National Post a Neo-Con World

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Layton+misses+Blair+moment/4978066/story.html

Layton misses his Blair moment

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/virtual+party/4978105/story.html

Bob Rae's virtual party

With these two conflicting pieces the National Post recommends that Layton turn into a neo-con a la Tony Blair so we would then have what? Two neo-con parties in Canada?

While also saying in the "Bob Rae's virtual party" piece that Canada needs only one free enterprise (or pro-business) party.

That means in the National Post's considerable wisdom, the world is divided into a zero-sum game between two provider groups, employees and employers, but in the end it's all business.

That's the great thing about being simplistic, thinking is not a requisite. And it makes pendulum politics seem inevitable, swing from labour to ownership and back again.

You mean we all aren't both providers and consumers at some time in our lives? What if we need to have both of those parts of our lives serve our need for quality of life? Every odd day we can be Harper-Cons and every even day we can be Layton-Cons? And every single day we would be half satisfied or half dissatisfied, depending on glass half-full or glass half-empty attitude.

Couldn't be any simpler!

Replace Canadian Wheat Board with World's 4 Large Traders?

Some farmers in Western Canada think they can make marginal improvements in their cash flow and net income by marketing outside of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. These tend to be producers near to the US border and therefore near to receiving points for the world's four large oligopolist traders. The differences are usually a matter of a few dollars per tonne relating to inefficiencies in markets or distances travelled by the wheat to point of sale.

Farmers farther away from those delivery points are held to a disadvantage by virtue of the cost of transport. Don't worry, they will compete on price because they must. If they can deliver to these same points, then it becomes a race to the bottom as the lowest price "wins".

To deal with some of this issue, the Canadian Wheat Board has become a master at logistics, ensuring equity of access to markets for all producers, providing that access fairly throughout the annual season.

The argument is that private traders bring a high level of competition to the market which will force traders to pay a higher farm gate price.

Does this actually work in other markets? The trading houses of Japan offer a clear analogy. Their experience is that they find they have to compete for consumer or business customer dollars. That means they have limited opportunity to raise prices to improve the economics of their respective businesses.

What do they then do? They demand higher quality at lower prices from their suppliers. Those two requirements can work together, but there is a limit to how low a supplier price can be before that supplier is working for nothing. Happens all the time.

But that's because those suppliers or sub-contractors are captive suppliers, one might argue. Are wheat farmers any different? There are logistical issues of distance, time and space to deal with. As with all oligopolies, the four major traders aren't about to commit economic suicide by by attacking each when over time they face a rather inelastic demand for grains and grain products and inelastic supply for the production of those products.

At any particular time, those traders have need of a particular type of grain with specific characteristics. Whoever needs that specific wheat is could be the only demand at that moment.

Additionally, the traders have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in successfully commoditizing wheat. That means they have figured out to make any wheat with nearly any characteristic produce any product with its desired characteristic. This is done at enormous cost. Yet the consumer may not be prepared to absorb all that cost. The result is, no matter how careful a farmer is at producing high quality wheat, that wheat can be replaced by any quality wheat. The farm gate price is then a race to the bottom.

"But that big government monopoly is only in it for the nice bureaucratic jobs it creates.", is the comment often expressed by anti-CWB forces. So now we're talking about judging the ethical standards and motivations of one organization against another.

Can anyone seriously believe that the world's four large oligopolist grain traders are at heart going to be more generous to the farmers than the Canadian Wheat Board controlled by a farmer elected and controlled board of directors?

What some of these farmers and the current Canadian government regime and Minister Ritz are forgetting in their mad rush to seize short term pennies of gain disguised as ideological "purity" is that a monopoly might be bad when it isn't yours and you don't control it.

But let's see how other countries see the ethical standard of the four large traders.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/01/argentina-accuses-grain-traders-tax-evasion

You mean Argentina had to revoke the exporting license of Bunge!

Oops.

