what about the other 93% of workers. Why are they paid more than that? The answer is the law of supply and demand. Wages increase as demand for labor also increases.
A few years back, dozens of Fort McMurray companies came to the province to attract workers. Many companies were offering a $20,000 beginning bonus plus free housing for 2 months. On top of this, many would earn $30-$100 per hour, sometimes even more. So are these companies just really generous and caring? No, these companies simply realize that in order to have enough labor, they have to offer attract terms. All these companies are competiting for labor, and as competition for a scarce resource increase, so do wages.
In fact, in an article I read about this phenomenon, a Newfoundland economist said Newfoundland oil and gas companies would have to offer similar deals to workers in order to keep them here.
All across the city right now, there are banners advertising positions for low-end jobs. There is a great deal of competition for labor. Many of these organizations are offering more than minimum wage to attract workers. These are all market forces and have nothing to do with government intervention.
Back to minimum wage. Minimum wage is actually detrimental to workers. For every increase in minimum wage, there is a decrease in demand for employees. Each employee can only be paid for the productivity. An employee who only adds $8 per hour of value to a company cannot be hired for $10 per hour. We have examples of this. Remember when you could get full-serve at gas stations. This service is now extremely rare. Why? Because companies were not making enough additional revenue by having this in place to justify the minimum wages. Another example is a restaurant may like to hire as many waiters or people at the checkout as possible. But they only have a certain budget for employment. By raising the minimum wage, the lower skilled workers are left out.
Those who suffer the most from minimum wage laws are the ones it is meant to help. Disadvantaged people are hurt by these laws. People with disabilities, people who are illiterate, minorities with trouble speaking English, etc. will all be left out because people without these handicaps will be hired first. Then instead of getting the $8 per hour that a company would be willing to pay, this person receives nothing, or becomes dependent on the state for survival.
If this person had been given a chance at the bottom rung of the ladder, they may improve their skills and with these improved skills would be able to receive higher wages. As it is currently, they are held back by bad government policy.
When the government tries to help, there are generally unintended consequences. This is the case with minimum wage laws.
Only about 7% of Newfoundland workers get minimum wage. So what about the other 93% of workers. Why are they paid more than that? The answer is the law of supply and demand. Wages increase as demand for labor also increases.
A few years back, dozens of Fort McMurray companies came to the province to attract workers. Many companies were offering a $20,000 beginning bonus plus free housing for 2 months. On top of this, many would earn $30-$100 per hour, sometimes even more. So are these companies just really generous and caring? No, these companies simply realize that in order to have enough labor, they have to offer attract terms. All these companies are competiting for labor, and as competition for a scarce resource increase, so do wages.
In fact, in an article I read about this phenomenon, a Newfoundland economist said Newfoundland oil and gas companies would have to offer similar deals to workers in order to keep them here.
All across the city right now, there are banners advertising positions for low-end jobs. There is a great deal of competition for labor. Many of these organizations are offering more than minimum wage to attract workers. These are all market forces and have nothing to do with government intervention.
Back to minimum wage. Minimum wage is actually detrimental to workers. For every increase in minimum wage, there is a decrease in demand for employees. Each employee can only be paid for the productivity. An employee who only adds $8 per hour of value to a company cannot be hired for $10 per hour. We have examples of this. Remember when you could get full-serve at gas stations. This service is now extremely rare. Why? Because companies were not making enough additional revenue by having this in place to justify the minimum wages. Another example is a restaurant may like to hire as many waiters or people at the checkout as possible. But they only have a certain budget for employment. By raising the minimum wage, the lower skilled workers are left out.
Those who suffer the most from minimum wage laws are the ones it is meant to help. Disadvantaged people are hurt by these laws. People with disabilities, people who are illiterate, minorities with trouble speaking English, etc. will all be left out because people without these handicaps will be hired first. Then instead of getting the $8 per hour that a company would be willing to pay, this person receives nothing, or becomes dependent on the state for survival.
If this person had been given a chance at the bottom rung of the ladder, they may improve their skills and with these improved skills would be able to receive higher wages. As it is currently, they are held back by bad government policy.
When the government tries to help, there are generally unintended consequences. This is the case with minimum wage laws.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Freedom in Newfoundland and Labrador
This is my first post in my new blog about Newfoundland freedom. We've been traveling down the road to serfdom for quite some time in the province and its time we take a step back and ask ourselves if we are on the right path.
As it is right now, we have three political parties, the NDP, Liberals, and PCs, who are all just slight variations of each other. The main thing that joins them together is their desire to have government control in every aspect of our lives.
We just had a provincial election, and theoretically the most economically free party are the PCs. However, all this party could talk about was how it was going to use "government money" to invest in this that and the other thing, to fund new programs, to increase spending in these areas, etc. Even the most fiscally conservative party only talked about how the government was going to grow bigger and bigger all the time.
What we truly need in the province is freedom. Freedom of schools away from the bureaucracy, freedom from government programs, freedom to upgrade our healthcare, and especially freedom from burdensome taxes.
I heard an excellent thing today and I fact thought about it before. He said ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself. He modified it from JFK's original saying. I think this is so important.
As it is now, people in Newfoundland constantly campaign for the same thing: they want the government to "help" them. Companies looking for funding, or more regulations, or to limit competition, or to increase subsidies, or to add tariffs to various products. Unions want to limit who is allowed to work, they want to limit competition, and they want to hold on to unproductive workers.
Government intervention is holding us back as a province and it's about time we broke free.
As it is right now, we have three political parties, the NDP, Liberals, and PCs, who are all just slight variations of each other. The main thing that joins them together is their desire to have government control in every aspect of our lives.
We just had a provincial election, and theoretically the most economically free party are the PCs. However, all this party could talk about was how it was going to use "government money" to invest in this that and the other thing, to fund new programs, to increase spending in these areas, etc. Even the most fiscally conservative party only talked about how the government was going to grow bigger and bigger all the time.
What we truly need in the province is freedom. Freedom of schools away from the bureaucracy, freedom from government programs, freedom to upgrade our healthcare, and especially freedom from burdensome taxes.
I heard an excellent thing today and I fact thought about it before. He said ask not what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself. He modified it from JFK's original saying. I think this is so important.
As it is now, people in Newfoundland constantly campaign for the same thing: they want the government to "help" them. Companies looking for funding, or more regulations, or to limit competition, or to increase subsidies, or to add tariffs to various products. Unions want to limit who is allowed to work, they want to limit competition, and they want to hold on to unproductive workers.
Government intervention is holding us back as a province and it's about time we broke free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)