X-Efficiency

Too funny!!!

2008-07-26T13:43:00.000-05:00

Of course, this story made me think of this video:

http://axiomsun.com/home/video/beavers_-_hilarious_hooters_parody.html

(WARNING: May not be suitable for all ages.)

---------------------------------------

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080725/hooters_restaurant_080725/20080725?hub=Canada

Hooters' girls too distracting for N.S. drivers

Updated Fri. Jul. 25 2008 10:20 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Police in Dartmouth, N.S. have told employees of a Hooters restaurant not to practice calisthenics outside because their bouncing bodies have been deemed a major distraction for nearby drivers.

The Hooters restaurant chain is famed as much for its young waitresses in low-cut tops and short shorts as it is for its hot chicken wings.

At the restaurant in Dartmouth, the employees begin their shifts with a number of outdoor exercises to help prepare them for their work. They have been performing the outdoor exercise routine since April 5 of this year, when the restaurant opened.

But there was an accident linked to the Hooters' ladies about a month ago.

"We were cheering to the cars, waving (and) people were beeping," bartender Bryana Doyscher explained to CTV Atlantic. "One guy kept his eyes on us and kept going down (the street) and a bus stopped to let a passenger out and the guy smacked into the back of the bus."

On Friday, another rear-end fender bender occurred during their morning exercises and police told the employees not to exercise on the sidewalk. They have since moved their routine to the parking lot.

"We attended Hooters and we had asked them to move their staff away from the roadway to another parking lot where they wouldn't be distracting drivers," Halifax Regional Police spokesperson Theresa Brien said.

But Hooters' manager feels that his employees should be able to use the sidewalk on one of Dartmouth's busiest streets.

"I can understand safety but we're not doing anything wrong," store manager Scott Samways said. "It's a huge marketing ploy, pretty women can sell pretty much anything they want."

Employees say they, and the restaurant, benefit from a little outdoor jumping and stretching.

"I think we should be out here promoting ourselves," waitress Amy Randell said. "It gets people in the restaurant and a lot of people enjoy it."

Not everyone in the neighbourhood agreed with that assessment.

"I'm a guy but I don't think it's proper to do that out here," one area-man said. "Like you seen, a fender-bender right off the get go."

But then there are those who recognize the benefit to the community that Hooters provides.

"I can understand it causes distractions for the drivers, however they shouldn't be looking at pretty girls," an older gentleman said.

As for him?

"I'm not driving," he said with a smile.

With a report from CTV Atlantic's Lindsey Deluce

Why I have problems with "most" unions

2008-07-25T19:17:00.000-05:00

I agree that some existence of union is necessary - that is to protect some basic rights of workers (i.e. safety, workplace conditions, and to prevent close to "slavery wages").

However, the following is why I have problems with many unions and their cronies:

- "the workers wanted a share of Potash Corp's soaring revenues," and

- "they [the workers] are the ones who have done the work underground and on the surface to produce the product that's been sent around the world and made this company the money that it has."

What about the management and investors? If there is no management to plan and coordinate production, and if there is no investors (shareholders of the company) to take the risk, those workers would not even have jobs (a footnote here: Potash Corp. was a crown corporation until the 90s, and is now the second largest company in Canada, in terms of market value.)

Now, did workers' job nature changed much, over the past two years, that produced such a huge jump of revenue for Potash Corp.? I highly doubt it. Not to mention mining potash is much safer than mining coal and other minerals.

The sole reason of such a high revenue for the company is because of high commodity price in fertilizer in the global market (hence, Potash Corp. is now flushed with cash.) It has everything to do with supply and demand, and I believe that shareholders and management (in some degree, because of excellent strategic positioning the company in the past decade) should be the first ones to be rewarded before workers.

Workers?? Yes, they should be rewarded as well, but not as much as the other two stakeholders.

If the price of potash crashes tomorrow, and Potash Corp. is in a crunch and demand a wage reduction from it workers, I wonder if the union will say "the workers wanted a share of Potash Corp's burden, and will take a substantial pay cut voluntary."

Now, I have to give an applause to Buzz Hargrove - which he did exactly the above a few months ago in his negotiations with the "Big 3" (however, I am still not too sure if those three companies can be saved - even with concessions from CAW). As much as I dislike Buzz, he deserves that credit, for once.

According to the latest development, Potash Corp. has offered their workers to become "the highest-paid potash miners" in the industry - global-wise speaking. I hope the union will not get too greedy and reject such an offer.

----------------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
DATE: 2008.07.22
EDITION: Final
SECTION: Business
PAGE: C7
BYLINE: Cassandra Kyle

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Potash Corp union holds strike vote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unionized employees at Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan's Allan, Cory and Patience Lake mines held a strike vote Monday after being without a collective bargaining agreement since April 30.

United Steelworkers (USW) District 3 staff representative Lee Edwards confirmed Monday afternoon the vote was underway at Saskatoon's Confederation Inn. Vote results were to be returned either late Monday evening or today, she said.

Potash Corp spokesperson Bill Johnson said the company is hoping a settlement will be reached soon.

"We remain very hopeful that we can reach a settlement with all three unions," he said. "We value our workers a great deal. We think they are the best in the industry, and we certainly hope we can come to an agreement with them."

Of the nearly 600 people who worked at the three mines in 2006, nearly 500 are represented by a USW collective agreement. USW District 3 staff representative Mike Park said in an earlier interview with The StarPhoenix that safeguards would be put in place to protect employees if the April 30 deadline passed without a deal.

Speaking in March, Park said the workers wanted a share of Potash Corp's soaring revenues. In 2007, the company recorded a net income of $1.1 billion.

"They're the ones who have done the work underground and on the surface to produce the product that's been sent around the world and made this company the money that it has," Park said of the employees.

The union rep added there needed to be a balance between revenues and wages.

"It's not unusual when we get to bargaining . . . to sit down and look at the economy of the day to see where we're going to go," he said.

On Thursday, the same day the company celebrated the completion of $410 million in expansions at its Lanigan mine, Potash Corp announced plans to increase its potash production by 2.7 million tonnes to 18 million tonnes by the end of 2012.

On Wednesday, Canpotex, the offshore marketer for Saskatchewan potash, raised its spot price for some Asian buyers to $1,000 US per tonne.

ckyle@sp.canwest.com

Buy a Car, Get a Free Gun

2008-05-25T18:12:00.001-05:00

Something that I don't quite understand - how could sales quadrupled with only a $250 credit/discount on each vehicle???

Did the "marketing gimmick" make such a big difference??

------------------------------------------

Buy a car, get a free gun

Fri May 23, 2008 11:06am EDT

By Carey Gillam

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri car dealer said on Thursday sales have soared at his auto and truck business since launching a promotion this week that promises buyers a free handgun or a $250 gas card with every purchase.

Max Motors, a small Butler, Missouri dealership that has as its logo a grimacing cowboy wielding a pistol, has sold more than 30 cars and trucks in the last three days, far more than its normal volume. And owner Mark Muller credits his decision to start offering buyers their choice of a $250 gas card or a $250 credit at a gun shop.

"This thing has taken off. Sales have quadrupled," said Muller. The store sells both used and new vehicles including General Motors and Ford products.

Every buyer so far "except one guy from Canada and one old guy" has elected to take the gun, Muller said. Muller recommends his customers select a Kel-Tec .380 pistol.

"It's a nice little handgun that fits in your pocket," he said.

Muller said the promotion was inspired by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is vying with Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November.

"We did it because of Barack Obama. He said all those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive."

"We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns," said Muller. "I've got a gun in my pocket right now. I have a rifle in my truck. We've got to shoot the coyotes out here, they're attacking our cows, our chickens. We're not clinging to nothing. We're just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want. This is the way it ought to be."

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Ok ladies, this is just a joke economists found funny............

2008-05-09T18:23:00.001-05:00

One of the dumbest things I have seen recently......

2008-05-02T19:44:00.000-05:00

These MPs are just shameless - by making this a political issue.

I wonder how many of these MPs wear all Canadian-made clothes in their foreign visits or trade missions. Maybe they should check their undies!!

-------------------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080502.wuniforms0502/BNStory/National/home

Hudson's Bay says it will review made-in-China Olympic uniforms

BILL CURRY

Globe and Mail Update

May 2, 2008 at 7:03 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Hudson's Bay Co. is offering to boost the Canadian content of its Vancouver 2010 Olympics gear after critics raised a stink over its largely made-in-China line for Team Canada in Beijing.

MPs from the opposition Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois and NDP were all shaking their heads yesterday after learning that the federal government did not ensure greater Canadian content in the contract, especially given the financial challenges facing Canada's textiles industry.

Instead, the uniforms from Hudson's Bay Co. will be 80-per-cent made in China, which is hosting this summer's Games and coming under increasing scrutiny over its human-rights record and high pollution. The Olympic wear sold in retail stores like the Bay and Zellers will be 90-per-cent made in China.

The Conservative government added its voice, saying they would have preferred to see the Canadian Olympic Committee ensure the clothes be made in Canada.

“We regret the decision to produce Olympic clothes offshore,” said Blair MacLean, a spokesman for Helena Guergis, the secretary of state for sport.

This is the second of four Olympic games in which Hudson's Bay Co. will be Canada's official clothier, after a $100-million bid in 2005 knocked off the previous supplier, Roots, which made a point of manufacturing its Olympic clothes in Canada.

“This is a no-brainer. This is our Olympic team,” NDP MP Paul Dewar said. “We should be ensuring that all of our Olympic athletes are proudly wearing Canadian-made textiles and all of their uniforms should be made in Canada.”

Mr. Dewar expressed hope the government and Hudson's Bay Co. will ensure the uniforms are made in Canada for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

“Wouldn't that be an embarrassment to have our uniforms made in China or anywhere else for the upcoming Vancouver Olympics? So hopefully someone is doing their homework on that,” he said.

Liberal MP Denis Coderre said the issue is about symbolism.

“I think that we are missing a tremendous opportunity here,” he said.

Hillary Marshall, the director of corporate communications for Hudson's Bay Co., said the company turned to the Asian market, which has expertise in the organic, moisture-reducing fabrics needed for the athletes. She noted that the uniforms that will be worn by the athletes during the parade and on the podium will be 100-per-cent Canadian-made and all clothing is also 100-per-cent designed in Canada.

“We always prefer to buy Canadian,” she said, adding that most of the clothing industry has moved overseas. “We'd be very happy to sit down with the textile and garment manufacturers in this country now – because we're starting to plan for Vancouver now – and discuss how they can provide made-in-Canada product that meets costs, the enormous quantities and the technical requirements.”

Elliot Lifson, the president of the Canadian Apparel Federation, said it would not be difficult to find Canadian suppliers for the contract.

“The argument of not finding somebody [in Canada], I don't buy,” he said. “The argument … ‘I make it where it is the least costly,' I buy that. I'm in business.”

While it would have been a positive symbol for the athletes' clothing to be made in Canada, he said Hudson's Bay Co. should not be singled out for what it does with its retail line.

“Don't hang the Hudson's Bay out to dry. If you're going to do that, do that to everybody. We might as Canadians go out and hang ourselves, because that's what we're doing. What can I tell you? Go try and find a made-in-Canada label in Wal-Mart.”

Very Funny

2007-12-31T23:57:00.000-05:00

You can find this on YouTube (don't know why it refuses to post on this blog.)

In the mean time, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!!

Loser!!

2007-12-20T19:12:00.000-05:00

First, I am glad that he is now a Liberal problem.

Second, I hope he will get screwed by the Grits.

Third, he is a LOSER (with a big "L" on his forehead.)

---------------------------------

PUBLICATION: The Leader-Post (Regina)
DATE: 2007.12.20
SECTION: News
PAGE: A12
DATELINE: SASKATOON

Orchard's nomination could get scuttled

SASKATOON -- A political tug-of-war is brewing within the Liberal party over David Orchard's campaign for the nomination in the sprawling northern riding of Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.

Orchard was a prominent Saskatchewan backer of Stephane Dion during his successful race for Liberal Leader in 2006.
But there are now media reports that Dion, at the request of Liberal House Leader and Wascana MP Ralph Goodale, will override the nomination race and instead appoint NDP MLA Joan Beatty as the candidate.

The news that the nomination process might be circumvented has been met with mixed emotions from the camp of Orchard, who first rose to prominence in the late 1980s as an anti-free trade activist and later ran twice for the leadership of the defunct federal Progressive Conservative party.

"He thinks it's not something that should be happening, but he's been encouraged to continue campaigning by the response and support he's getting," said Marjaleena Repo, an organizer for Orchard, on Wednesday.

Orchard's candidacy was announced at an October brunch for Dion by Goodale, the Liberal's sole MP in Saskatchewan after the August resignation of Gary Merasty created the vacancy in Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River.

"The understanding we have is this is a real diversion and it falls into Mr. Goodale's lap because he seems to be pushing for someone else," said Repo.

"This goes counter to everything that he was operating from. He had a clear understanding that he was wanted and he was encouraged by Mr. Dion to fight hard. It's unnerving."

When asked in an interview if he was trying to block Orchard, Goodale said he does not comment on nominating processes.

"There are at least three, if not five people, who have expressed interest in that riding. Some very interesting people with some very good credentials. It's a northern riding with a big aboriginal population. There are both aboriginal and non-aboriginal candidates that are interested. The process is ongoing," said the former federal finance minister, noting that the party's "green light" committee is supervising to ensure everyone is treated fairly.

Goodale said the party is by-and-large best served by a full nomination process in a riding but there are rare times when a leader needs the opportunity to appoint a candidate.

He said "we'll see," when asked if this was one of those times.

A Dion representative in Ottawa said only that the federal leader spoke publicly of his appreciation for Orchard on Tuesday and expressed a desire for him to be a candidate at some point.

He is a Smart Ass!!

2007-12-06T19:26:00.000-05:00

I am a bit too old to go back to school, but I am thinking about applying to be a faculty member of one of those 57 schools mentioned below.......or maybe joining their custodial building maintenance staff.

Anyhow, this guy is definitely a "smart ass"!!

----------------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2007.12.06
PAGE: L5 (ILLUS)
BYLINE: KEITH O'BRIEN
SECTION: Globe Life

STUDENT EXCHANGE: TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO BOY HAS GONE BEFORE At all-girls school, he's 1 in 2,300

KEITH O'BRIEN New York Times News Service WELLESLEY, MASS.
To many women, he is simply "the boy." They know who he is, even if they don't know his name. They know his story, even if they've never spoken to him.

In the small, all-female world of Wellesley College in Massachusetts, Mohammad Usman is literally a man among women - about 2,300 women.

Mr. Usman, 19, is the only man attending the college this fall.
"A lot of people don't know his name, really," said Johanna Peace, editor-in-chief of the student newspaper. "If they see him, they'll say, 'Oh - there's the boy.' " The boy in question has been living in a campus dormitory since September, showering in his private bathroom, and perhaps predictably becoming something of a folk hero among his male friends.

But do not get the wrong idea: Wellesley College, where alumni include presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, is not allowing men to become full-time students. Mr. Usman, who grew up in New York, came to Wellesley on a semester-long exchange program, and he maintains that his motives for being here are pure.

He wanted to come for the education. (And the women.) He was looking forward to living near Boston. (And lots of women.) To him, this was the chance of a lifetime.

"I thought it would be really fascinating to be the only male at an all-women's college," said Mr. Usman, a student at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. There are 57 women's colleges in Canada and the United States that are part of the Women's College Coalition, including Brescia University College at the University of Western Ontario in London.

Under an agreement among 11 New England institutions, students can apply to spend a semester at another school. Men have attended Wellesley via the exchange program in the past, although not recently, said Jennifer Thomas-Starck, who oversees the program at Wellesley.

Early on, Mr. Usman said, a campus police officer questioned whether he was actually a student. "The look on his face was just like, 'Yeah, okay, buddy,' " he recalled.

"Most guys who are on campus are somebody's boyfriend," said Amy Goodman, a student. "So when there's a guy who doesn't have anybody and who's going to an all-girls school, it's going to make people go, 'Oh, who is this person?' " Female students have wondered about Mr. Usman's motives. But some say he has blended in among them. In class, he often sits up front, and he has made plenty of female friends.

"Men are welcome," said Wilbur Rich, a political science professor at Wellesley. "If you don't mind being around very, very bright women, it's no problem." That is not an issue for Mr. Usman, who said he has no girlfriend.

He is very attracted to intelligent women, he said, and has enjoyed the attention from his classmates.

My Two Cents on the Decision of the Mulroney/Schreiber Inquiry

2007-11-26T19:15:00.000-05:00

For once, I agree with Gagnon.

Regardless if Mulroney did or did not take any kickbacks, my respect for the man remains unchanged. He is still one of the best PM this country ever had. He implemented fundamental reforms and controversial (but good) policies to improve the economic and social well-beings of Canada.

A public inquiry should not have been ordered. The federal government should have left this file alone, or just order an RCMP investigation. There is nothing to gain to have a public inquiry into this matter. All it does is to waste another hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollar.

------------------------------------
PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2007.11.26
PAGE: A19
BYLINE: LYSIANE GAGNON
SECTION: Comment Column
EDITION: Metro

Mr. Harper should drop the inquiry

LYSIANE GAGNON

At Montreal's annual book fair, a week ago Saturday, Brian Mulroney - the author - was supposed to be one of the main guests. But only a trickle of people lined up to request a signed copy of his 1,200-page memoir.

The next day, at a nearby stand, Jean Chretien, who also published his memoirs this fall, attracted far more attention, even though Mr. Mulroney is - or was, until very recently - considerably more popular than Mr. Chretien in Quebec. (Mr. Mulroney didn't show up for his second scheduled appearance that day.) Mud sticks. Mr. Mulroney may never recover from the smear campaign mounted against him by a shady character who faces multiple accusations of fraud in Germany, and the opposition parties who are now exploiting the affair for their own partisan motives.

Still, the one who is most to blame in this low-level soap opera is Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who clearly lost his bearings.

All he had to do, as Jean Chretien wisely suggested, was to say that if an illegal act had been committed, this was for the police to investigate. Instead, he lamely gave in to the cries for a public inquiry, imposing on us another costly, mudslinging operation that will probably amount to nothing much, except lost reputations and wasted paper.

At least the Gomery inquiry was into the activities of a party that was still in power. But a full public inquiry into the private business of a man who retired from politics 14 years ago? An inquiry, to boot, whose star witness will be an alleged fraudster who already contradicted himself several times and who was obviously ready to say anything to avoid extradition? (Hans Leyendecker, a journalist who has investigated cases of political corruption in Germany, told La Presse that he stopped talking to Karlheinz Schreiber because the lobbyist systematically led him down blind alleys. Too bad Mr. Leyendecker didn't give this piece of advice to the Canadian reporters who gullibly scribbled down everything Mr. Schreiber told them from his prison cell.) Of course, Mr. Mulroney committed a tremendous error of judgment in accepting cash payments. But frankly, are his private transactions a priority for Canadians in 2007? Can't today's politicians find something more useful to do? Never mind Mr. Mulroney himself called for a public inquiry. He has his own agenda: To take revenge against those he believes mounted a vendetta against him, including everyone from former Liberal justice minister Allan Rock to his perceived arch enemy journalist Stevie Cameron. If Mr. Mulroney wants to clear his name, all he has to do is to write another book.

Mr. Harper's second mistake was to ostracize Mr. Mulroney, going so far as to forbid Conservative MPs, senators and senior party officials from even talking to him - a base attack against a man who gave the Conservative party two huge consecutive majorities, whose governmental legacy was one of the most brilliant in Canadian history and who had been one of Mr. Harper's most trusted advisers.

Yet, the Prime Minister treated Mr. Mulroney, who has never been found guilty of an illegal act, as a convicted criminal.

Why wouldn't the presumption of innocence enjoyed by all Canadians, including those who shoot people in front of witnesses, apply to a former prime minister? It's enough that the parliamentary hearings scheduled to start tomorrow will turn into a partisan circus. Let's stop here. Mr. Schreiber should be quickly sent to his fate in Germany and Mr. Harper should scotch the silly idea of holding an inquiry into the minor events of two decades ago. Nobody would object if the Prime Minister reversed his thoughtless decision, except the journalists who wasted months of their lives looking into such trivial matters and the big law firms that would be the only beneficiaries of a full-scale inquiry.

lgagnon@lapresse.ca

Cougars on the prowl in Kenya

2007-11-25T22:42:00.000-05:00

Rich, older female taking advantage over poor young men.......

At least these women are not looking for picking up minors.

----------------------

Cougars on the prowl in Kenya

JEREMY CLARKE

Reuters

November 25, 2007 at 7:54 PM EST

MOMBASA — Bethan, 56, lives in southern England on the same street as best friend Allie, 64.

They are on their first holiday to Kenya, a country they say is "just full of big young boys who like us older girls".

Hard figures are difficult to come by, but local people on the coast estimate that as many as one in five single women visiting from rich countries are in search of sex.

Allie and Bethan -- who both declined to give their full names -- said they planned to spend a whole month touring Kenya's palm-fringed beaches. They would do well to avoid the country's tourism officials.

"It's not evil," said Jake Grieves-Cook, chairman of the Kenya Tourist Board, when asked about the practice of older rich women travelling for sex with young Kenyan men.

"But it's certainly something we frown upon."

Also, the health risks are stark in a country with an AIDS prevalence of 6.9 per cent. Although condom use can only be guessed at, Julia Davidson, an academic at Nottingham University who writes on sex tourism, said that in the course of her research she had met women who shunned condoms -- finding them too "businesslike" for their exotic fantasies.

The white beaches of the Indian Ocean coast stretched before the friends as they both walked arm-in-arm with young African men, Allie resting her white haired-head on the shoulder of her companion, a six-foot-four 23-year-old from the Maasai tribe.

He wore new sunglasses he said were a gift from her.

"We both get something we want -- where's the negative?" Allie asked in a bar later, nursing a strong, golden cocktail.

She was still wearing her bikini top, having just pulled on a pair of jeans and a necklace of traditional African beads.

Bethan sipped the same local drink: a powerful mix of honey, fresh limes and vodka known locally as "Dawa", or "medicine".

She kept one eye on her date -- a 20-year-old playing pool, a red bandana tying back dreadlocks and new-looking sports shoes on his feet.

He looked up and came to join her at the table, kissing her, then collecting more coins for the pool game.

Mr. Grieves-Cook and many hotel managers say they are doing all they can to discourage the practice of older women picking up local boys, arguing it is far from the type of tourism they want to encourage in the east African nation.

"The head of a local hoteliers' association told me they have begun taking measures -- like refusing guests who want to change from a single to a double room," Mr. Grieves-Cook said.

"It's about trying to make those guests feel as uncomfortable as possible ... but it's a fine line. We are 100 per cent against anything illegal, such as prostitution. But it's different with something like this -- it's just unwholesome."

"One type of sex tourist attracted the other," said one manager at a shorefront bar on Mombasa's Bamburi beach.