When consumers can contact producers directly through through producers' own agents, producers and consumer can both win.

Mike

Coalition Argument

Smartest Man in Canada and Stupidest Man in Canada

So Gilles Duceppe must be the stupidest man in Canada.

He’s apparently out to prove that Canadian Confederation works by joining into coalitions with first the Harper Conservatives then the Dion Liberals.

Stephen Harper must be the smartest man in Canada because he’s out to prove that Canadian Confederation can’t work with the Quebecois.

Democratic Institutions

Democratic Institutions

We are about to have a federal election over protection of our democratic institutions.

“Democratic institutions! What are you talking about? Who cares! Sounds like some abstract thing eggheads in Ottawa like to blab on about! What's that got to do with me? I didn't ask for this! Let me keep my job so I have some money for friends and stuff I enjoy. That's what's important to me.”, are some of the comments I have heard.

Well, as I see it, our democratic institutions set the rules in the labour market, in the consumer market, how we organize community activities, enable every sort of transaction to take place including simple social exchanges via internet connection. Democratic institutions balance power against the right to expect fairness and equality in society. Democratic institutions are the means by which we make the concept of one-person-one-vote a daily reality.

So in government, we elect people to represent us in setting the rules and framework for how we deal with each other in society. They are responsible representatives in that they don't simply parrot what the majority tell them to do. They are expected to use their knowledge and judgement to examine all sides of the issue, remember the principles on which we base our society, then determine a course of action. We hold them responsible for their decisions and actions by choosing to re-elect them to another term in office or not.

The issue at stake here is one of openness to parliament. That means openness to each and every one of us. We all elect people to office to participate in the affairs of government on our behalf. No one elects someone to sit out in the hall until the next election comes along to see if our representative will be part of the governing group. We expect every member of parliament to exercise our power we have entrusted to them.

However, some members of parliament have been chosen to form the government and take the lead on deciding the direction of society through its government. The rest of the members have a responsibility to introduce alternate ideas to government and to question the government's actions and challenge its judgement. In order for all the members to do their job, they, each one of them, must have access to the information the government has that it used to arrive at its decision. In medical practice, this is called “Informed Consent”, whereby a patient cannot be expected to make a decision about her or his own life without full disclosure from the practitioner as to what the implications of that decision are. Juries and judges, likewise, need to know all the relevant and material facts when they render a decision. That means that no member of parliament can be expected to vote for or against, or propose amendments to, a government proposal without knowing all the facts.

We have long accepted that as a necessity to the exercise of good government. Pretty sound reasoning, it seems to me.

This government has been found guilty of not providing all members of parliament with the facts necessary to enable a knowledgeable decision. That's what is meant by this instance of Contempt of Parliament. That means that this government has contempt for every Canadian because it will not allow every Canadian's elected representative to carry out the obligation we have entrusted her or him to do.

This is the first time in the history of the British Commonwealth that any government has been found guilty of having Contempt for the Parliament it was elected to lead!

Now, does this matter to the objectors I noted at the start of this? Well, perhaps it's important to keep one's job and to have an opportunity to find another one and expect to not lose one's job arbitrarily. Perhaps it's important to continue to afford the social connectivity the Internet provides. Perhaps it's important to have recreational opportunities in parks and facilities. Perhaps it's important to have emergency services to protect us in time of crisis. Perhaps it's important to have developmental opportunities through education, the arts, sports, social interaction, all enabled by society working through its government.

But just in case none of these is important and it's still hard to see in the grand scheme of things why democratic institutions are important, perhaps we should ask some who have not always had these. Ask Bosnians. Ask Croatians. Ask Czechs. Ask Slovaks. Ask Indians. Ask Tunisians. Ask Lybians. Ask Egyptians. Ask Lebanese. Ask Syrians. Ask Pakistanis. Ask Serbs. Ask Jordanians. Ask Tibetans. Ask Chinese. Ask Mayanmarans. Ask Algerians. Ask Nepalese. Ask Albanians. Ask Morroccans. Ask Cypriots. Ask Greeks. Ask Bengalis. Ask the French. Ask Italians. Ask Germans. Ask Koreans. Ask any Canadian family who had a soldier defending democratic institutions in two world wars and nearly innumerable peace-keeping missions around the world.

