Government officials don’t allow certain land to be used in Labrador for anything but farming. But it could be worth a lot more for other purposes. Also it can’t be passed down. If it can be more valuable, this is the government destroying more wealth, as usual:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/byrne-farming-agriculture-land-1.4248439
Don Pittis writes the most pathetic articles for CBC. Not as bad as Neil Macdonald who doesn’t even write articles but just blabs on about hwo much he loathes conservatives. Anyway Don Pittis is a text-book Keynesian and probably socialist. He can see the dark lining of every white fluffy cloud. He has no idea how the market works. He takes the banal and ever-so-common attitude that the market is stupid, can’t adjust to supply and demand and must be regulated by our government overlords. His articles are predictable and pitiful.
Average income goes up? Don Pittis writes about income inequality.
More technology jobs created? Don Pittis writes about the loss of low-end low-wage jobs.
Business profits up? Well, let’s not even go there, that’s just bad news to him.
I doubt he even took a single course in economics. He believes in financial stimuli and heavy government control of all aspects of society. He is strongly biased and seeks to prove his anti-conservative bona fides all the time.
Why didn’t Pittis write about the low unemployment rate now in the US? Oh right, because Trµmp is in power.
Don never talks about the miracles of the market, probably because he sees the market as a threat rather than an opportunity, unless of course it’s a government sponsored green initiative. Then it’s innovative.
Practically everything he writes is about the Keynesian concept of boom and bust. To him, it’s absolutely inevitable and for some reason he must write about an inevitability. It’s like being in charge of the physics section of a newspaper and constantly writing about gravity. Or simply stating it exists. Predictably Don Pitti-ful never blames the government for the boom and bust cycle through currency and inflation manipulation, which is the real culprit. That wouldn’t be allowed at CBC.
Like Neil Macdonald, Don Pittis has the easiest job ever. Do no research and just sit at a computer and type of random articles about the same thing every week. Glad we are paying these guys hundreds of thousands of dollars. Well, to Pittis that kind of make-work project would be considered an economic stimulus so I’m sure he’s in favor.
Why do we think some people have to be our overlords? I think for most things people can get along just fine and this has been proven. But government officials always try to interject themselves. Mutual agreements and understanding are a good thing. But think about it. People are allegedly too stupid to make good decisions, but they are smart enough to elect politicians who will make the good decisions for them on their behalf for millions of people. Something wrong with this “logic”.
So goes the logic. Today the government of NL announced even more stringent regulations on child care facilities. What libertarian ideologue would oppose new regulation to “protect our children”.
In the article, Dale Kirby who introduced the new rules, dismisses concerns from people in the industry by saying there will always be people who oppose regulation, but it’s necessary because it’s for the safety of children.
There are a number of things at play in this situation.
1) Who can decide what the right level of quality is? Can a top-down government decide that? Is it the same for everyone? Yes, we are dealing with children. But different parents and different children have different wants and needs. Some might want more stringent regulation. Others might want less. As far as I can tell, some of the requirements were already ridiculous and over the top. Now they want more? It’s like when people say “Best possible healthcare” or “best possible education”. Those are meaningless concepts. What is the “best”? If every child was regulated to have 3 caregivers each, you can still do more. You could have 5 or 10 or 2000.
2) Prices are eliminated or distorted which makes deciding between options very difficult. If the government pays for all or most of the childcare, people will obviously support maximum regulation. It costs them nothing. If they had to pay the real cost, people wouldn’t necessarily want all of the absurd regulations.
3) Stringent regulation discourages or prevents innovation. Maybe some entrepreneurs have ideas to decrease price and increase value, whether in terms of safety, learning, or any other aspect. Regulating every tiny detail makes it difficult to work within the system and still innovate.
4) Government paying for daycare of most of it not only distorts the market, but also creates massive economic loss. The goal of free childcare ostensibly is to allow mothers to work to increase family income. The problem is, with all these new regulations, the amount spent per child per day is enormous. I will have to calculate figures on it. But let’s assume $30 per hour per child. If the government pays for childcare, the mother has no incentive to stay home with her child or children. Economically speaking she is better off putting them in indoctrination camps daycare. However, if she puts them in daycare and then goes off to a job which pays $13 per hour, there is an economic loss of $17 per hour. Obviously there is an ulterior motive to daycare and it’s not just about caring for children. Indoctrination is much easier when it starts early. And it’s also the reason why government is so strictly involved.
I know this article didn’t provide a lot of specifics, but these are general thoughts. To summarize:
- There is no such thing as “best possible” when it comes to services
- Government involvement distorts prices and discourages innovation