"Old white guys have always come for the younger girls and boys, preying on their poverty ... but these old women followed ... they never push the legal age limits, they seem happy just doing what is sneered at in their countries."

Experts say some thrive on the social status and financial power that comes from taking much poorer, younger lovers.

"This is what is sold to tourists by tourism companies -- a kind of return to a colonial past, where white women are served, serviced, and pampered by black minions," said Nottinghan University's Davidson.

Many of the visitors are on the lookout for men like Joseph.

Flashing a dazzling smile and built like an Olympic basketball star, the 22-year-old said he has slept with more than 100 white women, most of them 30 years his senior.

"When I go into the clubs, those are the only women I look for now," he said. "I get to live like the rich mzungus (white people) who come here from rich countries, staying in the best hotels and just having my fun."

At one club, a group of about 25 dancing men -- most of them Joseph look-alikes -- edge closer and closer to a crowd of more than a dozen white women, all in their autumn years.

"It's not love, obviously. I didn't come here looking for a husband," Bethan said over a pounding beat from the speakers.

"It's a social arrangement. I buy him a nice shirt and we go out for dinner. For as long as he stays with me he doesn't pay for anything, and I get what I want -- a good time. How is that different from a man buying a young girl dinner?"

Interesting Article

2007-11-20T20:17:00.000-05:00

I don't necessary agree with all Selick's arguments. She got a point, which may reflect a minority of food bank users.

If I follow Selick's assumptions, wouldn't it true for the majority of families visiting their local food banks very frequently, so that they can save on their grocery bills?

There maybe a small portion of people that are taking advantage of the food bank, but I don't see the majority users are taking that road.

Selick assigned the value of people's pride way too low.

----------------------------------

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2007.11.20
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues & Ideas
PAGE: A21
BYLINE: Karen Selick

Food banks are ridiculous

Food bank use has grown by 14.3% since 2001, according to the Ontario Association of Food Banks' recently released Ontario Hunger Report 2007. In Trenton, Ont., (my backyard), it's growing at the astonishing rate of 10% to 15% a month, says the local newspaper.

Surprise, surprise. Did the people who run food banks never hear the expression, "Build it and they will come"?
It's really simple: give stuff away for free and there will be takers. Every merchandiser knows this. That's why stores offer two-for-one sales, free gifts to the first 50 customers, and so on.

Food banks have actually helped create the very problem they claim to be remedying -- people running out of grocery money before the next paycheque or welfare cheque -- by helping eliminate the stigma that used to accompany begging for food.

It's mortifying admitting to people you know -- family, friends or neighbours -- that you can't afford groceries this week. But with a food bank middleman between you and the anonymous donors, nobody who actually knows you will learn of your predicament.

There's also the comfort of seeing the many other food bank users. You needn't be ashamed -- you're not alone in this plight.

And food bank volunteers try to be non-judgmental, to eliminate users' embarrassment as much as possible. In the words of Ontario's Cambridge Self-Help Food Bank: "We work to dispel the societal attitude that people who access a food bank are 'not good enough' and are 'less than' everyone else. Our goal is to have everyone walking out feeling better than when they came in."

So once you've made that first trip, and walked out feeling good, it'll be even easier to go back. In fact, you can start revising your budget with that in mind. Spend a little more on non-necessities and let the food bank fill in the gap with tuna, rice and peanut butter. It makes perfect economic sense.

Food banks are actually a ridiculous idea. In a country devastated by war or natural disaster, it might make sense for charities to bring donated foodstuffs to local relief centres and hand them out. In Canada, it makes no sense whatsoever. Food is everywhere. Supermarkets plan it that way. They build their stores where people live, and keep their shelves fully stocked. All a hungry person in Canada needs in order to fill his belly is cash -- something that can be donated to him far more efficiently than food can be.

It's just plain wasteful for food banks to operate parallel to the existing food distribution system. The rent, utilities, insurance and all the other expenses involved in retailing food have already been paid once by the supermarkets before donors purchase items to donate. When the food bank incurs its own expenses for rent, utilities, insurance, etc., it adds an unnecessary layer of costs to the process of getting food to consumers.

Even shelving costs are duplicated. A supermarket receives whole cartons of the same item. Clerks can shelve everything in minimal time, reducing labour costs. But food bank donations are disorderly jumbles of everything. It takes additional labour to collect, sort and shelve it. Even volunteers' labour still represents a hidden cost. The shelving task has already been done once. Why undo it, then re-do it? It would make more sense for volunteers to spend their time earning income at their usual occupations,

then donating the money to poor people to spend at supermarkets.
Donors and volunteers are wasting another opportunity too: the income tax reduction they'd get by donating cash to a charity, instead of canned goods or labour.

The illogic of food banks is so obvious that only one explanation makes sense. Charities can't simply collect cash and give grocery money to the needy because donors know it wouldn't all be spent on necessities. Some would be spent on cigarettes, booze or bingo. Years ago, when I prepared budget statements for clients on legal aid, I was astonished at how much some poor people spent on such things.

Middle-class or wealthy Canadians shouldn't accept guilt when anti-poverty activists hint that the existence of food banks proves some moral deficiency in the economic system. Far from it. Food banks simply conceal problems that are too taboo to discuss these days.

-Karen Selick is a lawyer in Belleville, Ont.

Where is the Proof??

2007-11-19T20:27:00.000-05:00

Given that I am no longer in middle/high school or college, what are the alternatives to experience if the female behaviour described below is true or not?????

-------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2007.11.19
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues & Ideas
PAGE: A19
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BYLINE: Kathleen Parker
SOURCE: Washington Post Writers Group

The perils of 'hook up' culture

WASHINGTON -If you're younger than 30 or maybe even 35, you may not recognize the word "date" as a verb. But once upon a time, dating was something men and women did as a prelude to marriage, which -- hold on to your britches -- was a prelude to sex.

By now everyone's heard of the hook-up culture prevalent on college campuses and, increasingly, in high schools and even middle schools. Kids don't date; they just do it (or something close to "it," an activity that a recent U.S. president asserted was not actual sex), and then figure out what comes next. If anything. As one young woman explained "hooking up" to Washington Post writer Laura Sessions Stepp (author of the book Unhooked): "First you give a guy oral sex and then you decide if you like him."

This conversation took place in the family room of the girl's home. Immediately after that definition was served, the mother offered Stepp a homemade cookie. And we thought cluelessness was for teenagers.

Too often, what follows the hook-up is emotional pain and physical disease, the combination of which has created a mental-health crisis on American campuses.

That diagnosis comes from Miriam Grossman, author and psychiatrist at UCLA and one of five women, including Stepp, who spoke recently at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center about sex on campus.

Grossman is most concerned that politically correct ideology has contaminated the health field at great cost to young lives. As Grossman sees it, when the scientific facts contradict what is being promoted as truth, then ideology has trumped reality. Speaking to a packed room of mostly women, Grossman noted that while some in the audience had attended college during the free-love days, the world is far more dangerous now. Today, there are more than two-dozen sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are incurable.

The consequences are worse for young women, says Grossman. In her psychiatric practice, she has come to believe that women suffer more from sexual hook-ups than men do and wonders whether the hormone oxytocin is a factor. Oxytocin is released during childbirth and nursing to stimulate milk production and promote maternal attachment. It is also released during sexual activity for both men

and women, hence the nickname "love potion."
Feminists don't much like the oxytocin factor, given the explicit suggestion that men and women might be physically and emotionally different. But wouldn't a more truly feminist position seek to recognize those hormonal differences and promote protection for women from the kind of ignorance that causes them harm?

Physically, young women are getting clobbered by STDs with potentially deadly results. If a young woman begins having sex as a freshman in college, there's a 50% chance she'll have the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) by her senior year. While most cases of HPV are harmless, the virus causes nearly every case of cervical cancer, says Grossman. Stacey, one of the college students featured in Grossman's book Unprotected, contracted HPV even though a condom was used. But HPV, like herpes, lives on skin that may not be covered by a condom. An HPV expert tells college women, "You'd be wise to simply assume your partner has HPV infection."

Your "partner." What happened to your dearly beloved? He -- and she -- disappeared with coed dorms and the triumph of reproductive health ideology. While coed dorms replaced obstacle with opportunity, ideologically driven sex-education programs promoted permissiveness and experimentation.

Because sex ed is based on the assumption that young people are sexually active with multiple partners, kids have been led to believe by mainstream health professionals that casual sex is OK. That's a delusion, says Grossman, because scientific data clearly indicate otherwise. Casual sex is, in fact, a serious health risk.

Rather than spread that word, sex educators have tweaked their message from urging "safe sex" to a more realistic "safer sex," any elaboration of which would defy standards of decency. Interested parents can find out for themselves by visiting one of several university-sponsored sex advice Web sites, such as Columbia's GoAskAlice.com.

To all good and bad, there is an inevitable backlash, and casual sex has lost its allure for many students. Having learned painful lessons from their elders, they are seeking other expressions of intimacy.

At Duke University recently, Stepp asked how many in her audience of about 250 would like to bring back dating. Four out of every five raised their hands. It would seem that young people are not hook-up machines, but are human beings who desire real intimacy and emotional connection. Toward that end, parents might buy Grossman's book for their children--and themselves. Serve with cookies.

Anybody Found the Conclusion a "Surprise"???

2007-11-06T18:42:00.000-05:00

The conclusion of these two articles are the same: a job is the best welfare (for employable individuals).

I am sure most people (other than hardcore lefties) wouldn't find it too surprising.

I just hope that the Quebec government will take a good look at these two articles, look into the studies these articles sited, and amend their policies to eliminate poverty. The last time I heard about the Quebec government's plan to eliminate poverty was pretty scary.

-------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2007.11.05
EDITION: National
SECTION: Issues
PAGE: A15
COLUMN: Lorne Gunter
BYLINE: Lorne Gunter
SOURCE: National Post

The Poverty Industry's Latest Numbers Game

Why have anti-poverty groups recently been so obsessed with the allegedly growing gap between rich and poor in Canada? Because it is just about the only bit of "bad" news left on the poverty front. It's the only angle they have left to pressure politicians for more social spending -- and, of course, continued funding for anti-poverty groups.

The past decade has witnessed a tremendous success in the eradication of poverty. Even using Statistics Canada's overly loose definition of poverty, rates have fallen dramatically since 1996. Where a decade ago nearly 16% of Canadians were living with low incomes, today under 11% are.

After accounting for inflation, seniors' incomes have risen 15%, leaving just 6.1% of Canadians over 65 in low income.
The poverty rate for single moms has fallen from 52.7% to 29.1%; still too high, but a vast improvement in just a decade. Their median incomes have risen from $21,900 to $30,400, and the increase has been almost entirely from higher market earnings rather than social payments. Where just 10 years ago 60% of single moms' incomes came from government, now just 25% does.

Even the number of children living in poverty has fallen more than a third since 1996.
To be sure, pockets of dire poverty persist. According to John Richards of Simon Fraser University, who recently analyzed the issue in a study for the C.D. Howe Institute, aboriginals, the undereducated, the mentally ill, the physically handicapped and immigrants trapped in ethnic ghettos remain poor at unacceptably high levels. He also found that high effective tax rates on the "near poor" discourage some from moving from social assistance to work.

But for the vast majority of Canadians, the news is good. Moreover, that good news is even better than official statistics indicate.

StatsCan has no measure of absolute poverty -- the inability to provide life's basics such as food, clothing and shelter. Instead, Canadian poverty numbers are based on the agency's Low-Income Cut-Off, or LICO, which is a measure of relative poverty. Persons who must spend 20% more of their income on necessities than the average family in their area are considered to be "living in low income." While such a life may be difficult, it is likely not what most taxpayers would consider "poor." The real number of poor -- those Canadians who cannot provide the essentials of life--is likely half the official LICO rate.

Which brings us back to the recent focus on the gap between rich and poor.
It is true that the pre-tax, pre-transfer income of the top 20% of earners rose faster than the income of the bottom 20% in the past 10 years. Where the gap in yearly income between the top 20% and bottom 20% was $84,500 in 1996, it was over $105,000 in 2006. The ratio of income from employment, investment and private pensions was approximately 11 to one in 1996. Today it is nearly 13 to one.

This is the number anti-poverty advocates have been focusing on ever since StatsCan released it in the spring.
But it is a phony number. No one lives in a pre-tax, pre-transfer world.
What matters in the real world is how much money you have after governments take their cut and after you have received your GST rebates, child tax credits, public pensions, disability and so on.

The post-tax, post-transfer income gap in Canada -- the real-world income gap -- was 5.6 to one in 1996 and it is 5.6 to one today.

This is the gap that matters, and it hasn't increased even a fraction in the past decade. All the wailing and hand-wringing over the allegedly growing gap between rich and poor is nothing more than a cynical attempt to convince taxpayers and politicians that poverty is still a problem requiring huge government outlays and, of course, well-funded anti-poverty groups.

There might be another reason anti-poverty activists have shied away from the good news: The improvement in poorer Canadians' status had little to do with the social spending they so adamantly endorse.

As Professor Richards points out, "the introduction of new provincial welfare protocols probably explains much of the last decade's increase in the employment rate among groups with high rates of poverty." Provinces made it harder to get welfare, so employable welfare recipients went out and found jobs. As a result, poverty went down.

It's true the economy has been strong for the past decade, producing lots of new jobs and higher pay. Had the economy not been so strong, the poverty picture might not be as rosy. Still, cutting people off welfare probably had more to do with lowering poverty than did the strength of the economy, and far more than any social program.

Remember that in the late 1980s, Ontario had its strongest economy in the past 50 years, yet welfare rates in the province still doubled during that period because the Liberal government of the day kept raising welfare rates. It wasn't until rates were cut --and it made more sense for most recipients to work than live off welfare -- that poverty rates went done.

Work, not welfare, eliminates poverty.

lgunter@shaw.ca

-------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2007.11.06
PAGE: A23
BYLINE: MARGARET WENTE
SECTION: Comment Column
EDITION: Metro

Why we're winning the war on poverty

MARGARET WENTE A terrific thing happened to single mothers and their kids over the past decade. They've become a lot better off. Single mothers today are far less likely to be poor and far more likely to have jobs. And their income has shot up.

This is bad news for the poverty industry, which depends on single mothers and their children to sell the public on its anti-poverty crusades. It's tough to make your case when your pool of sympathetic victims is drying up. It's even tougher when the economy and employment rates are booming. But the worst news of all (for poverty activists) is that the boom times are not the main reason why welfare rolls are shrinking. The main reason is dramatic social policy reforms.

This is the conclusion reached by John Richards, a respected public policy analyst at Simon Fraser University. His new study for the C. D. Howe Institute, called Reducing Poverty, finds that the best remedy for poverty is - guess what? - a job.

Back in 1994, when the national welfare rate peaked at nearly 11 per cent (13 per cent in Ontario), that idea was heresy. The best remedy for poverty was then thought to be more welfare. But Canada was in the red, and governments were forced to slash welfare to get a grip on their finances. Everyone predicted that more poverty would inevitably follow.

Something else was happening, too. The three biggest provinces began to realize that their poverty policies didn't work. Even during boom times, the welfare rolls didn't shrink and the poverty rate didn't budge. In Alberta, a senior civil servant named Mike Cardinal realized that welfare was doing awful things to aboriginal communities.

Over the next few years, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia all tightened eligibility requirements and cut benefits. "Get a job" became a policy goal.

Social workers were now directed to divide people into two distinct groups - those who were "employable" and those who, because of mental or physical disabilities, were not. The idea was to restrict welfare access for the "employable" and give them job training or help with child care or whatever else they needed to get a job. At the same time, benefits for the truly disabled would be made far more generous.

In B.C., the number of people on welfare who were deemed "employable" shrank 90 per cent, while the group deemed unemployable tripled.

There were two other important elements to this tough/soft love approach. The federal government tightened up on unemployment insurance.

It also increased child benefits, which supplement wage rates for low-income families.
Here's what happened: From 1994 to 2003, the number of people on welfare across Canada fell by half. It's now under 6 per cent - the same rate as in the 1970s. In the decade between 1996 and 2005, the poverty rate (as defined by Statistics Canada) fell from 16 per cent to 11 per cent. The war is far from over, but the progress is impressive.

The most dramatic changes were to single-mother families. Their poverty rate fell from 56 per cent to 33 per cent. In 1996, single mothers made a median income from work of only $8,600 (after tax).

By 2005, that figure had nearly tripled, to $22,200 (all rates in 2005 dollars). In other words, more single mothers were employed, and their earnings had gone up.

Canada's welfare reform happened piecemeal and by stealth. Although nobody really noticed, we've headed down the same path as the United States and Britain. In all three nations, both welfare and poverty rates have markedly declined.

The difference is that, in the U.S. and Britain, there's been a certain convergence among liberals and conservatives about what works. Not in Canada. You can be excused if you are under the impression nothing's changed. "It's still the rhetoric that poverty is as serious, or more so, than ever," says Mr. Richards. Especially if you listen to the poverty industry.

mwente@globeandmail.com

From the Toronto Star

2007-09-08T15:17:00.000-05:00

Well, well, well........just hope that Tory will not end up like Day.

On the other hand, we all know who the Star is supporting.

Is John Tory's Campaign over???

2007-09-07T20:44:00.000-05:00

As much as I like John Tory, I am totally disappointed.

I just don't quite understand why he would even touch that issue - given Tory is going against Warren Kinsella and how Kinsella demonized Day in the 2000 federal election.

What was John Tory thinking?? Avoiding mixing politics and religion is one of the rules in "Canadian Politics 101". It is the "golden rule" in retail politics.

I hope John Tory and the Ontario PC Party can get out of this PR mess. On the other hand, this mis-step gave McGuinty a lot of momentum for a second term.

--------------------------------------

Conservatives downplay creationism controversy

CHINTA PUXLEY

Canadian Press

September 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM EDT

TORONTO — Burned by his rekindling of the emotionally charged battle between creationism and evolution, Ontario's Progressive Conservative leader anxiously tried to deflect some of the attention Thursday as he urged voters not to judge him solely on the party's promise to fund faith-based schools.

John Tory, poised to hit the provincial campaign trail for the first time Monday, said he believes in evolution and admitted he needs to “choose his words carefully” when talking about such a controversial issue on the eve of an election.

“In the course of an election campaign, you have to have an open, honest discussion about these kinds of issues and you always have to choose your language with precision,” Mr. Tory said when asked if he regretted musing about teaching creationism in public religious schools.

“I understand that this issue is controversial . . . But it doesn't mean that you shouldn't discuss it or try to sweep it under the carpet.”

Voters in Ontario go the polls Oct. 10.

Tory opened a political Pandora's box Wednesday when he said he didn't see why creationism couldn't be taught in public religious schools on top of evolution and “other theories.”

He later clarified the remarks by insisting the subject would be restricted to religion class and wouldn't get the same emphasis as evolution, which is taught in the science lab.

On Thursday, Mr. Tory said his proposal to fund faith-based schools which teach the Ontario curriculum, hire accredited teachers and administer standardized tests shouldn't be the defining issue in the minds of voters.

“It's a part of our platform,” he said following at an event in a Toronto suburb.

“It represents a quarter of a page in a 52-page document . . . The education issue is one issue.”

Meanwhile, Liberal rival Dalton McGuinty was staking out his own safe territory on the thorny topic.

“Creationism is not a science,” Mr. McGuinty said. “Evolution is a science. When we're teaching science in our public schools, we should be teaching evolution.”

By wading head-first into the highly charged issue of creationism in class, Tory mystified political observers and became the latest in a line of politicians to learn the hard way how Canadians react when the thorny issue of religion rears its head during election season.

Former federal Conservative leader Stockwell Day, a devout fundamentalist Christian, was excoriated during the 2000 election campaign for stating his belief that dinosaurs and people walked the earth together.

It made for a Liberal field day. One strategist brandished a Barney doll as he declared, “This was the only dinosaur ever to be on Earth with humans.”

The issue of funding religious schools is contentious enough without mentioning “creationism,” said David Docherty, dean of arts at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont.

That stirs up fears Ontario is moving toward the American model, where “creationism is going to get equal time with evolution,” he said.

If Mr. Tory was trying to differentiate himself from Mr. McGuinty, “he's chosen an unwise way to do it,” Mr. Docherty said.

“Mr. Tory is a very experienced politician. He learned at the feet of the master, (former Ontario premier) Bill Davis. But this is something Bill Davis never would have done.”

Mr. Davis extended full funding to Ontario Catholic schools in the mid-1980s.

Five other provinces — Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec — offer some form of public funding for independent schools.

David King, executive director of the Public School Boards' Association of Alberta, said the province's model means public religious schools can teach beliefs like creationism on top of the provincial curriculum, as long as it's approved by the Department of Education.

“There is always tension. There are people who will say some of their optional programs should not be accepted by the department — that's a source of tension,” he said.

“But there is tension about every issue of public policy and you don't resolve anything in a meaningful way by saying if there is tension, we are going to forbid it.”

But Liberal Education Minister Kathleen Wynne said “Ontario is not Alberta.”

“We are unique. People in Ontario take publicly funded education very seriously and the anxiety that (Mr. Tory) has stirred up is very genuine,” said Ms. Wynne, who is going head-to-head with Tory for her Toronto seat.

“Can we afford to take money from the public purse and put it into private religious schools at this juncture? The answer is no. Is that a direction we want to go? The answer is no.”

Mark Your Calendar!!

2007-09-01T15:45:00.000-05:00

Sorry that I haven't been able to post much lately. It has been a while since I put up something here. I have been occupied with financial news and the economy lately. It has been a fascinating 6 weeks, watching how the world market reacts to the credit crunch, and how central banks have been working hard to calm those effects.

To sum it up: "the best is yet to come". I still think the worst has not past yet. There should be another wave of big ups and downs in the next 8 weeks.

Anyhow, this is the show I will not miss: Triumph & Treachery: The Brian Mulroney Story

I still consider Mr. Mulroney as one of the two best PMs Canada had ever had since after World War II.

Glorifying Call Girls (Sugar-Babies), Johns (Sugar-Daddies), and Pimps (the Web-Master)??

2007-07-22T18:42:00.000-05:00

To all the rich guys and beautiful girls.........

-------------------------------------------

MODERN DATING: SEEKING SUGAR DADDIES I'm yours - for just $5,000 a month

SIRI AGRELL

Josie, a 28-year-old publishing company employee from Montreal, loves to get dressed up and go for fancy dinners. She would also like whomever she is seeing to have a monthly budget of $3,001 to $5,000 (U.S.) dedicated to her whims.

Justin, a 24-year-old living in Fort McMurray, Alta., is primarily interested in sex, has a net worth between $1-million and $2-million and is willing to shell out more than $20,000 a month for the woman in his life.

Both have put this information out there on a site called SeekingArrangement, an online dating service that caters to people - including more than 2,900 Canadians - who want to be a sugar daddy or to have one.