Amazingly, the current series of crises in the Middle East and North Africa were triggered by one man who was not allowed to pursue his only means of income, selling his fruit and vegetables from his cart on the street in Tunisia. One police officer abused her authority by slapping his face, banning him from the street and tipping his cart with no cause. That seemingly simple and minor injustice by a bully triggered people all through those regions to realize the extreme importance of democratic institutions in their own daily lives. More than two months of revolution has been the result!

This is a just election. There has seldom been a more important reason to go to the polls.

Mike

Everything is Connected

Everything is connected.

That fact enables us to overcome a world of obstacles to realize a universe of opportunities.

Can Foreign Policy Affect Your Life?

The Economist's travel section, "Gulliver", serving business travellers, not your average Commie-Socialist-Red Rag, warns us about the dangers of perimeter security.

Now U.S. homeland Security can stop Canadians and others travelling from Canada to other countries, not simply to the U.S. of A.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/02/no-fly_lists&fsrc=nlw|gul|02-22-2011|gulliver

Of course it's "all for the greater good", isn't it?

Dawood Hepplewhite, a name sure to freeze anyone's heart with fear, is a Brit not allowed to travel to his home from Canada by air until the British High Commission intervened and cleared him for travel even though he is still on the Homeland Security No-Fly List.

Of course what do those silly Brits know about terrorism! Oh, and neither are they part of the Perimeter Security accord.

NYSE all About Derivatives

The Los Angeles Times reports "Derivatives business is driving deal for NYSE" .

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nyse-20110215,0,2851128.story

That suggests it is no longer enough to plan securities issues such as equity shares in your company. It seems your CFO and board of directors is well advised to look beyond that to where your company's securities will be positioned in the next stage in their development in investment banking.

What impact does the making of derivatives based on your company's securities have on your shareholders and on your company's ability to go back to equity markets should the need arise.

This could be for mergers, acquisitions, growth or whatever normal business eventuality you face.

Is it possible to imagine your company's securities, ownership or debt, as support for derivatives created on that base? If so, what effect does that have?

What factors can you control that will change the outcome of derivation?

Should you in fact drive the creation of derivatives yourself?

Is it, therefore, better to remain a closely held privately financed company or a widely held publicly financed company, financed through a stock exchange?

Are you relevant to your government?

David Brooks in today's New York Times examines people's "Quest for Dignity".

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/opinion/01brooks.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

He relies on his years of reporting on popular uprisings and marches in his country, in Egypt today and around the world over the years.

I add to his conclusions by suggesting another important foundation for the thinking that brings about these great transitional or return to philosophical roots movements.

We know that our governments are always relevant to us. They set and enforce the rules of commerce, put enabling infrastructures into place and other activities that reflect how we see ourselves behaving as a community of common cause.

Governments can enable or disable all or parts of all that.

But are we relevant to our governments? Do our governments take our aspirations and needs into account as they plan and deliver their actions in our names? Have they set up the means for including our knowledge and opinions into their decision-making processes?

I think the people of Egypt today have determined that the answer to the question, "Are we relevant to our government?" is a resounding "No!".

We in Canada experience similar aspects the same continuum. We have a federal government that has spent millions of dollars of our money to gain access to information about us to see how we are reacting to their decisions and actions after the fact.

That same government continuously thwarts the efforts of citizens to access information about their actions, even though we ask after the decisions have been made and implemented in our name.

We who live in Alberta have for years faced the same characteristics of governing. Interestingly the current federal government's philosophy is rooted in that same Alberta fertilizer.

