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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)