"If you look at history, whether courtesan or geisha, such relationships have existed for centuries," says the site's founder, Brandon Wade, 36. "This is just taking it online." Mr. Wade insists that accommodating these partnerships does not make him a virtual pimp. "In prostitution, you exchange money for sex," he says. "In an arrangement, sex is not always involved or does not come into play until much later. This involves a component of romancing." Mr. Wade, who is married to a woman 13 years his junior, defines the sugar-daddy arrangement as a "mutually beneficial relationship, usually between a wealthy person and somebody who's really attractive." His site launched in July of last year and has about 100,000 registered members, with a wealthy-man-to-really-attractive-female ratio of 1:10 and Canada as its second largest market. Sugar daddies pay $35 a month, while "sugar babies" join free on the condition that they submit a completed profile and send in a photo.

Both men and women can pay additional fees to have their profile classified as "premium." Elizabeth Brown, a 22-year-old Toronto student, posted her profile a year ago and has so far met two men through the service. "I've only ever written to people who write to me first," she says. "You get some people who are sketchy and seem to be looking for escorts, which is weird because it's not that hard to find one in Toronto." She does not date men who are "much older" and agrees to a rendezvous only if she thinks she has something in common with her suitor.

"Honestly, it's just like regular dating," she says. "I don't meet up with people I wouldn't be interested in otherwise." Having recently ended a serious relationship, Ms. Brown says she is not looking for a commitment, which is why she chose SeekingArrangement.

"You're more honest about what it is you're bringing to the table," she says. "It's a lot easier to negotiate terms." And the terms negotiated by the site's 2,245 Canadian sugar babies and 716 Canadian sugar daddies can be amazingly specific.

Sugar daddy #126169, who claims to have a net worth between $2-million and $5-million, is looking for a smart woman with a nice body and pretty smile who "makes great salads." One Canadian sugar baby, who lists her occupation as "independent contractor," writes that she is "exceptionally orally skilled." Others are not so subtle. Sugar baby #147014, a 22-year-old from Toronto, describes herself as stunning. "Any man would be proud to have me on his arm or under the silks," she writes in her online profile. "I want my tution [sic] taken care of. In return I will show my gratitude in more ways than one!" A 20-year-old aspiring "glamour model" from Montreal says she is very turned on by power. "Ultimately," she writes. "I want a Sugar Daddy or Mommy who will provide me with breast-augmentation surgery." Some post pictures in which they pose with their children. A 19-year-old from Vancouver says she wants to live with her sugar daddy and another woman says she wants financial help buying her own home.

Toronto and Vancouver have the most users, although there are arrangement seekers everywhere from Drummondville, Que., to Dartmouth, N.S.

Mr. Wade says many of the relationships spawned on his site are long-distance, citing one sugar daddy who has reportedly "had significant success" flying girls to his Caribbean island.

Two people have cancelled their memberships because they are getting married to someone they met on the site, he says.
And Mr. Wade's 33-year-old sister has also used the service to meet two men, one of whom she is now dating. They meet once a week for lunch or dinner, and she is paid $4,000 a month.

So is he uncomfortable with that? "I, um, kind of, uh, was surprised at first. But no, I'm not," he says. "She tells me she's never had sex with him."

Very Interesting Article from the National Post!!

2007-07-09T20:37:00.000-05:00

This is a very interesting article, about the press in China. I am totally surprised that a Chinese paper is allowed to publish such an article.

In the mean time, it is pretty scary if Edmonton and/or Calgary (or Alberta) is really thinking of implementing rent control. There is a saying by an economist (I forgot whom) said that rent control is the second-best way, other than nuclear bombs, to destroy a city. Let's hope this will not happen anywhere in Alberta.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2007.07.09
EDITION: National
SECTION: Editorials
PAGE: A12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beef noodles and Economics 101

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an interesting controversy in north China at the moment, one that involves a staple of the country's culinary heritage. Mention the city of Lanzhou to any mainlander and one of the first items he will imagine are the delicious stretched yellow noodles served locally with beef, clear broth, radishes and caraway. According to one travel guide, a Lanzhou resident is literally defined by the beef noodles he eats.

Lanzhou beef noodle bowls have traditionally been an affordable treat, but last spring the average local price of a large serving suddenly jumped from 27 cents to 31 cents -- no small change in a city far from China's metropolitan centre, where many people are still living on Third World incomes. The resulting outcry was so great that it reached the pages of The New York Times. A Communist party-led investigation found that a cartel of noodle-shop owners had agreed on a price increase and sent around an ominous circular urging colleagues to go along or face the consequences. But even the shop owners who opposed the cartel had to admit that their overhead, particularly in the costs of labour and beef, had risen.

Recently the city government of Lanzhou announced a special price ceiling on beef noodle bowls and declared that sellers who violated it would be punished to the full extent of municipal law. One might expect that this measure would be welcomed in a poor Communist society. But according to an op-ed in the Beijing Youth Daily (translated into English by the media and culture Web site Danwei.org), the local public has actually been quite skeptical. It turns out they do not regard the shop owners as inhuman predators, but as fellow citizens and enterprising artists who share the common burden of rising costs for health care and housing.

The market for beef noodles, observed the paper, is a highly competitive one with low barriers to entry, making it a poor target for regulation. "In a society whose prices are soaring upward, the majority of Lanzhou's beef noodle shops are operating on slim margins, so if they have no way to increase prices in response, then skimping on materials seems to be their only way out. If that is the case, then even if the price does not change, I'm afraid that so-called 'beef noodles' will no longer live up to their name." Another regional newspaper stated that "beef noodles are not a monopoly product, so the market will naturally adjust their price.... Under this argument, isn't the Lanzhou Price Administration Department a bit too broad in its management?"

Reading the array of press and popular response to the price controls, one can only stand astonished at the apparent political and economic sophistication of today's Chinese public. The editorialists and interviewees reacting to the beef-noodle regulations display an understanding that government intervention is not necessarily the right way to protect an essential piece of the country's cultural heritage; that entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of a nation; that price controls on a good are likely to discourage differentiation by quality, and encourage corner-cutting.

Are Canadians, on the whole, so well-informed and sensible? Here's a hint: hop on a plane tomorrow and fly to the most conservative province in Conservative-led Canada, and the first thing you will find (when you get to Alberta) is a Conservative government seriously debating price controls on rental property -- even though the immediate effects, known from decades of empirical study, would be to discourage both the upkeep of existing buildings and investment in new ones. It's like treating a tumour with a bullet. We can't last long competing with China unless we rediscover the competitive and libertarian instincts that we once had and that they seem to have acquired in what is, on a historic scale, a mere heartbeat.

Study: Canadians and Their Non-Voting Political Activity

2007-07-07T11:22:00.000-05:00

This is a pretty interesting study by Statcan. It could help political parties to narrow their recruitment effort.

Here is the full report, and this is a summary of the study.

It is True that Trade Lowers Inflation

2007-07-07T11:12:00.000-05:00

The more I think about it, the more I believe that trade helps lower inflation.......of course, I still believe that the most part of inflation has to do with unemployment rate, productivity, and economic growth, but trade definitely got a role.

--------------------------------------------------

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2007.07.06
PAGE: L2
BYLINE: REBECCA DUBE
SECTION: Globe Life
EDITION: Metro

The no-China syndrome

REBECCA DUBE What would life be like without "Made in China?" Sara Bongiorni decided to answer that question last year, when she and her family resolved to stop buying products manufactured in China.

The answer: harder, and more expensive.

"From the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed at night, we are so closely interconnected with the Chinese economy," says Ms. Bongiorni, a business writer in Baton Rouge, La., who chronicles the yearlong experiment in her book A Year Without "Made in China" - to be released on July 15.

Food was the least of her challenges, she says, though the family accidentally bought chocolates, oranges and a box of candy canes from China. She didn't investigate the source of every ingredient: avoiding items marked "Made in China" was challenging enough.

When her four-year-old son needed new shoes, she realized how accustomed she'd become to paying $15 (U.S.) a pair at Payless.

She ended up going online and paying $68 for Italian tennis shoes - buying them two sizes too big so they'd last longer.

The toy aisle at Target inspired at least one breakdown from her long-suffering son, who wailed at one point 10 months in, "It's too long without China!" Permanently banning products from China from your life would require major adjustments, she says: "If you decide you won't buy anything from China, you have basically decided you won't own a telephone." Her year without China was more a social experiment than a political statement. She's gone back to her old buying habits - but with a new perspective on how much North Americans rely on Chinese imports.

"We are so quickly becoming interconnected to places we don't understand that are so far away," Ms. Bongiorni says. "There's just no easy, clear, neat choices you get to make as a consumer in this world."

Another Free Trade Deal!!

2007-06-16T23:08:00.000-05:00

Well, I have been impressed with Emerson being a minster with the Conservative government since Day 1. Actually, I should say even before he became a minister for the Conservative government.

The government is announcing the second trade agreement in the past 10 days.

Although I have not yet seen the complete version of both deals, it is good that the government is in full-steam negotiating trade agreements with other countries to diversify our trade.

......and these guys - I am speechless about these idiots. Their latest stunt is blaming the media for their violent act??!! Did the media provoke them to become violent in their protest? Did the media even ask them to protest?

These are the stupidiest bunch of people that I have ever seen.

More Proof of Higher Gasoline Tax Will Work

2007-06-15T17:48:00.000-05:00

This is some very interesting observations by the DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc.

Higher the gas price, higher sales volume of subcompact/compact cars.

Again, this proves the effectiveness of a Pigouvian tax on gasoline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just did an update of our tracking of entry level vehicles sales (subcompact and compact cars and light trucks) relative to monthly gas prices. There is an amazing co-relation between the two. Virtually every month when gas prices go up, sales of entry level vehicle sales so up. And amazingly the opposite is also true, when gas prices go down during the month, sales of entry level vehicles go down as well. So we have a consumer that for months and months see fuel prices rising and the moment fuel prices do down, if even for a month, the consumer goes out and buys a larger vehicle. It is almost as is they are waiting for lower fuel prices to justify the purchase of a larger vehicle, historical tracking doesn't seem to matter.

This also makes a mockery of the Federal feebate program. Instead of the ill conceived Federal feebate debacle all Ottawa had to do was increase the price of fuel. Everyone would have been treated fairly, it would immediately result in more entry level vehicle purchases (see the chart) and all 19 million vehicle owners might drive less. I guess EFFECTIVE policies to address the climate change agenda are NOT part of any Federal politicians policy portfolio. They prefer to use policies that don't work and are unfair to many OEMs.

Dennis DesRosiers

DesRosiers Automotive Consultants Inc
Dennis DesRosiers
President
dennis@desrosiers.ca
80 Fulton Way Suite 101
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 1J5
tel: 1-905-881-0400 - 13
fax: 1-905-881-7456
mobile: 1-416-543-8611
www.desrosiers.ca

Equalization

2007-06-14T19:46:00.000-05:00

Equalization has been a very hot topic in Ottawa and Atlantic Canada lately. It is making some noise even in Saskatchewan.

From a policy stand point, I believe that the federal government is doing the right thing - by putting a cap on equalization payments including oil and gas (non-renewable resources) revenue. But from a political point of view, I think maybe the Conservative over-promised during the 2006 campaign.

Anyhow, I put the blame on Paul Martin, who started this whole mess, by brokering "side-deals" with individual provinces during the 2004 and 2006 campaign. Those were very bad public policies.

Yesterday Globe's editorial and Andrew Coyne's article summed up my thoughts.

-------------------------------------

PUBLICATION:	National Post
DATE:	2007.06.13
SECTION:	Editorials
PAGE:	A18
COLUMN:	Andrew Coyne

Nova Scotia's sweetheart deal

I am trying to decide which is the more outrageous: the Atlantic premiers' phoney grievance over the new equalization formula contained in this year's budget, or the Harper government's phoney promises with regard to same before the last election. It's a near thing, but I'd give the premiers' preposterousness the edge over the Harperites' hypocrisy.

Indeed, it is only the Harper government's well-earned reputation for deviousness that has allowed the premiers' campaign to get as far as it has. Were the Conservatives less distrusted, Premiers Danny Williams and Rodney MacDonald would be seen for what they are: shakedown artists, in the grand tradition.

The facts are these. Constitutionally, offshore resources are under federal, not provincial ownership. Twenty-odd years ago, however, the Mulroney government agreed to pretend they were provincial, giving the Atlantic provinces first crack at the royalties.

In 2005, the Martin government took this a step further, agreeing not only that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were entitled to collect royalties on resources they don't own, but that they should continue to collect equalization payments as if they did not also collect royalties. Many experts had argued that the "clawback" on equalization payments should be less confiscatory. But the Atlantic Accords stipulated there should be no clawback at all. Sweet.

Too sweet: They should never have been signed. Under the Accords, the two provinces will still be entitled to equalization even after their governments, already awash in oil revenues, have grown wealthier than Ontario's. When is that far-off day? In Newfoundland's case, it's today: For 2007-08, Newfoundland's per capita revenues, equalization included, total $7,094, to Ontario's $6,631. This is simply untenable-- which is why the O'Brien report, on which the new equalization formula is based, proposed a "cap" on equalization payments at this point, ensuring Ontarians will not be put in the position of paying for services in provinces that are richer than their own.

So it is with not a little chagrin that I can report that the 2007 budget did nothing whatever to disturb the accords. The "contract," as both sides have taken to calling it (Contract? What did Newfoundland or Nova Scotia bring to the table? What did they offer in return?), is, alas, wholly intact. The issue is not whether the new equalization formula, with its "10-province standard" and "50% inclusion-rate," is better or worse for the Atlantic provinces. (It depends on the price of oil, among other things.) The issue is that nothing compels either province to adopt it.

As it has been described in the press, they have a choice. They can stick with the existing formula, and remain covered by the Atlantic Accords. Or they can switch to the new formula, which promises to pay out more in the short term -- but which includes the cap. Newfoundland, for instance, chose to stay with the old formula for this year, meaning it is no better and no worse off than before. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, received $95-million more in equalization this year by opting for the new formula.

But in fact, they don't have to choose even then. Even after taking the new formula -- and the extra cash -- Nova Scotia can still go back to the old one next year. And even if they stay with the new formula, the Accord still applies. They remain exempt from the clawback -- as long as their fiscal capacity does not exceed that of Ontario's. Only then does the cap kick in.

It's hard to see the injustice in any of this. The most that can be said for the premiers' position is that the Accords say payments should be based on "the Equalization formula as it applies at the time." On the premiers' reading, this means they should be entitled both to the protections of the Accord and the new formula's enriched payments. But the new formula isn't just about higher payouts. It also includes the cap.

What the premiers are demanding is some mythical third option, one with higher payments, no clawback and no cap. They want the best of three worlds: to have their cake, eat it and spin it above their heads.

Which would be more outrageous, were that not what Stephen Harper, in effect, promised them. As Opposition Leader, Mr. Harper was not only unequivocal in committing to full exclusion of resource revenues from any new equalization formula -- meaning no clawbacks -- but that this should apply, well, forever: i.e., sans cap. Here he is in the House of Commons on November 4, 2004:

"Why should Newfoundland's possibility of achieving levels of prosperity comparable to the rest of Canada be limited to an artificial eight year period? … Why is the government so eager to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador always remain below the economic level of Ontario? The Ontario clause is unfair and insulting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and its message to that province, to Nova Scotia and to all of Atlantic Canada is absolutely clear. They can only get what they were promised if they agree to remain have-not provinces forever."

It is not true, then, to say that the Accord has been violated. It is true that Mr. Harper played Atlantic Canadians for suckers. At least he is paying the price.

-------------------------------------

PUBLICATION:	GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE:	2007.06.13
PAGE:	A18
SECTION:	Editorial

EQUALIZATION Know a rich deal when you've got it

The nasty quarrel between the federal government on one side and Newfoundland and Nova Scotia on the other may be reduced to half a dozen simple words: "as it exists at the time." But underlying the disagreement over what this language in the Atlantic Accords means are years of bitter wrangling with Ottawa as the two have-not provinces have sought to reap maximum benefits from the offshore oil and gas bonanza without giving up any of the cash that flows their way through federal transfers, including equalization payments.

When then-prime-minister Paul Martin signed the Atlantic Accords in 2005 with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, he gave them an exceedingly generous gift on behalf of other Canadians. Both provinces (and several others) receive equalization payments, under a system designed to ensure that all provinces can provide roughly similar services for similar levels of taxation. In a deal calculated to last until 2011-12 and possibly 2019-20, the Martin government agreed to compensate Newfoundland and Nova Scotia dollar for dollar for any equalization payments clawed back because of the money they were making from their offshore resources, regardless of how wealthy they might become.

In other words, if they became richer than Ontario, they would remain beneficiaries of equalization while poor Ontario would remain a net contributor. This was bad policy made for opportunistic reasons, and it has not improved with age.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has repeatedly said he would honour the agreement. His March 19 budget introduced a new wrinkle. The two provinces could keep the existing system unchanged or opt for an amended, potentially richer equalization formula with a substantial catch: The new formula, one version of which would for the first time take into account 50 per cent of natural-resource revenues, would impose a cap on how much any province could receive, so that no recipient could end up with a higher fiscal capacity than any non-recipient. For Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, it was like putting a fresh piece of cheese in a mousetrap - tantalizing yet frustrating. More money, but with new limits.

Not surprisingly, they have cried foul at Ottawa's tactics. They want all the cheese they can gobble up without triggering the trap, and insist that the wording in the Atlantic Accords guarantees it.

Thus, the six critical words. The agreements specify that the calculation of payments Ottawa gives them to offset the clawbacks is based on the equalization formula "as it exists at the time." Nova Scotia says that means the new enriched formula; and, since the 2005 accord doesn't impose a cap at least until 2011, the province says it is entitled to all the money under the new formula even if the payment exceeds the threshold of a non-recipient. "Forcing Nova Scotia to choose an obsolete equalization formula clearly contravenes this provision," the provincial government insists. (Nova Scotia tentatively opted in to the new formula; Newfoundland, which is enjoying a much greater bonanza from the offshore resources, has calculated that it's better off staying with the terms of its Atlantic Accord.) Ottawa sees it differently. It argues that the new formula, which attempts to reinstate national principles instead of one-off deals, is a much better arrangement for all Canadians; but since it's not mandatory, it doesn't offend the terms of the Atlantic Accords.

If Nova Scotia and Newfoundland don't like the conditions of the new deal, they can stick with the old one - as Newfoundland has done, albeit unhappily.

The political fight is unusually heated. Unlike Newfoundland, which has produced a stream of premiers who love nothing better than a bare-knuckled brawl with Ottawa, Nova Scotia's leaders have tended to prefer the quieter realm of backroom negotiations and compromise. So the fact that Conservative Premier Rodney MacDonald has taken off the gloves and that Nova Scotia's longest-serving federal Tory, Bill Casey, chose to vote against the budget at the cost of his seat in caucus shows the depth of anger at what Nova Scotians see as a callous betrayal (as well as the fact that the politically weak Mr. MacDonald has finally realized the Prime Minister handed him a gift).

A political price is the inevitable fallout of an opaque process that was utterly mishandled by the Harper government, whose secretive, high-handed methods do not engender the goodwill or secure the compromises necessary to prevent deep fissures. Paul Martin bent the equalization formula out of shape in trying to please everyone; Mr. Harper has made the situation worse by not caring whom he displeases.

He is right in arguing that he hasn't abrogated the Martin agreement; the provinces can stick with the old or, as the six words suggest, opt for the new. He is not obligated to offer the best of both worlds.

But he has accomplished his goal through unnecessary guile and divisiveness when it might have been achieved through consultation and negotiation.

Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, having made a famously favourable bargain with the federal government in the Atlantic Accords, should stop complaining that the new deal on offer has a barb in it in the form of a cap. Of course it does. Ottawa seeks to preserve a basic principle of equalization - that the goal is to raise provinces to the per-capita level of those that don't receive equalization, rather than help them surpass it. The two provinces are in the fortunate position of not being required to go anywhere near the barb, while having the option of receiving equalization under the formula they originally agreed to and the freedom to surpass the non-recipient threshold for years to come. Nice terms if you can get them. The mice should be careful not to bite off more than the country will let them chew.

Evil Economists!!

2007-06-14T19:24:00.000-05:00

Found this on today's Globe and Mail.

Now, anybody wants to give David Suzuki a call?? How about Al Gore??

-----------------------------------

Global warming good for Canada, Yale study shows

MICHAEL HILL

Associated Press

June 14, 2007 at 5:25 PM EDT

GHENT, N.Y. — It's not in Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation, but there are some upsides to global warming.

Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.

This is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere. But still ... might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia?

“It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries. There will be — things like you'll lose polar bears,” said economic professor Robert Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.”

Dr. Mendelsohn looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios though 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia.

This is largely because of projected gains in agricultural production in those areas. Many researchers believe that if the world warms up, the sweet spots for growing crops will migrate toward the poles.

The future may have arrived already in icy Greenland, where fishermen are thrilled by the return of cod and farmers are reporting higher yields.

“Maybe the turnips get a little bit bigger, and the potatoes get a little bit bigger, but that's important,” said Kenneth Hoegh, a government agricultural adviser. “We are right on the edge here for agriculture.”

Jesper Madsen, who directs Arctic research at the National Environmental Research Institute in Denmark, said Greenland's agricultural gains would seem like small potatoes economically if the retreating ice there clears the way for more oil drilling.

Still, people shouldn't book a beach vacation in Iceland just yet. A likely warm-up would be gradual and might even be mitigated if the world cuts greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the “optimal holiday destination” has an annual average temperature of about 61 degrees (think Atlanta, or Barcelona), according to a group of European researchers. A worldwide warming will essentially drive tourists away from equatorial regions toward the poles and up the mountains, said one of those researchers, economist Richard Tol of the Economic and Social Research Institute in Ireland.

While oceanfront cities might have to build seawalls to hold back the ocean in a warming world, some researchers believe the freshwater Great Lakes will evaporate a bit. But a projected 11-degree boost at the turn of the next century could be a boon for chillier cities even knocking them into the “optimal” holiday range.

Looking around the world, a list provided by Tol said the biggest winner in a warmed-up world would be — no surprise — Canada. It would see a 220 per cent increase in international tourist arrivals by the end of the century, followed by Russia with a 174 per cent jump, and Mongolia, up 122 per cent.

Of course, the caveats are significant when trying to make any long-term global forecast. There are so many variables.

A longer growing season does a farmer no good if resulting rain patterns bring a drought. Dr. Mendelsohn said northern residents saving on winter heating fuel will end up spending more than that to keep cool in the summer. Great Lakes cities might enjoy balmier weather, but could suffer if lower lake levels cut off shipping lanes. And global warming could present deadly new opportunities for parasites and disease.

Productivity Gap

2007-06-04T18:10:00.000-05:00

I was at the Socio-economic Conference 2007, hosted by Statistics Canada, last week.