Singapore Schools

Mr. Kristof does it again!

Great little piece about effectiveness in Education. Singapore seems a little more focussed on job preparation than I think might be healthy. Critical thinking is critically important in life and liberal arts is central to that as far as I'm concerned.

Still a great read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/opinion/30friedman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Welcome to Harper's Mushroom Farm

Welcome to Harper's Mushroom Farm

We have an alarming trend in Canada clearly illustrated when our “Big Man” showed off his population control strengths to his colleagues on the world stage.

Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star always illuminates clearly on whatever she writes, but never more so as when she nurtures democracy by writing about an individual's place in the world. Her latest article with the uninspiring title “DiManno: As new allegations of G20 brutality surface, police raise their shields”, Toronto Star, January 12, 2011, (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/920218—dimanno-as-new-allegations-of-g20-brutality-surface-police-raise-their-shields), deals with the accountability our public servants must have to the citizens they serve.

How can it be that our police can become anonymous law breakers just because the neighbours have come to visit? It's a ridiculous proposal, yet here it is.

If this were simply limited to Toronto, or even Ontario, I would be tempted to look for leadership in this trend in City Hall or Queen's Park. However, the leadership for this surely must rest with the executive part of our national government acting in an international events of G8 and G20, namely the Harper cabinet in Ottawa or more likely, the Prime Minister's Office itself.

We have a government that has prorogued parliament to avoid discussions on an issue that it might find embarrassing. We have a government that hides non-budgetary legislation in omnibus budget bills to avoid public discussion about them. We have a government that responds with ill-concealed reluctance to access to information requests and then blacks out critical items like names, places and dates. We have a government that has parliament sitting in session for among the fewest days per year in the last 30 years. We have a government wherein the cabinet ministers are not allowed to communicate the business of their respective departments to the Canadian public without having their message edited or completely cancelled by the Prime Minister's Office.

The decisions triggering all organizations' activities can be understood within the framework of the leadership. The leadership will ultimately have been responsible for these actions either by direct order or simply by the tone or organizational culture it spawns.

It's no wonder then that the Provincial Parliament of Ontario, its Cabinet and its Premier created an empowering law that was in fact not lawful to encourage just the sort of police behaviour Ms. DiManno so eloquently describes. It's no wonder all the police forces and rent-a-cops behaved as they did when given the corrupting power of carte blanche.

To add insult to injury, many of our national political commentators and Canada's Loyal Opposition spout the nonsense that there is no clear issue on which to bring this government down in a vote of non-confidence. When a government works as hard as this one does to disable Canadians' democratic foundations, no Member of Parliament or Canadian citizen can have confidence in this government's ability to honestly and accountably carry out the business of government we have charged it with.

Thank you Rosie DiManno for pointing out that the disabling of democratic institutions really does trickle down to the everyday lives of Canadians by threatening their most basic freedoms and rights as rulers of their individual and their society's destinies.

Intestinal Fortitude or How're Things in Texas North?

How're Things in Texas North?

I guess we're going to hear about tough decisions being made in Canada and Alberta in the coming budgets.

Paul Krugman points to Texas as evidence of dominant righty fiscal ideology. Evidence makes things kind of awkward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

In any case, we have a living breathing example of a tough decision mentality that makes Texas what it is today. Is that what's going to make Canada and Alberta great as well?

Why do tough decisions always involve others' lives? How tough does one have to be to make life miserable for others in order to protect life for yourself and your friends?

A truly tough decision would be one where the decider and the decider's friends and family sacrifice their own wealth and circumstance to make all of society work better.

However, it seems our tough economic leaders and their tough political associates can measure their toughness in percentage of soft butter and marshmallow in their constitutions.

What if our sports heroes, war heroes and other icons of courage would have led by saying, “You first.”

The first signs of trouble requiring true unselfish leadership works like bran washed down with prune juice. Their intestinal fortitude seems to leave them and there they sit quivering behind locked doors.