The keynote speakers were great (except the speaker spoke about social exclusion and poverty in Quebec). What her ministry is implementing will be a nightmare. I am deeply troubled by that plan - and I wish all Quebecors good luck!! To make it short, the Quebec government is planning to spend $4.5 billion (over 4 years) on welfare to "lift people out of poverty". In the mean time, they will increase minimum wage, provide more low-cost housing, and provide guarantee income to low income households. However, there is no plan on helping those in poverty/unemployed to become productive members of the society (i.e. re-train or learning new skills). Anyway, I will make my rant another day.

The session I really want to talk about, from the conference, is the one by Daniel Trefler on Canadian prosperity. Just a warning here - some of my Conservative friends will not enjoy the rest of this post (if they are not policy-oriented), and my Liberal and NDP friends will like it (just because they will get some ammos to attack the Conservatives).

Professor Trefler pointed out that the difference in GDP per capita between Canada and the US is over $9,000. That means the productivity gap per person per year between Canadians and Americans is over $9,000. He argues if we are at par with our neighbour on productivity, with those extra tax revenue (over $60 billion per fiscal year), we would be able to commit to the Kyoto Protocol, pay for all of Romanow's recommendations (from the Royal Commission), implement the national child care program (proposed by the Liberals and later scrapped by the Conservatives), pay for all new infrastructures proposed by cities, and would still have about $45 billion per fiscal year for tax cut or any other things governments want to do!!

He urges all governments to encourage capital investment by lowering taxes on capital and increase spending on education and research (as we all know that productivity is based on capital and labour).

Professor Trefler also pointed out for every dollar the government increases in consumption tax (i.e. GST), the government would actually collects 90 cents. But for every dollar the government increases in capital tax (i.e. capital gain tax), the government would lose 30 cents in revenue!!

The theme of his presentation was we need to invest more on physical and human capital to increase our productivity.

Of course, part of the productivity gap is due to some other reasons, for example, shorter work week for Canadians than Americans. Regardless, we still have a chance to close our productivity gap, by about $6,000, by 2020 if our governments decide to act.

For that, I urge the Conservative government not to cut the GST to 5%, even if they win again in the next election. Also, I hope all governments will lower capital and corporate taxes - by providing tax breaks to corporations invest in research and development.

U.S. - China Trade Relations

2007-05-20T14:59:00.000-05:00

Wu Yi has a reputation, within the international community, as one of the most capable leaders in the Chinese government. She gets things done.

This article shows she has a good grasp of basic principles of trade and economics, especially on globalization.

I am shocked, occasionally, when people from Communist China understand these basic economic/trade principles, while many protectionists from North America still don't get it (i.e. David Orchard, Seth & Naomi Klein, etc.)

--------------------------

The Wall Street Journal

Commentary: It's Win-Win on U.S.-China Trade

by: Wu Yi, vice premier of China

No two countries enjoy such complex business and trade ties as China and the United States. Both countries are closely linked and interdependent, but relations are also marked by frictions and disputes. Thirty-five years ago, China-U.S. trade volume was almost nonexistent when a breakthrough was made in our icy bilateral relations. By 2006, we had become the other's second largest trade partner, with both economies inextricably entwined.

Mutual benefit and win-win progress: These are what China-U.S. business and trade relations are all about, and these intrinsic qualities have made our trade ties strong and vibrant. A recent report, "China: The Balance Sheet," jointly published by two major American think tanks -- the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Institute for International Economics -- noted that China brings incontrovertible economic benefits to the U.S. The rapid growth of the Chinese market boosts U.S. exports; China's exports to the U.S. and its investments in American financial assets help restrain U.S. inflation and interest rates, and thus permit faster economic growth and more job creation.

The win-win nature of this relationship is amply demonstrated by the rapid growth of bilateral trade. According to our statistics, bilateral trade has increased 106 times from the beginning of diplomatic relations in 1979 to 2006, registering an annual growth of 18.9%. U.S. statistics show a 144-fold increase, or 20.2% annual growth. Since joining the World Trade Organization, China has become America's fourth-largest export market, not to mention its fastest-growing. Over the same period, the growth rate of U.S. exports to China was 3.7 times that of U.S. exports to other countries.

Mutually beneficial business and trade relations also mean good returns on investment made by our companies. Between 1979, when the policy of reform and opening up was adopted in China, and the end of this March, 52,887 American investment projects were undertaken in China, with paid-in investment reaching $54.7 billion. China is now one of the major sources of overseas profits for American companies. American companies have steadily expanded market share in China through investment, with sales in China exceeding $75 billion in 2004. A survey conducted by the American Chamber of Commerce in China shows that in 2005, sales of American companies in China reached $61.1 billion, and $47.6 billion of American products made in China were exported. The total trade figure exceeded $100 billion.

Our business and trade relations also increase the well-being of our peoples, create many jobs and give consumers more choices in both countries. Morgan Stanley estimates that four to eight million American jobs are closely associated with trade with China, many of which are created through the sale of Chinese products by U.S. retailers. Over the years, good quality yet inexpensive Chinese goods have both met U.S. demand and saved money for American consumers. Chinese exports have saved American consumers $600 billion over the past decade and nearly $100 billion alone in 2004.

Our business and trade relations have also contributed to the growth and transition of our respective economies. Labor-intensive Chinese exports have enabled the U. S. to focus on developing capital and advanced technology-intensive products. A report issued by the U.S.-China Business Council in early 2006 shows that the expansion of trade with and investment in China has caused U.S. manufacturing employment to drop, but helped create more financial, redistribution and service sectors. U.S. employment data also shows that although the U.S. lost three million manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2005, the service sector created 15 million new jobs over the same period.

China-U.S. business and trade relations are cooperative in nature. It is true that problems, differences and even disputes have arisen in the course of the rapid expansion of our relationship. But mutual benefit and win-win progress remain the defining feature of our business and trade ties. This is the larger picture that no problem can overshadow. As to differences and disputes, it is important that China and the U. S., both being stakeholders and constructive partners, should address them in a coolheaded, objective and responsible way.

Economic globalization is the trend of our times. China and the U.S., having both benefited from economic globalization, need to rise to its challenges. We both need to make necessary economic adjustments, adopt sound and reasonable economic and trade policies, and seize the opportunities created by globalization to promote economic development and make life better for our peoples. However, there are some in the U.S. who overstate the U.S. trade imbalance with China, and blame China for problems that arise as the U.S. adjusts its economic structure to respond to challenges posed by economic globalization. Some even advocate trade protectionism. Such irresponsible acts can only obstruct economic globalization and hinder the fundamental interests of both China and the U.S., our peoples and the sustainable and steady growth of the world economy. China and the U.S. need to, based on our respective national conditions, properly address issues arising in the course of our respective economic adjustment, and resolve bilateral economic and trade issues through enhanced dialogue and consultation, and in a reasonable manner. Attempts to politicize trade issues should be resisted.

As we know, trade deficits are caused by a number of factors associated with economic globalization such as savings and investment correlations, the international division of labor and investment relocation. The U.S. trade deficit with China in goods is also a reflection of these macroeconomic factors. It does not reflect the overall and genuine movement of interests in China-U.S. business and trade relations. China does not seek a trade surplus. In the five-year development plan for 2006 through 2010, the Chinese government explicitly set a basic goal of sustaining economic growth and promoting balance in international payment and macroeconomic stability by expanding domestic demand and particularly, consumption demand. We have taken steps including expanding market access, enhancing intellectual property protection and increasing imports to promote balance in trade. The U.S., as a global leader in science and technology, should give full play to its comparative advantage, enhance mutual trust and relax export controls to boost the competitiveness of American companies, reverse the trend of dwindling market share of American high-tech products in China, and reduce its trade deficit with China.

Since September 2006, the China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue, which was jointly initiated by our two presidents, has become an important channel for the two countries to discuss economic issues concerning our overall strategic and long-term interests and address, as appropriate, hotspot issues in our economic relations. The second China-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue will be held in Washington next week, and will focus on issues of mutual interest, including services, investment, energy, environment and innovation. This forum is an important platform for growing China-U.S. business and trade relations and the promotion of the sound and steady growth of constructive and cooperative China-U.S. relations. It is of great significance to enhancing the strategic mutual trust between China and the U.S.

History has shown that the stable growth of China-U.S. business and trade relations serve the fundamental and long-term interests of both countries. China and the U.S. need to increase mutual understanding and trust, overcome the interference of noneconomic factors, and resolve the problems in our business and trade relations in an active and pragmatic way so as to ensure the steady growth of our business and trade ties. I remain confident that as long as we continue to maintain an open dialogue and cooperation in accordance with the principle of consultation on an equal footing and for our mutual benefit, China-U.S. business and trade relations will have an even brighter future and bring greater benefits to our two peoples.

More Proof that Higher Gas Price Changes People's Behaviour

2007-05-18T19:27:00.000-05:00

When others counter the argument of a pigouvian gasoline tax will not decrease gasoline consumption by stating such a tax did not work well on booze and cigarettes, my argument is taxes put on those goods did not go up fast enough.

It is true that those sin taxes did not work as well as they should, but the rate increase of each of those hikes did not break people's "threshold". To illustrate my point, here are two different scenarios:

Imagine that a gas tax is raised 50% over-night and another 50% next month comparing to hikes of 5% per month for the next 20 months. I will bet you a lot of people will change their driving habit with the 50% over-night hike, and consumption of gasoline will drop more in the first scenario than the second - and that is exactly what has been happening with gasoline lately.

To reinforce my argument - gasoline consumption actually dropped in the 70s and 80s after the oil shocks.

My conclusion: If the shocks are big enough and hit them hard enough in a short time-span, people will make changes.

------------------------------------------------

As Vancouver gas prices soar, so does transit use

Average pump cost hits $1.27 a litre; city's Translink system sees 11-per-cent increase in ridership

LAURA DRAKE

From Friday's Globe and Mail

May 18, 2007 at 4:32 AM EDT

VANCOUVER — Gas prices are up across the country, but no major city has been hit harder than Vancouver with an average pump price of $1.272 a litre for regular unleaded gasoline. It's been climbing steadily toward that record since February.

But as gas prices continue to rise, so does the number of people who use public transit.

From January to April, Vancouver's Translink system saw an 11-per-cent increase in ridership over the same period last year on its light-rail service, while the rest of the system saw a 3-per-cent rise.

At the same time, national public transit use is at an all-time high, according to the Canadian Urban Transit Association.

Gas prices are only one of the determining factors when it comes to choosing public transit, but changes in prices at the pumps have been reflected in ridership numbers in the past, Translink spokesman Drew Snider said. It goes to show that if environmental issues don't necessarily motivate people to be greener, the economy will.

"I think in some ways environment still takes a back seat to a lot of people," he sad "You think you can put up with smelly air and you can't really see the immediate impact of what you're doing, but you can see the gasoline prices."

Gas prices have certainly never been higher - and it doesn't look like they are going to go down any time soon, said Michael Ervin, president of M.J. Ervin & Associates Inc., a Calgary-based energy consultancy.

That's due in part to higher-than-usual levels of maintenance at refineries in North America, which have caused an unprecedented seasonal production decline.

Though that decline is ending, Mr. Ervin said, prices should remain about the same as demand increases with the arrival of summer.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked about the rising costs of gasoline at a press conference yesterday in Waterloo, Ont. (His Conservatives promised, during the 2004 election, to cut 0.7 cents from the gas tax.)

"We became convinced that, quite frankly there was a limited amount we could do with helping consumers specifically with gas prices," Mr. Harper said, saying the GST cut was an alternative tax relief measure put forward by the government.

Although high gas prices are constantly bemoaned by car owners, some people are looking on the bright - or green - side of the trend.

"We believe that we do need to pay higher gas prices that really reflect the full cost of using fossil fuels. What we need is a gas tax, so that the revenues are captured by the government, who can then turn that money around to build the things we need to use less gas," said Ann Rowan, director of the David Suzuki Foundation's sustainability program.

However, Simon Fraser University environmental economist Mark Jaccard said economic reasons to take transit - be it tax credits for bus passes or high gas prices - don't necessarily lead to less cars or less emissions.

"People love cars. Think of a car as a personal mobility device, or a personal status-enhancing device," Prof. Jaccard said yesterday.

Accordingly, Prof. Jaccard said, high gas prices are not a good way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nor are they an effective way to get cars off the road. The only way to reduce emissions, he said, is through carbon taxes, which place stiff charges on dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

With a report from Gloria Galloway

THE BUMP AT THE PUMP

The price for regular gas in Vancouver is higher than in any other major city in Canada.

Vancouver vs. Canada average, Jan.1, 2006 to May 15, 2007

Vancouver: 127.2¢

Canada: 113¢

RETAIL FUEL PRICES

CITY AVERAGES, MAY 15, 2007

Whitehorse	116.7¢
Victoria	125.9¢
Vancouver	127.2¢
Yellowknife	123.2¢
Edmonton	108.9¢
Regina	117.9¢
Winnipeg	112.8¢
Toronto	106.5¢
Ottawa	107.7¢
Quebec City	107.7¢
Fredericton	107.7¢
Charlottetown	115.8¢
Halifax	114.6¢
St. John's	119.5¢

PUBLIC TRANSIT RIDERSHIP

TOTAL VANCOUVER PUBLIC TRANSIT TRIPS*, 2006

Q1: 69.4-M

Q2: 71.4-M

Q3: 69.1-M

Q4: 73.3-M

*Includes bus, Skytrain, Seabus and West Coast Express

SOURCES: NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA, TRANSLINK

If You Think Gas Prices in Canada is High......

2007-05-17T21:46:00.000-05:00

I have been arguing that gas prices are not high in Canada comparing to other OECD countries. And if you think that our tax on gas is high, wait until you see what other countries are charging!!

Here is the proof.

Gas price will not come down until the world finds a new technology to power transportation networks - the bloodline of any modern economy.

In the mean time, if you are complaining gas prices are too high, cut your consumption.

Corcoran on Mackenzie's Report

2007-05-12T13:44:00.000-05:00

I read Mackenzie's report when it came out a couple days ago, and I called it "low level research".

Although I don't agree with Corcoran about gasoline tax, he made some very good comments on Mackenzie's report.

------------------------
Ripped off by poor research; Market forces are driving gas prices, not greed

National Post
Terence Corcoran
May 11, 2007

Dumb is easy, and of all the dumb stories in the media world, the easiest by far is the robotic visit to a gas station to plumb popular outrage over gasoline prices. A moron could do it, especially when equipped with the even dumber piece of junk research issued yesterday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Or, as we call it around here, the Canadian Centre for Alternatives to Good Policy. Gas Price Gouge: The Sequel, said the centre's little three-page piece by consultant Hugh Mackenzie. It created a sensation on its release, as all-news radio teams and other media fanned out for ritual gas-pump reactions from consumers.

Reporter: "A new report shows you're being gouged. Are you outraged by this?"

Motorist: "I'm outraged by this!"

Reporter: "Thank you. Back to you, Peter."

The "report" turns out to be a thin bit in which Mr. Mackenzie -- who has emerged recently as an all-purpose anti-markets lefty at the centre -- announces that by his calculation, the current price of gasoline is way above what it should be. In Ontario, he said, gasoline is 15% or more above the "normal price."

As Mr. Mackenzie figures it, the "normal" price is what gasoline would sell for if the price were set as a simple formula off the price of crude oil. The price of crude, plus refining and marketing costs, plus taxes, should lead today in Southern Ontario to a "normal" price of 88.3¢ a litre. "Compared with prices in the $1.05 to $1.10 range in Southern Ontario at the beginning of May, 2007, that's an excess profit to the gasoline industry of 16¢ to 21¢ per litre."

According to Mr. Mackenzie, this gap between his normal price and the actual price "could not be explained." And if it can't be explained, then by gosh there's only one explanation: We're being gouged! The oil companies are ripping us off, racking up "excess profits" of up to $45- million a day.

There actually is, of course, an explanation for all this. The first one is Mr. Mackenzie's bullheaded and, one assumes, deliberate ignorance of the role of supply and demand. No commodity in the world, indeed no product in the world, is priced the way Mr. Mackenzie wants to price gasoline -- as an automatic variable based on the cost of production.

The cost-plus fantasy is a favourite of leftists and often of corporations who would rather not have to deal with market forces.

The price of everything, even when fixed by government, eventually comes around to market forces. The actual cost is, mostly, irrelevant.

Mick Jagger, no dummy, figured that out. The actual cost of putting on a Rolling Stones concert bears no relationship to the price of a concert ticket. Asked by a British rock magazine just before the group's A Bigger Bang tour if Stones tickets "are too expensive," Mr. Jagger said: "They're like fish ... market price."

The market price for gasoline is actually set in the market, not in Hugh Mackenzie's head.

The main price-setting venue for much of Eastern Canada is in New York, where the benchmark spot price is set for regular unleaded gasoline. The New York spot price one day this week was 63.1¢ per litre. The Canadian wholesale price was 67.5¢, a 4.4¢ difference that's about standard for the Canadian wholesale price over the past two years.

As you can see from the graphs nearby, the Toronto retail gasoline price follows the Toronto wholesale price, which in turn follows the New York spot price, which in turn follows the thousands of market forces that are bearing down on the supply of oil and gasoline across much of North America.

The Toronto wholesale price, plus taxes and retail margins, pretty well determines the final retail price. The chain is pretty solid, and aside from some lags here and there it's clear nobody is gouging anybody. If anything, the price of gasoline in Canada, certainly in Eastern Canada, has been surprisingly low over the past few months.

Supply and demand means that when supplies get tight, prices rise. That's what happened during Hurricane Katrina -- the big spike in the charts -- when price rocketed, sending consumers a signal to cut back on consumption. That sent the price up to $1.40 a litre, generating profits and incentives for companies to ratchet up supply.

Mr. Mackenzie, swinging his ideological axe, views this not as a functioning market but as an oil industry capitalizing on a disaster to move the price of gas up over the $1-a-litre barrier. Katrina was just a "price-gouging opportunity," he says, a story "peddled" by the oil industry to establish the $1 mark as a legitimate price.

How odd, though, that when Southern Ontario suffered a refinery shock earlier this year, the price of gasoline in Ontario actually failed to spike beyond a few cents above the New York spot price. Could this be a sign the market worked? Or, heaven forbid, that the oil companies in Canada conspired to keep prices low?

We really don't know what's moving the market for gasoline at all times. Mr. Mackenzie regurgitates all the usual non-evidence of the oil industry's "price-gouging strategies."

Prices go up and down, daily and weekly, hourly and monthly, at noon and at midnight, in New York and Alberta, in Toronto and Oklahoma -- and none of the prices are the same as Mr. Mackenzie's formulaic "normal price."

What's the explanation? It's market price ... like fish and Stones concerts. But don't ask Mr. Mackenzie. He has no idea.

Gasoline Price

2007-05-02T20:47:00.000-05:00

So, gasoline price becomes a hot topic again this week, as some drivers in the country are paying as high as $1.25 per litre for self-serve regular unleaded gasoline.

My prediction is gasoline price can go as high as $1.50 per litre this summer, given the inventory south of the border is much lower than usual (and has been in decline for the past 11 weeks). Some analysts in the States are saying that gasoline price will go as high as $4 per gallon this summer.

I don't necessary see this as a bad thing. After all, I am a supporter of the Pigouvian tax. Rising gas prices will have a similar effect - to curb consumption of gasoline.

Quick (and Late) Comments on the Federal Budget

2007-03-29T23:23:00.000-05:00

This will be a very short post about the federal budget.

I give this budget a B-.

Generally, I agree with most of Mintz assessments on the federal budget, since I am not a big fan of various tax credits for too many different groups. The only thing that I am not sure is how it measures up with those during the Trudeau years.

I am not so sure if the 2007 budget is so bad that needs a major tax reform to fix things, because I think future federal budgets will get better once there is a majority government.

--------------------------------

Mess in the making: We'll need another major tax reform in a few years to fix the Trudeau-style tax mess being cooked up by the Tories

FP Comment Jack Mintz Financial Post 936 Words

21 March 2007

National Post

FP19

English

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's 2007 tax plan is a mixed bag. Some intiatives move our highly complex tax system toward more efficiency and fairness, but others just complicate it needlessly to further political ends. The tax plan contains no broad tax relief; it instead succumbs to low-fiscal- cost targeted tax reductions, as it did in the last budget. Investors will be highly disappointed by the absence of capital-gains relief or any other significant savings tax incentives. Environmentalists will be delighted with a move towards a new environmental levy.

The budget even has some surprising new tax hits, such as a green tax on gas guzzlers and the removal of the fuel excise tax exemption for renewable energy. It also scales back incentives for oilsand developments and debt-financed foreign direct investments made by Canadian corporations.

Overall, the 2007 budget tax agenda has no plan to address the productivity and demographic challenges facing the Canadian economy over the long term, which have taken second place to environmental concerns.

In the past seven years, Canada has reduced high taxes on work, investment and saving. However, with one of the highest effective tax rates on capital in the world, high taxes on savings, and continuing high marginal tax rates, especially on low-income workers, we still have a lot of work to do to make our system more efficient and fair.

Lots of good ideas have been expressed this past year to improve the tax system, such as reducing marginal personal tax rates, increasing the basic personal exemption, expanding tax relief for over-taxed savings, removing capital-gains tax barriers when rebalancing portfolios, introducing a refundable dividend tax credit for pension accounts and RRSPs, and advancing planned corporate rate reductions. None have been included in this budget.

With federal revenue of over $230-billion, broad tax cuts seem elusive. Federal program spending will continue to inch up as a share of GDP over the next two years, and actual spending will likely be much higher than planned. This budget marks a turning point -- major tax relief seems impossible, even from this government.

At least, we could have started to make inroads with a pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform, rather than being driven by a hodgepodge of tax measures aimed to garner political support. The aim of taxation should be to raise revenue for government in the least painful way possible -- the best approach is to make sure rates are low and tax bases are broad.

The Conservatives' most important tax cut is the reinstatement of a universal tax credit, typically used in most countries to recognize the costs borne by parents to raise children. The federal credit, equal to 15.5% of $2000 for each child, as well as the bump-up in the equivalent- to-spouse credit, will be welcomed by families who have been unfairly treated.

Some other measures are consistent with this approach. Low-income workers will be encouraged to enter the labour force, although the new working income credit adds a 15% marginal tax rate on income between $10,000 to $21,667 as the subsidy is clawed back. Taxpayers will be delighted with the change to RRSPs allowing them to contribute to the age of 71 rather than 69, restoring the age limit of earlier years.

Certainly, the idea of making the tax structure more efficient, fair and simple takes a back seat to the rash of special politically driven measures.

We have expanded credits for certain transit passes, a hike in the lifetime capital-gains exemption for farm and fishing property and owners of Canadian-controlled private corporations from $500,000 to $750,000, special tax exemptions for participants in the 2010 Vancouver games, deductions for meal expenses for truckers (what about other working folks?), and incentives for foreign conventions and tourism.

At least, the two-year write-off for manufacturing equipment is provided temporarily (until 2009) before it starts doing real economic harm by allocating investment dollars from some profitable activities to those cherished as a tax shelter.

It is ironic that this government, which professed its desire to quit using subsidies for various industries, has decided the winners are Central Canada's manufacturing (which also was one of the few industries to get some other goodies, but these made more tax-policy sense). Meanwhile, Alberta's prosperous oil and gas industry takes a hit as oilsands lose their coveted accelerated cost deduction for investment. It is sensible to make the tax system more neutral among investments -- such as by adjusting capital cost allowances for certain assets to reflect the true cost of depreciation -- but this principle should be followed through on a fair basis and applied to all industries, rather than picking some and not others.

This and last year's budgets return us to the old Trudeau days of putting a chicken in every pot. We made a mess out of the tax system by introducing a host of special preferences that was corrected by 1987 via a major tax reform that lowered rates and broadened bases without costing the government money. At this rate, we will need another major tax reform in a few years.

- Jack M. Mintz is Professor of Business Economics, J.L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto and Visiting Professor at New York University Law School

This is for "The Hack"

2007-03-12T20:35:00.003-05:00

Now, if you have been following this blog, you know that I used to post quite a bit of Paul Krugman, but have not done so for the past little while.

Why? Not that I do not like Krugman anymore (he is still one of the smartest out there and can articulate his arguments and defend them very well), but he is getting too much political rhetoric in his column. I felt like being "key messaged" by Paul from time to time.

Anyhow, I found one of his previous articles being advertised on the NY Times, and it is fairly interesting. Not that it is something that I don't know about, but it is how close that I almost ended up with a think tank.

.....and I hope that the Hack will have a chance to read that.

------------------------
April 23, 2000

How to be a Hack
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Oh, the outrage! The Web site maintained by Mobilization for Global Justice, the umbrella organization for last week's Washington protests, gave precisely one example of the economic evil the World Bank does. I looked into that story, and found that it doesn't quite have the claimed moral. Actually, the bank -- not always a lovable organization, to say the least -- in this particular case comes out smelling like a rose. But clearly, to say this in last Wednesday's column was terribly unfair. If a story confirms what the protesters believe, it is a telling example; but if it doesn't, explaining the truth of the case is a cheap shot.

And anyway, as a number of readers have informed me, everyone knows that I am a hired tool of global capitalism. This charge upset me greatly. In fact, I asked my masters for a raise, to 35 pieces of silver, to compensate for my hurt feelings.

But maybe this is a good occasion to talk about political bias in economic analysis. It is a real issue. But the corruption is more subtle -- and also more evenly spread across the political spectrum -- than my hate mailers seem to realize.

First of all, academic research in economics is by and large carried out without strong political bias. I'm not saying that what you read in the journals is always right (don't get me started), or that the researchers themselves are noble characters: successful economists, like successful academics in any field, are usually ambitious men and women with large egos. But the structure of rewards in a field in which top departments are constantly jostling for prestige favors cleverness and originality, not political correctness of any stripe.

While hired guns do not flourish at Harvard or the University of Chicago, however, in Washington they roam in packs.

Portrait of a hired gun: He or she is usually a mediocre economist -- someone whose work, if it didn't have an ideological edge, might have been published but wouldn't have had many readers. He has, however, found a receptive audience for work that does have an ideological edge. In particular, he has learned that pretty good jobs in think tanks, or on the staffs of magazines with a distinct political agenda, are available for people who know enough economics to produce plausible-sounding arguments on behalf of the party line. Ask him whether he is a political hack and he will deny it; he probably does not admit it to himself. But somehow everything he says or writes serves the interests of his backers.

Most of these hired guns work on behalf of right-wing causes: it's a funny thing, but organizations that promote the interests of rich people seem to be better financed than those that don't. Still, the left has enough resources to front a quorum of its own hacks. And anyway, love of money is only the root of some evil. Love of the limelight, love of the feeling of being part of a Movement, even love of the idea of oneself as a bold rebel against the Evil Empire can be equally corrupting of one's intellectual integrity.

How can you tell the hacks from the serious analysts? One answer is to do a little homework. Hack jobs often involve surprisingly raw, transparent misrepresentations of fact: in these days of search engines and online databases you don't need a staff of research assistants to catch 'em with their hands in the cookie jar. But there is another telltale clue: if a person, or especially an organization, always sings the same tune, watch out.

Real experts, you see, tend to have views that are not entirely one-sided. For example, Columbia's Jagdish Bhagwati, a staunch free-trader, is also very critical of unrestricted flows of short-term capital. Right or not, this mixed stance reflects an honest mind at work. You might think that hacks would at least try to simulate an open mind -- that simply for the sake of appearances the Heritage Foundation would try to find some tax it supports, or the Economic Policy Institute find some trade liberalization it favors. But it almost never happens.

Of course, honest men can disagree, and they can also make mistakes. But it's still a good idea to tune out supposed experts whose minds are made up in advance. Or at least that's what they told me to say.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

Stomach Ache Caused by a Baby??

2007-03-06T19:45:00.000-05:00

Now, this is even more weird...........

Is this another reason why obesity needs to be attacked??

------------------------------------

Obese L.A. Woman's Stomach Ache Is Really A Baby

(AP) LOS ANGELES A 39-year-old Los Angeles area woman went to an emergency room with a stomach ache and ended up with a baby.

Hospital officials said April Barnum didn't know she was pregnant when she came to an emergency room near her home this week, but gave birth to a full-term, 7-pound, 7-ounce boy by C-section.

The 420-pound woman said her size kept her and others from realizing she was carrying the baby.

Barnum said if the baby kicked, she didn't feel it.

Doctors saw the baby when they took X-rays of her abdominal area.

She was sent for prenatal testing, where doctors determined there was a healthy fetus ready to be delivered.

The baby is named Walter Edwards, after Barnum's fiance.

Two Stories about Birds

2007-03-06T19:35:00.000-05:00

These are pretty interesting/funny stories, I found.

--------------------------------
Posted AT 7:16 PM EST ON 05/03/07

Farmer cries foul over impotent ostrich

Associated Press

BERLIN — Three teenagers may face a hefty fine if a court decides their festive firecrackers outside an eastern German farm scared the libido right out of an ostrich named Gustav.

Rico Gabel, a farmer in Lohsa, northeast of Dresden, is claiming about $7,600 in damages for the alleged antics on Dec. 27 and Dec. 29, 2005, by the three teens.

The farmer claims that fireworks set off by the boys made the previously lustful Gustav both apathetic and depressed, and thus unable to perform for six months with his two female breeding partners, according to the lawsuit.

Before Gustav regained his sex drive in the second half of the year, the farmer estimates he lost out on 14 ostrich offspring — worth more than $540 each.

The suit is to be heard March 12 in a regional court in nearby Bautzen, the court said Monday. The teens' identities were not released.

© Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------

Posted AT 5:03 PM EST ON 05/03/07

Birds don't mess with the cowbird mafia

RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Raise my kids, or else!

People have long wondered how cowbirds can get away with leaving their eggs in the nests of other species, who then raise the baby cowbirds. Why don't the hosts just toss the strange eggs out?

Now researchers seem to have an answer — if the host birds reject the strange eggs, the cowbirds come back and trash the place.

The so-called “Mafia behaviour,” by brown-headed cowbirds is reported in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“It's the female cowbirds who are running the mafia racket at our study site,” Jeffrey Hoover, of the Florida Museum of Natural History and the Illinois Natural History Survey, said in a statement.

“Our study shows many of them returned and ransacked the nest when we removed the parasitic egg,” he explained.

Dr. Hoover and Scott Robinson of the Florida museum studied cowbirds over four seasons in the Cache Rover watershed in southern Illinois.

While cowbirds leave their eggs in many other birds nests, the researchers focused on warblers in the study because warblers usually accept and raise cowbird eggs.

To see what would happen, Dr. Hoover and Dr. Robinson watched where the cowbirds left eggs in warbler nests, and then removed some of them.

They found that 56 per cent of the nests where cowbird eggs were removed were later ransacked.

They also found evidence of what they called 'farming' behaviour,' in which cowbirds destroyed a nest to force the host bird to build another. The cowbird then synchronized its egg laying with the hosts' ‘renest' attempt.

“Cowbirds parasitized 85 per cent of the renests, which is strong supporting evidence for both farming and mafia behaviour,” Dr. Hoover said.

The research was supported by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

From Jane Galt (via Mankiw)

2007-02-20T23:57:00.000-05:00

This is a re-direct from Mankiw:

The post below also applies to behavioural economics, which the left seems to believe is a magical proof of the benevolence of government intervention, because after all, people are stupid, so they need the government to protect them from themselves. My take is a little subtler than that:

1) People are often stupid
2) Bureaucrats are the same stupid people, with bad incentives.

Well, I am a bureaucrat. I must have bad incentives..........moooowwwhahahaha!!

Garth Turner

2007-02-12T23:11:00.000-05:00

This maybe a bit late, but here are my 2 cents on Turner joining the Grits........

I never hated Turner for being outspoken or even being a maverick when he was a Conservative. Of course, I believe caucus confidentiality is more important than being outspoken at times. After all, there are always some discussions that are not suitable for the mass-media consumption.

Now, I don't have problems with MP crossing the floor either. If they choose to do so, they better be able to live with the consequences.

My problem with Turner is that he ripped apart those who crossed the floor, and now he committed "the crime" himself.

Well, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

How can he justify that he is different from the others? Why is he so special, that he doesn't have to comply with the standard he set for others (i.e. resign and run in a by-election)?

Either Turner is a hypocrite (that does not believe in what he said) or he is so arrogant that he doesn't give a damn about his constituents.

Please enlighten me if you have another theory.

Tuition Fees are Only a Small Factor

2007-02-08T20:04:00.000-05:00

In today's Statistics Canada's Daily, there is mention of a research paper explores what role does tuition fees play in decisions for youth to attend university?

For all students who are protesting across the country in the past few days, this is not welcoming news.

I think the author of the paper did some very good research and made some very good arguments. Tuition fees play a very minor role on youth's decision to attend university or not.

For the record, I piled up more than $40,000 student loan. But I agree with the study.

I Wonder If They Sent an Invitation to Sacha Trudeau?

2007-01-29T20:51:00.000-05:00

I actually wonder if Sacha has been packing his bags and on stand-by to fly to Cuba.............

------------------
Posted AT 2:27 PM EST ON 29/01/07

Miami readies celebration for Castro's death

Associated Press

Miami — The city of Miami is planning an official celebration at the Orange Bowl whenever Cuban president Fidel Castro dies.

Discussions by a committee appointed earlier this month by the city commission to plan the event have even covered issues such as a theme to be printed on T-shirts, what musicians would perform, the cost and how long the celebration would last.

Such a gathering has long been part of the city's plan for Mr. Castro's death, but firming up the specifics has been more urgent since Mr. Castro became ill last summer and turned over power to his brother, Raul.

City Commissioner Tomas Regalado, a Cuban American, came up with the idea of using the Orange Bowl, noting that the stadium was the site of a speech by President Kennedy in 1961 promising a free Cuba, and that in the 1980s it served as a camp for refugees from the Mariel boatlift from Cuba.

“Basically, the only thing we're trying to do is have a venue, a giant venue ready for people, if they wish, to speak to the media, to show their emotions. It's not that we're doing an official death party,” Mr. Regalado said Monday.

Former state Rep. Luis Morse stressed the need for an uplifting theme for the party — one not preoccupied with a human being's passing.

Critics have accused the city of dictating where people should party, with many preferring to celebrate on the streets of Little Havana. The city says the Orange Bowl celebration would not preclude that.

“This is not a mandatory site,” Mr. Regalado said of the Orange Bowl. “Just a place for people to gather.”

Ramon Saul Sanchez, leader of the Miami-based Democracy Movement organization, worries about how a party to celebrate a man's death would be perceived by people outside the Cuban exile community.

Mr. Sanchez also pointed out that, even after Castro dies, his communist government still will be in place.

“The notion of a big party, I think, should be removed from all this,” Mr. Sanchez said. “Although everybody will be very happy that the dictator cannot continue to oppress us himself, I think everybody is still very sad because there are still prisons full of prisoners, many people executed, and families divided.”

Chavez is Engineering his Fall?

2007-01-29T19:34:00.000-05:00

Looks like Chavez is bankrupting his country, and spending like there is no tomorrow (i.e. sending 100,000 poor citizens to vacation in Cuba).

After the "heydays" are over, or whenever oil price slumps, Chavez will definitely be in lots of trouble. It is sad to see the head of state of a nation has no sense of public policy. Time will be tougher for Venezuela down the road........

--------------------
Can oil-rich states endure price pinch? Russia, Iran and Venezuela have escaped a political backlash, but the U.S has hopes

Report on Business: The Wall Street Journal

RESOURCES DAVID LUHNOW, BILL SPINDLE AND GUY CHAZAN Wall Street Journal

29 January 2007
The Globe and Mail

B13

2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

MEXICO CITY, TEHRAN, MOSCOW -- Softening oil prices over the past few months have spurred hope in Washington that less revenue for oil-rich states could weaken the hand of governments that the United States considers worrisome - particularly those in Iran, Venezuela and Russia.

The three nations are potentially vulnerable: Oil and gas revenue accounts for between two-thirds and three-quarters of government income in both Venezuela and Iran, and only slightly less in Russia. So, a big drop in oil prices would slow economic growth and hit government finances, forcing them to cut back spending increases that have boosted the popularity of all three governments at home and emboldened them abroad.

But it is far too early to expect the changing economics of oil to have big political effects. For one thing, although the price of oil has fallen 28 per cent since hitting a high in July of $77.03 (U.S.), it is still high by historical standards. The three nations, having weathered crises before, have all built up substantial currency reserves to cushion against a further fall in prices.

"Fifty-dollar oil doesn't put any of them in any grave danger," says Michelle Billig, director of political risk at PIRA Energy Group, a New York-based consultancy. "After all, it was only a few years ago that we were talking about an oil windfall for these places at $30 a barrel."

March crude oil futures settled at $55.42 Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up $1.19 on the day.

Equally important, it isn't clear that any of the trio would radically alter their policies even if squeezed harder economically. Under President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB spy, Russia has put a priority on reasserting its political might and reclaiming the global influence it wielded during the Soviet Union's heyday. Generations of leaders in Tehran have made the development of nuclear power a stated goal - and asserted the country's hypothetical right to a nuclear weapon - no matter the price of oil.

Venezuela might have the hardest time pursuing the assertive foreign policy of President Hugo Chavez, a populist former army officer, if oil prices were to drop much more. Over the past few years, the fiery leader has used oil money to try to counter what he sees as harmful U.S. influence in Latin America. Caracas has helped finance some neighbours' debt, and it handed out cut-rate oil to dozens of countries, including Fidel Castro's Cuba - and even some U.S. communities through the state oil company's Citgo subsidiary.

Unlike Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, Venezuela has been much more reckless in spending its oil windfall. Last year alone, public spending grew 43 per cent, widening the gap between total government income and outlays to about 1.5 per cent of the total economy, according to
estimates by Morgan Stanley, the New York investment bank.

So far, falling oil prices haven't dented Mr. Chavez's spending habits. Just last week, he announced a program to send 100,000 poor Venezuelans each year to vacation in Cuba. He also recently offered the army's services to build a road in Nicaragua at a projected cost of
$350-million.

While economists unanimously agree that Mr. Chavez's free-spending policies may eventually shipwreck the Venezuelan economy, they say that won't happen - if it happens at all - for at least another year. The main reason: Venezuela has accumulated more than $36-billion of
reserves.

But there are signs Mr. Chavez could be headed for trouble, even without a much bigger drop in oil prices. He recently ordered an increase in gasoline prices - which the government has long subsidized - in order to raise federal revenue. And some economists view his recent nationalization of Venezuela's biggest telephone and electric companies as a sign his administration is eager to raise more money to keep up its spending.

A further drop in oil prices, then, might leave Mr. Chavez with some tough choices about where to trim the fat. High on the list would be his foreign aid. The chief beneficiary of Mr. Chavez's largesse, by far, is Cuba, which receives 103,000 barrels a day of refined petroleum products
in exchange for the services of Cuban doctors and other specialists. Analysts believe aid to Cuba totals about $3-billion a year.

Cutting back on such aid would be a relief in Washington, which worries about the spread of Mr.Chavez's socialist gospel, and could also be welcome at home, where many Venezuelans resent Mr. Chavez's free spending toward others when Venezuela has seen little progress on issues such as reducing poverty. Indeed, a recent study by Claudio Loser, a former International Monetary Fund official, showed that Venezuela's real per-capita income has grown a cumulative 1 per cent since 1998, the year Mr. Chavez took power.

Mr. Chavez also might be forced to cut back on the domestic front. Last year, Venezuela had Latin America's highest inflation rate, about 17 per cent - and it is expected to climb sharply this year.

Russia is much less vulnerable to oil prices. Under Mr. Putin, the country has built up $300-billion of foreign exchange reserves, an $89-billion rainy-day oil fund and runs big yearly budget surpluses. Mr. Putin is loosening the purse strings this year in the run-up to presidential elections in early 2008 with a 26-per-cent increase in spending from 2006. But the budget would still break even with oil as low as $38 to $40 per barrel. However, lower oil prices could hurt earnings at energy companies that form the backbone of Russia's economy, possibly leading to slight downgrades in forecasts of economic growth.

Iran is more exposed to the vagaries of the oil market. As revenue has soared with oil prices, Iran's public-sector spending has expanded almost as fast. In order to pay for massive subsidies for most daily goods - including gasoline, bread and heating fuel - the government has borrowed in each of the past two years from a special rainy-day fund set up to retain some oil revenue for when prices fall again. But that aggressive spending has ignited inflation, now running around 15 per cent.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad introduced a budget early last week that included an additional 20-per-cent increase in spending for the Iranian fiscal year that begins in March. He said the government, whose ultimate authority is held by a council of Islamic mullahs, would be able to add to its rainy-day fund if oil prices remain above $33 per barrel, the level the budget assumes for Iranian oil.

But some private economists doubt the budget calculations.

After the fall

The Bush administration hopes declining oil prices will force some governments to temper behaviour it finds troubling:

U.S. Accusations WHY OIL MATTERS Iran Sponsors terrorism; threatens neighbours; nuclear ambition fuels arms race; suppresses freedom Revenue funds subsidies that foster political stability; big trade partners reluctant to join tough sanctions Russia Thwarts democracy; improperly meddles in business arena; tolerates political violence Huge oil fund buys complacency at home; European dependence on supply mutes opposition to Kremlin policies Venezuela Fosters despotism; pursues socialism at expense of economic freedom Revenue finances populist agenda; foreign aid secures allies on international stage

SOURCE: WALL STREET JOURNAL

Tories Attack Ads

2007-01-28T20:47:00.000-05:00

Found part of those ads on CTV.ca.

Well, those are actually pretty good attack ads, especially when Iggy told Dion "we did not get it done", and Dion yelled "That's not fair". Dion looks like a whining baby.

On the other hand, it is true that the Liberals did not get the job done when they were in government. All critics know that the Liberals committed to Kyoto, but did not have a plan to reach the target. At least the Conservatives have been more frank in telling the truth that it is pretty much impossible to meet the target.

Is Dion Crazy or He Really Thinks the Liberals are Invincible?

2007-01-24T22:23:00.000-05:00

I just couldn't believe what I read when I saw this article.

What kind of strategists does Dion have? Or he is just pure crazy?

Or maybe he is a closet Conservative????

I am puzzled.

What a Piece of Crap!!!

2006-12-23T12:57:00.000-05:00

I wasn't planning to post anything for the next little while until I saw this article via Mankiw's blog.

These two American politicians just don't have a clue about trade (of course, that is in the economic prospective). However, that was still not enough to make me post this rant - until after I read something else. Read those posts in the comment section and you will find a bunch of non-sense posted by people who are just ignorant on trade, development, and the measure of living standards.

Those who whine about labour exploitation in developing countries should take a look at alternatives for those who choose not to work in factories. Jobs in those factories are better jobs compared to working in a rice field or involve in any other agriculture production.

The only way to help those people in third world countries is to increase their productivity. Once their productivity is increased, their living standard will improve. To increase productivity, they need to be more educated. Hence, education (or the improvement in human capital) is the best way to improve their standard of living.

Labour law and other regulations do have their roles, but not as much as education.

On products being cheaply made and "dumped" into the United States (or any other first world countries), I really don't have much problem with it. Why? If a person lives in a first world country lose his/her job to somebody in the third world, isn't it a signal to the person in the first world to "upgrade" him/herself? And that is why nobody can stop learning from this globally competitive economy nowadays.

The comparative advantage between first and third world countries are technology and cheap labour. First world countries are good at research and development (which is human capital intensive) and developing world have cheap labour (where labour does not possess very high skill level and the operation is, generally, more capital intensive). Once labour gets more skillful in developing world, the low wage advantage will evaporate, as wages will go up as labour gets more productive. By then, labour living standard will improve.

This has been the case for all countries (I still have not found an exception yet) that went through their "industrial revolutions". The question for those who are against development is which world would you choose to live in? Before or after the Industrial Revolution? The answer is simple.

----------------------
How Free Trade Hurts

By Byron Dorgan and Sherrod Brown

Saturday, December 23, 2006; Page A21

Fewer and fewer Americans support our government's trade policy. They see a shrinking middle class, lost jobs and exploding trade deficits.

Yet supporters of free trade continue to push for more of the same -- more job-killing trade agreements, greater tax breaks for large corporations that export jobs and larger government incentives for outsourcing.

Last month voters around the country said they want something very different. They voted for candidates who stood up for the middle class and who spoke out for fair trade. They did so because they understand what's at stake.

Over the past 100 years, Americans have built a thriving middle class. It's the envy of the world, and it didn't come easily.

At the turn of the 20th century, child labor was common; working conditions were often abysmal; there were no enforced workplace health, safety or environmental requirements; no unemployment insurance; and no workers' compensation. Workers were attacked and killed for the sole reason that they wanted to form a union; there was no 40-hour week, minimum wage, job security, overtime pay or virtually any other limit on the exploitation of employees.

America was split dramatically between the haves and have-nots. It was a harsh work world for many: nasty, brutish and, too often, short.

Worker activism, new laws and court decisions changed all that during the past century. As they did, a middle class grew and thrived. By mid-century, it became the engine that drove an ever-expanding economy in which benefits were shared by tens of millions of Americans. The American Dream of a secure, well-paid job with benefits, a nice house and a high-quality public education seemed within reach of everyone who worked hard and played by the rules.

That is what's at stake when we talk about trade policy: America's middle class and the American Dream.

The new mobility of capital and technology, coupled with the revolution in information technology, makes production of goods possible throughout much of the world. But much of the world at the beginning of the 21st century looks a lot like the United States did 100 years ago: Workers are grossly underpaid, exploited and abused, and they have virtually no rights. Many, including children, work 10, 12, 14 hours a day, six or seven days a week, for only a few dollars a day.

The result has been a global race to the bottom as corporations troll the world for the cheapest labor, the fewest health, safety and environmental regulations, and the governments most unfriendly to labor rights. U.S. trade agreements paved the way for this race: While rejecting protections for workers or the environment, they protected investors and corporate interests.

The results of such trade agreements are skyrocketing trade deficits -- more than $800 billion this year alone -- and downward pressure on income and benefits for American workers. Why? Because these agreements enable countries to ship what their low-wage workers produce to the United States while blocking many U.S. products from entering their countries.

Equally important, by enabling this kind of trade, the agreements force U.S. workers to accept cuts in their pay and benefits so their employers can compete with low-wage foreign producers. And those workers are the lucky ones. Millions of others have lost their jobs as corporations moved overseas to build the same products with cheap foreign labor. It is no coincidence that salaries and wages today are the lowest percentage of gross domestic product since the government began keeping track of this in 1947.

It took a century to build a thriving middle class and economic security here in America. We need to protect that for which we have sacrificed.

We must insist that all trade agreements have labor, environmental and other protections so that American workers can compete on a level playing field. Trade agreements must also be reciprocal. The American market is the most desirable in the world. Every country wants access to it. That gives us a great deal of leverage, if only we'd use it. Barriers to U.S. products overseas should not be tolerated.

Free-trade agreements have protected drug companies, international investors and Hollywood films, yet failed to protect our communities, our workers and our environment.

We believe there is a better way. Fair trade is not the enemy of more trade. It's how we expand international trade without reversing U.S. economic progress.

Byron Dorgan is a Democratic senator from North Dakota. Rep. Sherrod Brown is a Democratic senator-elect from Ohio.

Taking Some Time Off Blogging

2006-12-20T21:02:00.000-05:00

I just decided that I will take some time off for the holidays, unless I found something really worthwhile.

In the mean time, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Stephane Dion......

2006-12-04T20:02:00.000-05:00

Well, all I have to say is the Grits picked the right guy. My analysis is if the Grits want to have the best guy for the short term (i.e. to have the best bet to win in the next election), Bob Rae would be the choice, because he is a great campaigner (but with a huge baggage in Ontario).

On the other hand, Iggy would very likely to lose in the next election, if he won last weekend, because he is still a political rookie. However, he probably will be the biggest threat, among the top 4, in the one after the next election - that is given he would not make those mistakes similar to Stockwell Day's in Election 2000.

So, Rae is the best short term guy and Iggy is the long term candidate.

Dion??

I think he may not be as good as Rae in the short run and not be as good as Iggy in the long run, creteris paibus. But he possesses the "x-factor". He can unite the Grits much better than Rae or Iggy.

Dion is a policy wonk, similar to Harper. I think we will have two very similar leaders, in terms of campaign style, character, and charisma-wise, in the next election. The only thing I hope is the Conservatives better not underestimate Dion. He could surprise you just like Harper did in Election 2006.

One other thing is I found Jeffrey Simpson gave some pretty good advice to Dion on an online discussion session. Here is what he wrote:

(1) Find yourself the Liberal equivalent of Hugh Segal as chief of staff: a smart schmoozer, someone who'll talk straight to you and smooth the feathers your style will ruffle.

(2) Get yourself a smart economic adviser and a foreign policy one. You know less than you think you do about both areas, and less than you need to know.

(3) Phone Martin Cauchon, former minister of justice and a Rae supporter who went to Ignatieff on the final ballot. You need a Quebecker with political intelligence and unwavering federalist convictions. Get him to help you unify the party in Quebec and give you ongoing advice.

(4) Give an early speech in Quebec quoting your old academic writings about how you favor a balance federalism in which both levels of government must respect the other's. In particular, announce that if prime minister you would cancel the millennium scholarship program that you opposed in cabinet, as an example of how you oppose federal interventions in provincial territory.

(5) Take 45 minutes every morning with an English teacher.

(6) Do everything you can to get Rae and Ignatieff to run. And Kennedy too. Make it clear to all that you want Rae as a future foreign affairs minister and that Ignateiff will be a leading social policy minister.

(7) Get a balanced position on the Middle East and stick to it. You've got too French/France an attitude. The policy should be the one Canada used to follow: Israel has every right in law and practice to live within secure borders. The Palestinians have the right to a coherent state. The international community, including Canada, should do everything to help the parties towards that goal. Violence is abhorrent.

Another Leadership Race

2006-12-03T01:53:00.000-05:00

While everybody is paying attention to the federal Liberal leadership race, there is another leadership race going on in Canada, the Alberta PC Party will have a new leader some time tonight.

For my Conservative friends, which is your pony?

Here are the candidates:

- Jim Dinning
- Ed Stelmach
- Ted Morton

I know it is a bit of a late post, but I would like to see Dinning to be the next Alberta Premier. After all, I am socially progressive and fiscally conservative. I want to have moderate leaders for provinces and the country.

Which is Your Pony??

2006-11-30T21:47:00.000-05:00

This weekend is the Liberal Leadership Convention. Out of those eight candidates, who would you pick?

Here is the list (not in any order):

Ken Dryden
Scott Brison
Michael Ignatieff
Gerard Kennedy
Stephane Dion
Martha Hall-Findlay
Bob Rae
Joe Volpe

By the momentum of the race is heading, I think it will be either Rae or Dion.

Opppppsssss.................

2006-11-24T19:10:00.000-05:00

I think I have to learn how to read PROPERLY, or get a new pair of glasses.

As I browsed through the Economic and Fiscal Update yesterday, I missed a very important point. Quoting the press release:

The plan, unveiled along with Minister Flaherty’s Economic and Fiscal Update, features a new national objective to eliminate Canada’s total government net debt in less than a generation and further reduce taxes for all Canadians.

Now, the "net debt" is not exactly the "real national debt" (i.e. currently sitting at about $500 billion) that a lot of us preceive. From Finance Canada, and I quote:

net federal debt (dette fédérale nette)

The accumulated total of all past federal deficits and surpluses since Confederation. The net federal debt is the gross federal debt minus the federal government's financial assets such as loans, investments and foreign exchange accounts.

So, the government is not exactly planning to eliminate the $500 billion debt by 2021, because the net debt will account for other assets (i.e. money in the Canada Pension Plan, foreign reserves, federal buildings and properties, etc.) to offset the liabilities.

On the other hand, it is still nice to see the plan for lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio, to 25%, will be two years ahead of Budget 2005.

I was a bit "shocked" yesterday when I thought that Canada will be debt-free before I do. But now, I don't think that will be the case. That gave me a needed "morale boost" during the day.

Oh well, I still give the plan a "B+".

......and of course, I need to enroll myself into a "learn-how-to-read-properly" class.

The Fiscal and Economic Update 2006

2006-11-23T20:24:00.000-05:00

Overall, I give it an A-. Obviously, that is assuming all projections by the update are accurate.

What I like:

- Retire the national debt by 2021. In fact, the government is speeding up the process two years ahead of the Liberals' plan (see Budget 2005). The Liberals' plan was drop the debt-to-GDP ration to 25% by 2014-2015, where the new plan is to achieve the same level by 2012-2013.
- Increase productivity by lowering corporate tax.
- Lowering personal income tax.
- Renew the Inflation-Target Agreement with the Bank of Canada.

What I concern:

- Some unexpected cost (i.e. health care cost will rack up when baby-boomers start retiring) may arise down the road. After all, 15 years is still some time away.
- Will the government freeze or cut programs to increase surplus, hence speed-up debt repayment?

What I dislike:

- Cutting the GST to 5%.

Consumption tax is the lesser evil comparing to income and corporate tax. You can find a good explanation here (thanks to Greg Mankiw).

On the other hand, there are exceptions. One of them would be the Alabama scenario back in 2003. You can find more if you google "The Riley Plan". The short version of the story is revenue from consumption tax is hard to project, and relying heavily on consumption tax revenue will create budgetary problems for governments.

Finally, a bit of counter-spin here. From the press release of the "Canada's New Government Renews Inflation-Target Agreement With the Bank of Canada":

“Maintaining low, stable and predictable inflation goes right to the bottom line of every household budget,” said Minister Flaherty. “It ensures affordable mortgage rates, allows more families to purchase new homes, secures the value of incomes and keeps the costs of purchases stable.”

From the Phillip's curves, we know that there is a trade-off between controlling inflation and short-term unemployment. To be more explicit, short-term unemployment will go up when the central bank is trying to control inflation by increasing interest rate. This can be proved by the "Zero-Inflation Policy", implemented by John Crow when he was the Governor of the Bank of Canada (hence deepened the recession in the early 90s).

Now, to control inflation (when the economy is over-heated), the central bank will have to increase interest rate. Increasing the Bank Rate will increase mortgage rates. This begs the question, if inflation is on the uprise and the Bank of Canada have to control it by increase the interest rate, how can we still have low interest rate (and low mortgage rate)???

Other than this stupid media spin, I like this update a lot - which is all it matters.

People No Longer Marrying Up?

2006-11-20T20:48:00.000-05:00

Again, via Mankiw, this is a pretty interesting trend.

-------------------------------

November 19, 2006

Idea Lab

The Real Marriage Penalty

By ANNIE MURPHY PAUL

“Some of usare becoming the men we wanted to marry,” Gloria Steinem proclaimed 25 years ago. She meant, of course, that women in large numbers were seizing the places in higher education and the professions that had formerly been closed to them, becoming the doctors, lawyers and executives that they once hoped only to wed. Over the past generation, the liberal notion of egalitarian marriage — in which wives are in every sense their husbands’ peers — has gone from pie-in-the-sky ideal to unremarkable reality. But this apparently progressive shift has been shadowed by another development: America’s growing gap between rich and poor. Even as husbands and wives have moved closer together on measures of education and income, the divide between well-educated, well-paid couples and their less-privileged counterparts has widened, raising an awkward possibility: are we achieving more egalitarian marriages at the cost of a more egalitarian society?

Once, it was commonplace for doctors to marry nurses and executives to marry secretaries. Now the wedding pages are stocked with matched sets, men and women who share a tax bracket and even an alma mater. People, like other members of the animal kingdom, have always been prone to “assortative mating,” or choosing to have babies with a reassuringly similar partner. But observers like Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of New Mexico and author of “The Mating Mind,” suggest that the innovations of modern society — from greater geographic mobility to specialized work environments to Internet dating — have made this matching process much more efficient. “Assortative mating is driven by our personal preferences, but also by whom we meet, and these days we have many more opportunities to meet others like ourselves,” he says. (As with most contemporary sociological phenomena, “Seinfeld” was there first: a 1996 episode featured the comedian finding “the female Jerry.”)

In particular, Americans are increasingly pairing off by education level, according to the sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare. In an article published last year in the journal Demography, they reported that the odds of a high-school graduate marrying someone with a college degree declined by 43 percent between 1940 and the late 1970s. In our current decade, the researchers wrote, the percentage of couples who are “educationally homogamous” — that is, share the same level of schooling — reached its highest point in 40 years. Assortative mating by income also seems to be on the rise. In a 2004 study of couples wed in the 1970s through the early 1990s, the researchers Megan Sweeney and Maria Cancian found an increasingly strong association between women’s wages before marriage and the occupational status and future earnings prospects of the men they married.

Why is this happening? For one thing, more couples are meeting in college and other educational settings, where prospective mates come prescreened by admissions committees as discerning as any yenta. Husbands and wives who begin their relationships during their school years are more likely to have comparable education (and, presumably, income) levels. Secondly, men and women have become more alike in what they want from a marriage partner. This convergence is both cultural — co-ed gyms and bars have replaced single-sex sewing circles and Elks clubs — and economic. Just as women have long sought to marry a good breadwinner, men, too, now find earning potential sexy. “There are fewer Cinderella marriages these days,” says Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.” “Men are less interested in rescuing a woman from poverty. They want to find someone who will pull her weight.” For this reason, the “marriage penalty” once paid by highly educated women has all but disappeared: among women born after 1960, a college graduate is more likely to marry than her less-educated counterpart. And finally, there’s what Schwartz calls the growing “social and economic distance” between the well educated and the less so, a gulf even ardent romantics may find difficult to bridge.

This last theory holds that disparities in wealth influence whom we marry, but there’s reason to think that our mating patterns could be producing economic inequality as well as reflecting it. A model constructed by the economists Raquel Fernández and Richard Rogerson, published in 2001 in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, led them to conclude that “increased marital sorting” — high earners marrying high earners and low earners marrying low earners — “will significantly increase income inequality.” A 2003 analysis by Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, found that a rising correlation of husband-and-wife earnings accounted for 13 percent of the considerable growth in economic inequality between 1979 and 1996.

Burtless himself does not think that assortative mating is necessarily becoming more prevalent. In fact, he says he believes that “the tendency of like to marry like has remained roughly unchanged over time. What have changed are the labor-market opportunities and behavior of women.” In this conception, men have always married women of their own social class, but such stratification was obscured by the fact that the female halves of these couples often did not work or pursue advanced degrees. Now that women who are in a position to do so are attending college and graduate school and joining the professions, the economic consequences of Americans’ assortative mating habits are becoming clearer.

If assortative mating does contribute to our growing gap between rich and poor, does that matter? Few people would question any individual’s romantic preferences. And yet as the current clash over gay marriage demonstrates, private choices about whom we marry — or don’t marry, or can’t marry — can have loud public reverberations. Not long ago, the marriages of whites and blacks, and the lifting of laws that once prohibited such unions, revealed a nation beginning to open its mind on matters of race; likewise, rates of marriage across lines of education and income provide an index of social mobility. If there are fewer such marriages, then there are “fewer sources of intimate ties” between groups, Schwartz says, making marriage one more brick in the wall that separates America’s haves and have-nots.

Of course, men and women don’t choose each other on the basis of education and income alone. Putting love aside, as men’s and women’s roles continue to shift, other standards for selecting a partner may come to the fore. Indeed, the sociologist Julie Press recently offered what she called “a gynocentric theory of assortative mating,” moving the focus from what men now desire in a marriage partner to the evolving preferences of women. What would-be wives may be seeking now, she proposed in The Journal of Marriage and Family, is “cute butts and housework” — that is, a man with an appealing physique and a willingness to wash dishes. Could this be a feminist slogan for our time?

Annie Murphy Paul is the author of "The Cult of Personality: How Personality Tests Are Leading Us to Miseducate Our Children, Mismanage Our Companies and Misunderstand Ourselves."

More about the Grey Cup!!

2006-11-20T00:28:00.000-05:00

Found this article on the Globe & Mail web-site.

Apparently, the Lions "broke" the Cup in celebration. However, this is not the first time that the Cup is being broken (see below).

-------------------------------
Posted AT 10:52 PM EST ON 19/11/06

The Grey Cup's bizarre history

Canadian Press

When the Grey Cup was broken Sunday night during the B.C. Lions celebration in Winnipeg, it was just another chapter in the colourful history of the 94-year-old trophy. The following story is from 1998 when the Calgary Stampeders defeated the Hamilton Tiger-Cats 26-24 to win the Grey Cup.

From the archives:

It has been lost, forgotten, stolen and even held for ransom.

Such is the rich and colourful history of the Grey Cup.

The Grey Cup wasn't supposed to honour a football champion. It was originally to be awarded annually to Canada's top senior hockey team, but Sir Montague Allan beat Earl Grey to the punch, issuing the Allan Cup. Grey later donated the trophy to recognize the Canadian rugby football winner.

Wally Buono and the Calgary Stampeders nearly added another wacky chapter to the Grey Cup's colourful history last year. Hours after capturing the CFL championship trophy with a wild 26-24 win over the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the Stampeders almost left Winnipeg without the hallowed Cup, which is valued at $53,000.

The Stampeders returned to their hotel for a reception after the game. They then headed to the airport for their chartered flight home only to realize the trophy had been left at the hotel.

As panic set in, salvation arrived in the form of the trophy, which someone had placed on a bus headed to the airport.

"There were so many people getting their picture taken with it [at the reception] so I left early to get the buses organized assuming someone else would take care of it," Buono, who had signed for the Cup on the club's behalf, said at the time. "All of a sudden we don't know where it's at.

"Fortunately, when the third bus came, someone was smart enough to have put it on. It was a big relief."

The Cup is insured, but whoever signs for it is responsible for its safe-keeping. If it is lost or irreparably damaged, the signee is on the hook for its replacement value.

But the Stampeders' faux pas last year wasn't the first time the Cup had been forgotten.

In 1964, the B.C. Lions sent someone back to their hotel to retrieve the Cup after arriving at the airport empty-handed. And in 1984, hours after a team celebration, former Bombers general manager Paul Robson sheepishly returned to an empty Winnipeg Arena to find the trophy sitting on a table at centre ice.

Former Toronto kicker Mike Vanderjagt lost the Cup in November 1997. Vanderjagt took it to a bar in his native Oakville, Ont., where it was stolen.

Early the next morning, a college student who reportedly joked she'd give $100 to have the Cup in her apartment found it in her kitchen. Police were called and the trophy was returned to a relieved Vanderjagt.

It was also stolen in 1969 from Ottawa's Lansdowne Park and held for ransom. When the CFL balked, Toronto police found the Cup in a hotel locker.

Other incidents include:

--The University of Toronto won the first Grey Cup championship in 1909, but didn't receive the trophy until the following March. And when they got it, they held on to it for two years, figuring they didn't have to return it until another team beat them for it. That happened in 1914 when the Toronto Argonauts captured the title. Since then, the winning team has made the trophy available to next season's champion.

--In 1947, it was almost destroyed by fire while on display at the Toronto Argonaut Rowing Club. The office was gutted, but a slightly tarnished Cup survived.

--In 1987, the trophy was broken when a celebrating Edmonton Eskimo sat on it. In 1991, tape held the neck of the Grey Cup intact when it returned home with the Toronto Argonauts. And in 1993, it was again broken when Edmonton's Blake Dermott head-butted it.

Lions Triumphed!!

2006-11-19T22:07:00.000-05:00

Well, the BC Lions are the 2006 Grey Cup Champions!!!

What can I say?? They were the best in the regular season, and they are now the Grey Cup Champions!!

GO LIONS GO!!!

These Clips are Funny!!

2006-11-17T20:14:00.000-05:00

Thanks to my friend Andrea. These clips are hilarious!!

Today is a Sad Day for Economics

2006-11-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

Friedman is a great economist, and it is sad to see him go.

---------------------------
Posted AT 1:23 PM EST ON 16/11/06

Economist Milton Friedman dead at 94

Globe and Mail Update

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who advocated an unfettered free market and had the ear of Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, died Thursday. He was 94.

Friedman died in San Francisco, said Robert Fanger, a spokesman for the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation in Indianapolis. He did not know the cause of death.

In more than a dozen books and in his column in Newsweek magazine, Friedman championed individual freedom in economics and politics.

His theory of monetarism, adopted in part by the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, opposed the traditional Keynesian economics that had dominated U.S. policy since the New Deal. He was a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board.

His theories won him a Nobel Prize in economics in 1976.

GO LIONS GO!!!

2006-11-11T23:05:00.000-05:00

As much as I love my Saskatchewan friends (and most of them are Riders fan), I just can't betray my roots. Sorry guys, my Riders blanket will be in the closet tomorrow, and the Lions will kick the Riders again this year at this important game.

GO LIONS GO!!

What Do You Think of This Club?

2006-11-11T17:08:00.000-05:00

I am still not too sure if this is a good idea (the company sounds a bit like "high-end pimps" to me), but if I have that much money, I probably won't need this service.

-------------------------
Posted AT 4:00 PM EST ON 11/11/06

Truly, madly . . . richly

GAYLE MACDONALD

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Next Friday evening, several hundred leggy blondes, voluptuous brunettes and auburn-haired bombshells will take the elevators up to the seventh floor of The Carlu, Toronto's art moderne meeting place, to be greeted by a phalanx of beauty, fashion and makeup consultants.

The event is not a run-through for Canada's Next Top Model, but rather a rigorous audition and party to celebrate the launch of an online matchmaking service called Millionaire's Club Canada. Its lofty goal: to pair superrich gents with fabulous-looking women.

About 400 to 800 ladies are expected to attend the soiree, where a handful of judges -- including Global TV news anchor Leslie Roberts, celebrity hairstylist Jie Matar and Michael Wilkings, president of the European record label Ministry of Sound -- will pick a roster of femmes fatales and future wives to join an international clique that now numbers about 15,000.

Many Canadians (we are a fairly conservative lot) may feel sickened by a dating service that is so blatantly mercenary and shallow. In essence, Millionaire's Club is like a big-box retail store full of eye candy for flush men on the prowl.

But owner Mark Healy is fervently unapologetic about the service he'll be providing. "We are simply offering Canada's A-list bachelors a chance to meet women of distinction," says the 44-year-old entrepreneur and former investment banker. "If you're a high-profile person, you can't be seen hanging out in bars. Nor do you have time."

Millionaire's Club was first launched in Los Angeles seven years ago. Founder Patti Stanger says she now has 5,000 paying male members, who can buy one of four packages starting at $10,000 (U.S.) a year. This includes unlimited dating in men's home province or state, plus date and relationship coaching, image consulting and a hypnotherapy session.

For $150,000, there's the VIP option as well. Currently, only one European, who needs a translator when he travels to the United States, has signed up for this level of membership. It provides gents with a personal matchmaker who will "travel with billionaires on the go," as Ms. Stanger puts it.

(The membership has always been open to women too. Some have expressed interest, but none have wanted to pay for the service.)

The whole notion sickens Elizabeth Abbott, a researcher at the University of Toronto and the author of A History of Mistresses. "It's seems to be an extraordinarily shallow criteria: just rich, just pretty, and in the same geographical location," she scoffs. "The whole thing seems very cold and calculating. Like it's more of a financial arrangement than a dating service."

Still, it's an arrangement that seems to work. The club claims that nearly four out of five men develop relationships through their services. And last year, Ms. Stanger says, her agency was responsible for 25 marriages, with countless more couples living together (although they don't condone common-law relationships).

To kick-start the process, the club carefully selects prospective male members. They are asked where they vacation, how many houses they own and what kind of car they drive. And they can pay only by cheque. Ms. Stanger finds the five-figure fee quickly separates the posers from the real deal.

Women candidates (who do not pay to use the service) are also put through fairly rigorous vetting. This involves the submission of a current photograph, soul-searching questions about their favourite fashion designers, restaurants, their attitudes about ethnicity, looks and money -- and whether they have a criminal record, an alcohol or drug addiction or any restraining orders against them.

Given the recent charges against 47-year-old Joseph Garcia of Irvine, Calif. -- who reportedly raped three women he met at rival dating website MillionaireMatch.com -- such screening is key.

"We screen each and every person. And if a client is not right for us, we send them to an affiliate program. Maybe you're Jewish and you want Jewish," says Ms. Stanger, who is a third-generation Jewish matchmaker herself. "I don't do Jewish, so I'll send you to a local Jewish matchmaker in your area."

The application drill certainly didn't faze Ainslie Cyopik. A former dancer with the National Ballet of Canada, she now runs a successful dancewear company out of Vancouver. But the 44-year-old has tried to meet Mr. Right to no avail. When a happily married friend told her about Millionaire's Club Canada, she decided to send in her picture and profile.

"There are many ways of meeting people and I thought I'd try this one," she says. "I think there's nothing wrong with true wealth. Money surely is not everything, but it can be part of a wonderful and fulfilling life."

Lisa Daily, the Florida-based author of Stop Getting Dumped, has no moral issue with Millionaire's Club either. "It all has to do with efficiency, which is the whole reason the online dating thing, in general, is so popular," she says. "Millionaire's Club ensures you're in a very specific pool. And if dating a wealthy man or a beautiful woman is something that is really high on your priority list, then it's for you."

As for Mr. Healy -- who operates out of the Toronto headquarters for Millionaire's Club Canada along with his wife, Cynthia, and one other "consultant" -- he got into the business because he liked the low overheads and the potential upside. "Right now, online dating is a $1-billion U.S. a year industry," he says.

And he's confident that up to 800 women will show up at the door of The Carlu next Friday night to sip Moët Chandon and put their best face (or any other asset) forward. "I see it kind of like a Canadian Idol," Mr. Healy says. "They'll come through, have their photos taken, questionnaires filled out." Then the party will go into the wee hours.

Of course, Ms. Stanger is flying into town to kick up her heels alongside the other ladies next weekend. She's sure this offshoot will attract the same pedigree of women as her L.A. service -- none of whom are gold diggers, she insists.

"If you're a rich man, you want a gorgeous woman, and if you're a gorgeous woman, you want a rich man. That's just the way it is. The women are not allowed to ask anything financial," she says. "It's no different from back in the old days, when families arranged marriages based on financial necessity. You don't have to be a supermodel to get a millionaire. There are millionaires everywhere, and they're all looking for sweet Sally with the perfect little smile. They don't go for va-va-voom."

At least, Ms. Cyopik says, that's what she is counting on. "Mae West once said, 'Money ain't everything, but it's somethin!' So it made me think, maybe it's time to dare to ask for all our hopes and wishes to come true. Why not? And if there are people along the way who want to help make that happen, then all the better."

Gayle MacDonald is a feature writer with The Globe and Mail.

The commandments of millionaire dating

For men:

1. Thou shalt think quality, not quantity. Remember: You're in this to meet the love of your life.

2. Thou shalt leave a maximum of two phone messages for a woman. If she doesn't call you back, she's not interested. Period.

3. Thou shalt never ask a woman out at the last minute -- it's extremely disrespectful.

4. Thou shalt always have a plan for your date. Women prefer men who have direction.

5. Thou shalt ask a woman thoughtful questions. Topics: how many people in her family? where she grew up?

6. Thou shalt avoid drinking too much on your dates. Although it is certainly tempting, it will cloud your judgment.

7. Thou shalt not brag, and under any conditions, discuss Millionaire's Club or any other women you have dated, are dating, or are about to date.

8. Thou shalt be a gentleman. When you decide to have sex with the woman you are dating, it is advisable to wait 90 days -- which we call the "win me phase."

9. Thou shalt be careful and genuine in your offers. Don't bring up the subject of high-end jewellery or clothing designers unless you really mean it.

10. Thou shalt simply contact Millionaire's Club to report any problems. If you don't want to see or hear from a date or prospective date, we'll handle the situation.

For women:

1. Thou shalt return calls promptly and honour thy dating commitments. When a man calls you, he will offer you dinner. You have the right to reduce the date to drinks, lunch or coffee. If a gentleman does not offer you a five-star dinner on the first date, please notify the club immediately.

2. Thou shalt let the man take the lead and shalt avoid bringing personal baggage to the table. Let the man lead the conversation in the beginning and ask the questions.

3. Thou shalt not, under any circumstances, discuss Millionaire's Club or any other romantic relationships.

4. Thou shalt be engaging. Witty banter is important. Be a good listener.

5. Thou shalt not drink too much on the first date. Never allow yourself to become sloppy or drunk.

6. Thou shalt not be a gold digger. Never ask or hint for anything of monetary value. If a gentleman offers to buy you a designer watch or handbag or anything else of worth, you may accept -- but DO NOT bring up the subject. It is against club policy to even hint for extravagant gifts, your rent being paid, allowance, a new car, etc.

7. Thou shalt act like a lady. This means being polite and following common laws of etiquette such as saying please, thank you and excuse me. Do not cuss.

8. Thou shalt (if interested) express some interest. Once you have decided you like a specific male, it is important to show your appreciation and reciprocate. But do not offer to outright pay for something: Once a woman touches money/credit cards in front of a male, she becomes "masculine energy" -- which is undesirable.

9. Thou shalt not become intimate on the first date. When it comes to sex, it is important that you realize that "in is in": In other words, any kind of intercourse -- oral, vaginal or otherwise -- is considered sex, and should not be indulged in until you are both monogamous. It is against club rules for a man and woman to live together unless they are married, or engaged with a ring and a date is set. If a man doesn't propose to you by the end of one year, you must end the relationship and move on, unless he agrees to therapy.

10. Thou shalt inform Millionaire's Club of any problems.

-- Abridged from Millionaire Club's book of rules

Can You Believe This??

2006-11-10T22:45:00.000-05:00

It is official. Believe it or not, Wal-Mart is now being attacked by both the Left and the Right.

This is a "spam" that I got. See below.

-----------------------------

Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Don't Spend your Money at Wal-Mart

Dear friends,

Do not spend your money at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club because you don't want to be a part in their attempt to demolish the foundation of the human social structure. Please share this message with your friends.

[name withheld]

November 9, 2006

Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your entire email list of family and friends.

Wal-Mart Contributes 5% Of Online Sales To Homosexual Group

Sign the pledge not to shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving. Time is short. Act today!

Dear W,

Help recruit 1,000,000 families who will agree not to shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club (owned by Wal-Mart) on the Friday and Saturday following Thanksgiving. Here's why:

In a show of support to help homosexuals legalize same-sex marriage, Wal-Mart has agreed to automatically donate 5% of online sales directly to the Washington DC Community Center for Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender People. The cash donation will come from online purchases made at Wal-Mart through the homosexual group's Web site. This move follows Wal-Mart's joining the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce and agreeing to give generous financial help to that organization also.

Every purchase made online for books, music, videos, clothing and accessories, children's clothing and toys, and electronics at the site will automatically send 5% of the sales to the CCBLBT People. The agreement is an indication that Wal-Mart is totally committed to supporting the homosexual movement.

Wal-Mart also gave a generous cash donation to the Northwest Arkansas Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center, helping to provide a place where homosexuals can come together to "socialize."

Many observers feel it would have been a wise business decision for Wal-Mart to remain neutral in the cultural battle over homosexual marriage. But this was an ideological decision by Wal-Mart - not a business decision.

Take Action

1. Sign the petition to Wal-Mart letting them know you will be one of the 1,000,000 families who will not shop at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club on the Friday or Saturday following Thanksgiving.

2. VERY IMPORTANT! Millions of Americans are not aware of Wal-Mart's support for homosexual marriage. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

3. Print out and distribute the Wal-Mart Pass Along Sheet by clicking here.

For past Wal-Mart Action Alerts, plus answers to your questions (where to shop?), Click Here.

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

You are receiving this mailing because you participated in an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. You are subscribed to AFA ActionAlert as wylo1219@yahoo.ca.

In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us!

Unsubscribe | Update E-mail Address | Donate to AFA

If you are a Federal Civilian, Postal or Military Employee, please consider AFA (#2058) for your annual CFC participation. Questions or comments about AFA? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.

American Family Association | P O Drawer 2440 | Tupelo, MS 38803 | 1-662-844-5036
Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved

Some Evaluations on NAFTA and Free Trade

2006-11-06T22:52:00.000-05:00

For all those nay-sayers about NAFTA and free trade, here you go!!

-------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061106.wrnafta06/BNStory/Business/home

Posted AT 2:00 AM EST ON 06/11/06

Free trade a boon to Canada, study concludes

HEATHER SCOFFIELD

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Canada's economy has flourished under the North American free-trade agreement, and with the right policy moves, could repeat that experience as it deals with the trade shock from Asia, a new study suggests.

In a paper to be released this week, Royal Bank of Canada examines a wide range of data showing Canada's economic performance before and after free trade with the rest of North America.

"Canadians have prospered," conclude economists Craig Wright and Derek Holt.

"Few countries have provided as shining an example of how to adapt and prosper in a post-freer trade world than Canada."

Before Canada signed on to the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement in 1988 and the North American free-trade agreement in 1993, critics charged that Canadian production would move south, exports would evaporate, jobs would dry up, foreign investment in Canada would deteriorate, the tax base would shrink, and the restructuring would force the country into a painful and long-term funk.

The adjustment was not without pain, but the end result, after 18 years of free trade, has made the criticisms look frivolous, the paper argues. The paper, provided to The Globe and Mail, is to be presented at the Canadian American Business Council's annual forum on competitiveness this week.

Exports have soared and foreign direct investment in Canada has risen substantially. Government coffers are full to overflowing, and Canada's fiscal situation is the envy of many a rich country. And while many of Canada's top companies have been bought by foreigners, often American, Canadian companies have been just as busy buying up U.S. firms, the study says.

Still, public opinion is not completely onside, and many trade experts and politicians alike have raised questions about the value of NAFTA in light of Canada's failure to prevail over the United States in the costly softwood lumber dispute.

As well, wage growth has been disappointing, and Canada's record on productivity has been lacklustre since the agreements came into effect. But those problems predate North American free trade, and were well entrenched in Canada in the 1980s, Mr. Holt argues.

Over all, the initial adjustment to the FTA and NAFTA was painful at first, but successful after a few years of restructuring, he says. And Canada can hope for a repeat of that experience as it deals with intense trade competition from China and India, as long as it takes some key steps to ensure a strong footing.

With adjustment to NAFTA under Canada's belt, the economy is in the midst of yet another major transition, this time dealing with the rise of Asia — now a major source of goods and services of every kind.

The resulting global restructuring has taken a steep toll in Canada. As of June, 2006, Canada's exports of goods and services compared with a year earlier had grown by only 2.4 per cent — well below the industrialized countries' average of 9.6 per cent, and paling in comparison with its NAFTA trading partners. Mexico's exports of goods and services grew by 13.2 per cent over the year, and U.S. exports jumped 8.2 per cent.

Canada's manufacturing sector, which makes up about 17 per cent of the country's economy, has taken a beating in the last two years. Global competition, high energy prices and the rising Canadian dollar have worked together to force a major restructuring in the sector. Growth is anemic, and tens of thousands of factory workers have lost their jobs.

"Notwithstanding the accomplishments of the Canadian economy, policy makers cannot afford to be complacent in feeling that they have handed businesses all they need in order to drive a freer-trade prosperity agenda," the bank economists say.

They suggest:

--Reducing taxes on businesses and capital so that they don't act as a disincentive to investment.

--Improving government-to-government programs to make cross-border trade more efficient.

--Upgrading infrastructure so the flow of goods and services is not hampered.

--Becoming more active in furthering trade liberalization, both internally and globally through the World Trade Organization.

--Better integration of immigrants to alleviate skilled labour shortages.

--Working toward a common understanding on protection of intellectual property rights, both with the United States and globally.

This is Funny!!

2006-11-05T22:55:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Mankiw. This is as good as this (of course, you have to use the sound board to create prank calls.)

Sounds Like a "Poster Boy" to Me......

2006-10-31T19:32:00.000-05:00

First, I have to clarify that I am not anti-gay, and I am mainly indifferent on the SSM issue (and slightly leaning on the pro-side). I just don't think it is that big of an issue, and if any two individuals want to get into a marriage, let them do it. I strongly believe that the state (or even other individuals) have no business in the nation's bedroom (one of the very few quotes that I can agree with PET.)

Remember when Brison defected to the Liberals, in 2004, he said that he doesn't want to be the "poster boy for the new Conservative Party on gay issues"?

I can understand where Brison came from when he defected to the Liberals in 2004. In fact, I actively supported him when he ran for the PC Leadership in 2004.

However, the more I look back, the more I think his defection to the Liberals "opportunistic". In fact, I know some friends of mine were asked by Scott, personally, to contribute various amount of money to help him to repay his debt, incurred during the leadership campaign, less than a week before his defection. Those incidences surely sound a little "shady" to me when Scott obviously knew that he won't belong to the Party for much longer!!

----------------------
Posted AT 9:44 AM EST ON 31/10/06

Brison's not just a politics buff

SCOTT DEVEAU

Globe and Mail Update

Canadians will soon be able to see an unexpected side of Liberal leadership candidate Scott Brison, after a nude calendar he recently posed for is released next week.

The Kings-Hants MP recently posed in the buff for the What Men Are Made Of, a calendar produced by the Women of Wolfville, a Nova Scotia theatre group.

The calendar, which is raising money for prostate and ovarian cancer, will be available throughout the small Nova Scotia community, 100 kilometres north of Halifax, starting next week. The theme of calendar is men doing non-traditional things, like dusting, knitting, and diaper changing.

"Scott was riot," said Wendy Elliott, one of the two members of the Women of Wolfville who produced the calendar. "When I told him the theme, he said 'Oh you mean like thinking.'"

For the local MP's exposé, Ms. Elliott said she thought it would be appropriate to have him looking in the fridge. (His first entrepreneurial achievement was renting fridges to university students.)

"You can see his chest and a line all down his body," she said, adding the MP, who reportedly spends an hour in the gym each day, looks quite buff in the shot.

"It's naked ambition for a good cause," Mr. Brison said in an interview Tuesday morning. "My father had prostate cancer. My uncle died of cancer that began in the prostate but spread. We're not unique to Canadians. Cancer research is a cause that's very close my heart."

Mr. Brison isn't concerned about how posing in the buff may adversely effect his leadership bid.

"I think I was less exposed than Bob Rae was on Rick Mercer," he said, alluding to a skinny dipping skit the former Ontario premier and Liberal leadership hopeful performed with the CBC comedian.

It's not the first time the community has put together a nude calendar. Last year, the Women of Wolfville put out of a one of local women, the oldest being 90 years old. The group raised $12,000 with that calendar and hope to do better this year, after learning a valuable lesson from a British documentary on nude community calendars, which have been made famous by the film Calendar Girls.

"What really works is selling men, because you have two markets," she said. "So we thought, we'll give it a whirl."

Mr. Brison, who is gay, reportedly joked during the shoot that is was the first time he'd undressed in front of women in a while.

But, Mr. Brison isn't the only local politician to strip down for the calendar. Wolfville's mayor Robert Stead and another town councillor also took it off for the camera, Ms. Eliott said.

The What Men Are Made Of calendar will be available next Wednesday for $20 each, but Ms. Elliott said it may be difficult to get the calendar outside of Wolfville.

"I haven't really thought that one through yet," she said. "I'm willing to give Scott's picture to anybody and everybody next week, because I don't want my phone ringing off the hook."

But it may be the only chance for those wishing to see a more cheeky side of Mr. Brison, because he said standing in front of an open refrigerator door for 15 minutes during the shoot without the benefit clothing has put a chill on any further nude modelling ambitions.

"I'm glad it wasn't a full frontal," he said. "I don't see any repeat performances in the near future. Nude modelling hasn't yet become a passion for me."

This is FUNNY!!

2006-10-31T00:20:00.000-05:00

I don't think we have that in the government.......

Anyhow, just want to put something "light" for once in a while. Hope that this will not offend anyone. After all, this is from a comedy show!!

Blink - Malcolm Gladwell

2006-10-27T22:45:00.000-05:00

I have been listening to this audio book on my iPod during my commute to and from work for the past week. I have to say that this is a great book, and I should get a hard copy some time.

For any one of you, especially marketers and political hacks, you surely don't want to miss it.

......And the Dippers Pull This Off Only Less Than a Month after I Left Saskatchewan???

2006-10-27T17:51:00.000-05:00

I wonder what all you Saskatchewanians think of cutting the PST by 2-percent?

More so, I want to know what Jack Layton has to say.............

I bet you that Calvert must have read my MA research paper, titled "The Incidence of GST and Income Tax Changes in the 2006 Federal Budget"!!

BTW, I read an article from The Star Phoenix, and the reporter either got a bad quote out of Ken Cheveldayoff or Cheveldayoff was off his game. Here is the excerpt:

Saskatchewan Party Finance critic Ken Cheveldayoff said voters will remember
that Calvert’s government hiked the sales tax by one point to seven per cent
just after the 2003 election.
But Cheveldayoff said the Saskatchewan Party does support the cut, pointing
out the Opposition has been repeatedly calling for the last increase to be
reversed.
“It’s long overdue and its sustainable if the Saskatchewan economy keeps
growing . . it’s sustainable under a Sask. Party government,” he said.

This is not the first time that I heard the Sask Party is agreeing with the government. I am not calling the Sask Party to oppose for the sake of opposing, but if the Sask Party agrees with the government with most of the major issues, why would people want for a change? Why should people vote for the Sask Party in the next election? Is it just because Brad Wall is better looking than Lorne Calvert?

Cheveldayoff should have said something like "the government should provide a transitional period, at least a couple weeks, for businesses to make adaquate changes to their operations to adapt to the new government policy. Giving a less-than-24-hour notice would create a lot of chaos among small businesses. This is another example showing the NDP does not understand how businesses are managed, etc, etc, etc."

--------------------------

Posted AT 2:03 PM EDT ON 27/10/06

Saskatchewan cuts provincial sales tax

Canadian Press

Regina — The Saskatchewan government is cutting its provincial sales tax.

Finance Minister Andrew Thomson stood in the legislature Friday and announced the tax will be lowered to 5 per cent from 7 per cent effective Saturday.

Mr. Thomson says the change was made because the province is currently enjoying an oil and gas boom and the government wants to share the wealth.

The next provincial election is expected in the fall of 2007, and the Opposition has said it believes the government will be trying to buy votes until then.

The cut puts the provincial tax one point below what it was when the current NDP government was re-elected in 2003.

-------------------------------

Sask. government cuts PST to five per cent
James Wood, StarPhoenix
Published: Friday, October 27, 2006

REGINA – The provincial sales tax is dropping two points in a bombshell announcement by NDP Finance Minister Andrew Thomson.

The tax will be five per cent as of midnight tonight.

The move will cost the provincial government $325 million in revenue but Thomson said the cut is sustainable, not only because of the natural resource revenues that have been filling provincial coffers for the last two years, but mainly because of soaring personal and corporate tax revenue.

Ensuring Saskatchewan residents feel the full benefit of the province’s strong economy has been a key theme of Premier Lorne Calvert’s government in recent months and has been amplified as it headed into the fall sitting of the legislature and a likely provincial election next year.

“When we can have rebuilt the economy to provide this kind of benefit for families, I think this is a remarkable day,” a beaming Calvert told reporters after Thomson rose in the legislature to announce the cut.

It was the second major announcement by the NDP government in two days of the legislative session, following Thursday’s throne speech announcement of a new statutory holiday in February.

With provincial voters expected to head to the polls within the year, the Opposition said the move reeked of desperation from the government after its third-place finish in the Weyburn-Big Muddy byelection in June.

Saskatchewan Party Finance critic Ken Cheveldayoff said voters will remember that Calvert’s government hiked the sales tax by one point to seven per cent just after the 2003 election.

But Cheveldayoff said the Saskatchewan Party does support the cut, pointing out the Opposition has been repeatedly calling for the last increase to be reversed.

“It’s long overdue and its sustainable if the Saskatchewan economy keeps growing . . . it’s sustainable under a Sask. Party government,” he said.

But Liberal leader David Karwacki announced himself flabbergasted that an NDP government would follow the lead of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which chopped the GST by one point this summer and plans a further cut next year.

Karwacki said it would be more beneficial to cut education property taxes.

“We could’ve taken school tax off of homeowners, that massive burden that it places on seniors, that it places on producers, that it places on families . . . this is just a tax break for the most affluent in our society,” he told reporters.

The move means Saskatchewan will have the lowest provincial sales tax in the country except for Alberta, which has none.

The government will raise the taxes on cigarettes and cut tobacco to ensure those prices don’t drop.

It is also reducing the Investment Tax Credit for manufacturing and processing to match the PST cut.

Read more about the PST cut in tomorrow's StarPhoenix.

How to Curb Alberta's Inflation?

2006-10-22T20:26:00.000-05:00

I know for a fact that some of my Alberta friends would not like this idea. However, I think David Dodge and Peter Lougheed were right about creating a trust fund to save those extra oil revenue for future generations.

So, some of you may ask why is it a good idea, and how does this work?

Well, we need to know that the country's inflation is going up moderately - mainly driven by Alberta. The central bank can curb the inflation rate by rising interest rate (aka the Bank rate). However, the current rate is serving very well for most regions in Canada, as inflation is very mild all across the country, except Alberta.

Jacking up the interest rate will affect the whole country. Canada is experiencing an economic slowdown in September and the coming months, except Alberta. To hike up the interest rate just to curb inflation in Alberta will dampen economic growth for the rest of the country, and is not a good nation-wide policy.

Inflation in Alberta is mainly caused by high economic growth - by oil revenue. To make inflation under control in Alberta, the government will have to dampen economic growth. In other words, lowering their GDP growth will do it. The national income (GDP) is calculated by the following:

National Income (Y) = Household Consumption (C) + Private Investment (I) + Government Expenditure (G) + Net Export (NX)

Putting oil revenue in a trust fund will lower G, hence, lower the growth of Y.

Now, some other would say that Alberta can create a trust fund and invest in other provinces. My take is that would be a bad idea. Why?

Because that will hike up inflation in other regions of the country, and in the end, it would not do much good if the policy is to curb the nation's inflation rate.

That is why Norway has been investing their reserves in foreign countries rather than in domestic projects.

-----------------------

Too much, too fast: Can Alberta learn from Norway?

Soaring revenues, rising inflation and an uncertain future. A province wonders if a country has the answers, writes HEATHER SCOFFIELD

HEATHER SCOFFIELD

ECONOMICS REPORTER,

Yesterday's inflation data highlighted a problem that has engulfed Canada for the past year: Prices rose at a 0.7-per-cent pace on a national level, but in Alberta, where the global commodities boom has set the provincial economy on fire, inflation was up 3.7 per cent.

The disparity holds true for almost every economic statistic, as Alberta's fortunes surge while Central Canada and the East plod along listlessly, ground down by high energy prices, a strong dollar and now, a U.S. slump.

And since monetary policy looks to national levels of inflation, and doesn't take into account that Alberta's economy-on-steroids distorts national figures, interest rates have risen over the past year, mainly to quell the Alberta inflation fire.

Now, there's a partial solution blowing in the wind -- all the way from Norway.

A consensus is forming among economic and political leaders that Alberta could learn from a successful and time-tested Norwegian fiscal policy of setting aside all its oil and gas revenue and investing it outside the country.

Top economists, provincial politicians, and even Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge have closely examined the Norway model, and the idea, in various shapes and forms, is gaining traction as a way to put Alberta's economy on an even keel and allow future generations to benefit from today's bounty.

"I don't think it's much of a quantum shift to say, let's enact this," said Ken Kobly, chief executive officer of the Alberta Chambers of Commerce.

Mr. Dodge recognized the Norway model this week as an "appropriate" option for an economy overwhelmed with energy revenue. While he stopped short of publicly endorsing it for Alberta, sources say he sees much merit in it. And the central bank has made it clear that the solution to Alberta's overheating lies in Alberta's fiscal policy.

". . . The fundamental point is that when you have unexpected increases in revenue, whether you stick them in a separate fund or whether you simply allow the surplus to increase, that is the appropriate stabilization measure to be taking," Mr. Dodge said Thursday at a press conference. He did not explain further.

Norway, the world's third-largest crude oil exporter, has set up a special fund to stabilize the economy today and make sure oil revenue works for the country's future.

Norway puts all of its oil and gas revenue, plus earnings from its state oil and gas interests, into the fund every year. All of the fund is invested outside the country in stocks and bonds, and interest earned in the fund is reinvested. Only 4 per cent is made available for government spending.

Norway's Petroleum Fund, worth more than $250-billion (U.S.), serves a dual purpose. By investing all government earnings from non-renewal natural resources, the government ensures an income flow for the country even after the earnings abate. And by removing the windfall from the country's books and economy, the fund imposes an immediate and strict fiscal discipline on budget makers and removes much of the inflation-fuelling heat that would result from the spending of such revenue.

The result: Growth is strong and steady -- not boom-and-bust, like a typical oil power. Inflation is very low -- unlike in Alberta. Norway's exchange rate does not rise and fall in tandem with oil prices, like Canada's. And the fund is so huge that it could cover all of government spending for two years.

In theory, at least, Canada could use some results like that. Alberta's inflation rate has soared in recent months and has been well above the national average for more than a year. Inflation in most of the rest of the country is well under wraps, and is forecast to average only 0.9 per cent in Ontario next year.

The loonie has soared on Alberta's oil riches, driving down profits and cutting into employment in the manufacturing in Central Canada.

And the country's economy has become so dependent on the spinoffs from oil and gas that many analysts wonder how it will cope when the prices inevitably fall.

So now, leading Alberta politicians and think tanks are proposing Norway-style hybrids for the province. Several of the candidates to replace Ralph Klein as head of the Progressive Conservative Party support a savings plan of some kind. The perceived front runner, Jim Dinning, has been pushing the idea for years, and a proposal to legislate at least 30 per cent of annual oil and gas revenue to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund is a central plank in his campaign.

"It's lucky money," Mr. Dinning explained yesterday in an interview. "And if we fall into the trap of budgeting on the basis of lucky money, then we're heading toward disaster again."

The Alberta Chambers of Commerce recommended a similar fund in a major report earlier this year.

And the Canada West Foundation, a Calgary-based think tank, has been arguing for Alberta to set aside 50 per cent of its fiscal windfall into the Heritage Fund, to invest for future generations.

In Alaska and Norway, "they've turned their natural resource endowment into a financial endowment for the long term," says Casey Vander Ploeg, a senior policy analyst at the foundation. "That's what we need to do."

Alberta's Heritage Fund was set up in the 1970s and received 30 per cent of resource revenue and kept all earnings. But the province strayed from its plan in the 1980s when oil prices fell, and the fund was essentially capped. Since 1976, Alberta has collected $123-billion in oil and gas revenue, but only 8 per cent of that amount was saved, while 92 per cent was spent, Mr. Vander Ploeg calculates.

If Alberta were to blow off some of its steam by taking the fiscal oil and gas windfall and "sequestering" it from the economy, through foreign investment or some other savings scheme, inflation in the province could well cool off, and growth could be put on a more even, sustainable track, economists argue.

Still, Alberta is not Norway. As a province, rather than a national government, it can't control national monetary or fiscal policy. Its political culture may not support such a savings plan like Norway's population does.

Plus, Alberta's royalty structure is not nearly as generous to the provincial government's coffers as Norway's, leaving relatively less money for the provincial government to stash away. And much of the Norway fund's windfall comes from a state-owned oil company.

Marie Iwanow, a spokeswoman for Alberta Finance, said the Norway model is not a perfect fit for the province.

"It's a country and we are a province."

She said that while the province doesn't have a policy that dictates what percentage of resource revenue has to be injected into the Heritage Fund, Mr. Klein urged last year that about one-third of resource revenue be socked away into several of the province's saving accounts.

Earlier this year, the Klein government also began inflation-proofing the large fund. However, he refused to get rid of a policy that still allows the government to take money from the savings account to pay for program spending.

However, both Mr. Klein and his Finance Minister, Shirley McClellan, have said that increasing the savings is unaffordable because there are so many pressing financial demands on the province's red-hot economy, which is attracting thousands of newcomers every month.

Norway's Petroleum Fund

How did the fund come about? Created by the Norwegian Parliament in 1990 because it believed energy revenues had peaked. The fund was formed to stabilize the current economy and make sure future generations would receive dividends from the country's natural resources.

How does it work? By law, 100 per cent of the Norway government's oil and gas revenues are put into the fund annually. The principle is managed by the central bank, and invested in stocks and bonds outside the country. Net earnings are redeposited into the fund. The annual budget is drawn up excluding oil and gas revenue, and any resulting deficit can be covered off by the fund, as long as it does not exceed 4 per cent of annual deposits.

What are the benefits and disadvantages? The fund is now enormous and generates enough income to support government spending far into the future. Inflation is low, and the currency has decoupled from oil prices, cushioning the country's economy from the ups and downs of global commodity prices. But the fund is always surrounded by political tension, with pressure from opposition parties and parts of the population to spend the money now.

Nov. 30, 2005: $$215.5-billion

1996: $8.04-billion

****

The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund

How did the fund come about? Then-premier Peter Lougheed created it in 1976 to save for the future, diversify the economy and improve the province's standard of living. Payments into the fund were abandoned in the 1990s, and only recently has it started to grow again.

How does it work? There is no predetermined contribution required, and deposits are decided on annually. Most of the fund's income has been transferred into the province's general revenues. Investments are handled by the provincial Treasurer, with the mandate to obtain a reasonable return.

What are the benefits and disadvantages? The fund, and many other smaller endowment funds created by the government, have absorbed much of the excess revenue Alberta has found itself with since paying off its debt recently. The funds will pay for various health, education and sustainable development initiatives over the long run. But income flowing into the funds is not steady nor mandated, and long-run benefits for the province as a whole are hard to judge.

Dec. 31, 2005: $14.6-billion

1977: $2.17-billion

Where was this Version of Lucien Bouchard Ten Years Ago?

2006-10-18T19:39:00.000-05:00

As much as how politically incorrect it is, especially to Quebecors, I agree with Bouchard.

Union leaders are arguing that it is a choice of "lifestyle". But then, when their standard of living goes down, Quebecors will look from the government for more. If provincial government can't deliver, they will go after the Feds. This mentality is making Quebec a permanent burden within the Equalization program.

The reality is Quebecors can't have it both ways - an up to par standard of living with the rest of Canada and not work as much. How long do you think the rest of Canada is willing to subsidize Quebec?

Quebec already has one of the largest government in any North America jurisdictions. Quebecors will no longer be able to afford a decent health care and social welfare system in the next 20 years if the size of government, debt, and deficit do not come under control.

-------------------
October 18, 2006

Ex-leader to Quebecers: Get to work!

By CP

MONTREAL -- Former premier Lucien Bouchard has angered Quebec labour leaders by suggesting the province trails Ontario and the U.S. economically because Quebecers don't work hard enough.

"We work less than Ontarians and infinitely less than Americans," Bouchard told the French-language TVA television network.

"We have to work harder."

But while labour leaders concede the statistics show Quebecers work fewer hours per week on average than workers in Ontario or the U.S., they say it is a question of "quality of life."

"I think that people make the choice to spend more time with their family," said Daniel B. Lafreniere, vice-president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the second-largest labour federation in the province.

Last year, Bouchard was among a group of high-profile signatories to a manifesto aimed at tackling the province's massive debt and the impending demographic crisis as the population ages.

A Blow to Those Who are for the War in Iraq

2006-10-18T19:06:00.000-05:00

From today's London Free Press.

Now, what other reasons are there to justify the War in Iraq?? I am not anti-American. However, don't give me that "we are there to build a democratic country BS", because democracy is not necessary the best for every country. It is not a "one size fit all" system that works all around the globe.

--------------------

Human cost of Iraq war
A study finds 655,000 extra Iraqis have died since the March 2003 invasion.
Byline: BY GWYNNE DYER, FREELANCE WRITER
Dateline:
Section: Editorial/Opinion
Page: A10
Length:
Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Edition: Final

The final indignity, if you are an Iraqi who was shot for accidentally turning into the path of a U.S. military convoy, blown apart by a car bomb or an air strike, or tortured and murdered by kidnappers, is that U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair will deny your death even happened.

The script they are working from says (in Bush's words last December) that only "30,000, more or less" have been killed in Iraq during and since the invasion in March 2003.

So they have a huge incentive to discredit the report last week in the British medical journal, the Lancet, that an extra 655,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion in excess of the natural death rate: 2.5 per cent of the population.

"I don't consider it a credible report," said Bush, without saying why. "It is a fairly small sample they have taken and they have extrapolated it across the country," said a spokesperson of the British Foreign Office, as if that were an invalid methodology. But it's not.

The study, led by Dr. Les Roberts and a team of epidemiologists from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, was based on a survey of 1,849 households, containing 12,801 people, at 47 different locations chosen at random. Teams of four Iraqi doctors -- two men and two women -- went from house to house and asked the residents if anybody had died in their family since January 2002.

If anybody had, they then inquired when and how the person had died. They asked for death certificates and in 92 per cent of cases the families produced them. Then the Johns Hopkins team of epidemiologists tabulated the statistics and drew their conclusions.

The most striking thing in the study, in terms of credibility, is that the pre-war death rate in Iraq for the period January 2002-March 2003, as calculated from their evidence, was 5.5 per thousand per year. That is virtually identical to the U.S. government estimate of the death rate in Iraq for the same period.

Then, from the same evidence, they calculate that the death rate since the invasion has been 13.3 per thousand per year. The difference between the death rates over 40 months is 655,000 deaths.

More precisely, the deaths reported by the 12,801 people surveyed, when extrapolated to the entire country, indicates a range of between 426,369 and 793,663 excess deaths -- but the sample is big enough that there is a 95-per-cent certainty the true figure is within that range. To reject this, you must either reject the whole discipline of statistics or question the integrity of those doing the survey.

The study, which was largely financed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies, has been reviewed by four independent experts. One of them, Paul Bolton of Boston University, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on: "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ball park."

This is not a political smear job. Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and MIT are not fly-by-night institutions and people who work there have academic reputations to protect. The Lancet, founded 182 years ago, is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. These numbers are real. So what do they mean?

Two-thirds of a million Iraqis have died since the invasion who would almost all be alive if it had not happened. Human Rights Watch has estimated that between 250,000 and 290,000 Iraqis were killed during Saddam Hussein's 20-year rule, so perhaps 40,000 people might have died between the invasion and now if he had stayed in power. Of the 655,000 excess deaths since March 2003, only about 50,000 can be attributed to stress, malnutrition, the collapse of medical services as doctors flee abroad, and other side-effects of the occupation. All the rest are violent deaths, and 31 per cent are directly due to the actions of foreign "coalition" forces.

More than half the deaths -- 56 per cent -- are due to gunshot wounds, but 13 per cent are due to air strikes. No terrorists do air strikes. Air strikes are done by the Americans and British, and air strikes in Iraq have killed more than 75,000 people since the invasion.

Oscar Wilde once observed "to lose one parent . . . may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." To lose 75,000 Iraqis to air strikes looks like carelessness, too.

I am Speechless!!

2006-10-13T23:21:00.000-05:00

If you read Mankiw, you would have heard of the "Pigou Club". Now, the National Post (yes, it is the National Post in Canada) have this, and the Editor of the Financial Post (part of the National Post publication), Terence Corcoran, started this and this.

Here is the text of the column, "Nopigou Club".....and personally, I do not buy Corcoran's arguments.

---------------------

Join The Nopigou Club

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post

Published: Thursday, October 12, 2006

We don't know much about the Conservative government's national green plan, except that it seems to involve a lot of blustery emissions from ministers on the need to "replace rhetoric with results," as Prime Minister Harper put it yesterday. A new clean air act to be unveiled next week, he said, will "get things done" via "strict enforcement" of clear national standards.

Many puzzling signals have been sent out by the government, including the idea -- repeated again by the Prime Minister yesterday -- that greenhouse gasses and pollution are one and the same. The government plans a "holistic approach " that "doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation." If you didn't know about the pollution-greenhouse isolation problem, you're not alone. But the government promises to fix it.

Whatever the plan, so far the Harper government appears to have resisted the great siren call sweeping some parts of the murky world of economics: Pigovian taxes. A New York Times column on Sunday by Daniel Gross, "Raise the Gasoline Tax? Funny, It Doesn't Sound Republican," listed all the big-name economists, many of them Republican, who have lined up behind the idea of higher gasoline taxes -- really higher gasoline taxes -- to solve a number of alleged U.S. economic and environmental problems.

The Times column makes a big fuss about Alan Greenspan's recent endorsement of the idea of higher gasoline taxes, even though Mr. Greenspan has backed the idea often in the past. At a recent conference, however, Mr. Greenspan said he would support an increase in the U.S. federal gas tax. "That's the way to get consumption down. It's a national security issue," he said.

With that, Mr. Greenspan appears to be jumping aboard a campaign by Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw to enlist support for higher gas taxes. His blog promotes membership in The Pigou Club, named after Arthur C. Pigou, an early 20th century welfare economist who promoted the idea of using taxes to fix social and other problems allegedly created by a free market economy. Among the backers of Pigovian taxes, especially on gasoline, are economists often associated with Republican governments, including Martin Feldstein and Mr. Mankiw himself. Other not-so-Republican members include Al Gore and Paul Krugman.

Canadians, of course, will recognize the idea as a core element in Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff's environmental program. A new carbon tax, to be paid at the pump, would reduce demand for gasoline and also provide government with revenue to shift around to subsidize other fuels, ethanol and bio-fuels, and transfer money perhaps to other levels of government.

The Pigovian idea is that you can use the tax system to correct market failures and clear up what economists call "negative externalities." By driving your car around, you leave behind a number of problems you don't pay for: smog, for example, or greenhouse gasses. An added issue in the United States is the high volume of oil imported from largely unstable areas. By raising taxes on gasoline, perhaps to European levels, consumption would fall, improving the environment and relieving the United States of dependence on foreign oil. How that would work is far from clear.

With Mr. Greenspan enlisted in Mr. Mankiw's Pigou Club, and with the Times column circulating, the idea of a gasoline tax is likely to sweep the econosphere. Whether it will sell politically is another matter. In the meantime, it is time to start up a little opposition to Mr. Mankiw's operation. If nobody in the United States does it, let me offer up the services of the National Post. The NoPigou Club starts here. To join, e-mail nopigou club@nationalpost.com.

The Pigovian tax concept is based on the same old, same old economic theories that supported the idea that a government can plan and run the economy better than the market. Arthur Pigou was a great interventionist, his premise being that markets fail and in the end we need socialism to put things right. Among his policy prescriptions: deficit spending, public works projects, nationalized industries and major taxes and redistribution.

The chart above is a classic economic portrait of how a new tax works in theory. But these are merely superficial presentations of a logical scheme that cannot possibly apply to any reality.

The problem with a Pigovian gasoline tax is that it means using the same tools that failed planners everywhere over the past century. None of this stuff is measurable. What is the planned reduction in gasoline consumption? And what's the price to be set at? How high will the tax have to go before it changes behaviour enough to reduce demand? Will the government just wing it and see what happens? Will the alternative behaviour be any better or create new externalities and unintended consequences? What does government do with the money collected -- except launch a program of subsidies and spending to run alternative economic initiatives?

There is no end to the planning mayhem that could be generated once Pigovian taxes become the economic norm. Taxes on cigarettes have risen hundreds of per cent over the years, in part to offset the alleged externality of rising costs of treating cancer and other diseases caused by smoking. Still people smoke. Anything that can be politically whipped up into an unwanted development -- taxes on food to reduce obesity, taxes on alcohol to reduce alcoholism, taxes on babies to reduce population growth -- or subsidies on babies to boost population.

There's nothing new in Pigou, no matter how he's dressed up by Prof. Mankiw.

Muhammad Yunus

2006-10-13T23:04:00.000-05:00

This is interesting. An economist won this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

For those of you who have not heard of Yunus and his "invention", the Grameen Bank, you should read the article. It is a very successful credit system, and I am sure that most students who took a class in Development Economics would have learned about the Grameen Bank and other microcredit systems.

The first world equivalent would be borrowing money from your parents or close relatives (of course, unlike the Grameen Bank, relatives don't usually charge you interest.)

I believe that this is a much better way to pull poor countries out of poverty than foreign aid.

Could somebody call up Bono and get him to read Yunus's speech???

-------------
The Times
October 14, 2006

Follow me and beat poverty, Nobel winner tells West

From Nick Meo in Dhaka

MUHAMMAD YUNUS, this year’s surprise choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, used his award yesterday to make an impassioned appeal to the West to overhaul the way it tackles poverty in the Third World.

Speaking to The Times at the modest headquarters of his Grameen Bank, the Bangladeshi economist urged the international community to adopt his system of microcredit to help to pull the world’s poorest out of destitution.

“It is not the fault of poor people that they are poor,” Professor Yunus said. As he spoke, he was mobbed by colleagues and well-wishers who posed for photographs and brought flowers to his office in Dkaha.

“The banking system is based on collateral and guarantees and we have proved that you can loan money without them. Our microcredit system until today was a sub-system. Now we should be in the mainstream,” the man dubbed the “banker to the poor” said.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee chose Professor Yunus, out of a field of 191 candidates, as this year’s winner, citing his work as an important step to peace. “Peace cannot be achieved unless large population groups find ways in which to break out of poverty,” said the citation for the award, which is worth Kr10 million (£730,000). “Microcredit is one such means.”

The 66-year-old economist was inspired to create the microcredit system after witnessing a famine in Bangladesh in 1974. He founded the Grameen Bank, which means village in Bengali, to lend small amounts to impoverished villages.

His first loan, worth £15, was made in 1976 to 42 women in the village of Jobra, near his home town of Chittagong, who made bamboo furniture. They sold these items back to moneylenders to repay usurious loans that they had taken out to buy the bamboo. Since then the bank has lent £3 billion to 6.6 million people, 96 per cent of them women. Of this, £2.7 billion has been repaid. The model has been copied in more than 100 countries.

Professor Yunus, who was wearing a cotton shirt made by one of his clients, described the award as fantastic, and pledged to donate the money to good causes. “We have been working for 30 years and we have demonstrated beyond doubt in Latin America, Africa, France, the UK and the USA that microcredit works,” he said.

“The problem with the conventional banking system is that it focuses on a privileged group of people. Two-thirds of the world’s population does not qualify to take out loans from a conventional bank.”

His remarks were seen as a criticism of the way development money is distributed by countries like Britain. Critics claim that little of the billions donated reaches the poor and much is squandered or stolen by corrupt officials.

“Blair and Bush pay lip service to fighting poverty. But they should forget charity. They should be business people, instead,” he said.

Professor Yunus, who makes a point of never giving money to beggars but is prepared to offer them loans, believes that the only way to defeat poverty is helping people to help themselves. “The mindset [in the West] is here is some money, go away. It’s just like with a beggar. They dish out money but that money is going to the rich and corrupt. You have to rethink the way you do business to get people out of poverty.”

Professor Yunus insisted that he was not against the free market, but that he wanted the market to be free for everyone.

“I am a free-market guy and even the poor people should be part of the free market,” he said. “Two thirds of the population in the world are not able to participate, so it is not free.”

Ole Danbolt Mjoes, the chairman of the Nobel Committee, said that one reason Mr Yunus was chosen was his positive role in the Islamic world: “This idea was generated in a mostly Muslim country.”

LESS IS MORE

Microfinance, the system pioneered by Muhammad Yunus, is the supply of loans and other financial services to low-income households and micro-enterprises where people do not have access to normal bank loans

It has spread to more than 100 countries, benefiting more than 100 million people

Most microfinance loans are less than $100

Peer groups of about 12 clients guarantee each other’s loans, and repayment rates exceed 95 per cent

Borrowers are typically self-employed with a relatively stable source of income. While most are women, many loans are used by men

The average rate of interest for microfinance credit is 35 per cent

Edmund S. Phelps

2006-10-11T20:16:00.000-05:00

Phelps is the latest winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. For the record, macro is much harder than micro in economics (that is, of course, my own opinion.) I found that you need to have a good knowledge of micro to do macro, because many macro theories are built on micro foundation.

To Beaumont Cote:

Phelps's biggest contribution in economics is modifying the Phillips Curves - blending rational expectation in the model. I think I left some extensive comments on the Phillips Curves and rational expectation on your blog before. The Phillips Curves is a model that links inflation to unemployment. According to the model, those two are correlated.

Attending Harvard

2006-10-09T18:55:00.000-05:00

So, you never admitted to the Harvard University and have always been wondering if the education at the Ivy Leagues are really that much better.

Apparently now a bunch of lectures delivered at Harvard are on the web. Here is a law course that they teach at Harvard.

And of course I was searching if they put any economic classes on the web and I found this.

For those who have never taken economics, maybe you should take some time to watch those lectures. I watched the first couple by Mankiw, and it was not bad at all.

I Wonder How Those Researchers Conduct the Research

2006-10-05T22:36:00.000-05:00

First, I want to apologize for not being able to post anything for the past three weeks, as I just moved to a new city and started with my new job.

Anyhow, this article I found on the Globe caught my eye. I really wonder how they conducted the survey. I mean, how would orgasms (for women) have anything to do with individuals' socio-economic status?? I somehow can't see the correlation there.

Let's say somebody goes from rich to poor or poor to rich, would the number of times that they reach climax during sex changes?? I kinna doubt it.

--------------
Smart, rich women more likely to have orgasms, study suggests

SCOTT DEVEAU

Globe and Mail Update

A new study suggests that women may be learning more in the corridors of academia than what goes on in the classroom.

According to revealing new research, heterosexual women with post-secondary degrees are more likely to reach orgasm than their less educated counterparts. There is also a higher incident of orgasm in women who speak English at home, have a higher household income or hold a managerial or professional job, the Australian study found.

Confirming a widely held belief, the research also found that men were far more likely than women to experience an orgasm during their last sexual encounter, 98.4 per cent and 68.9 per cent respectively.

While men in their late teens were less likely to report having an orgasm during their last sexual encounter, women were substantially less likely to have an orgasm if they were in their late teens or in their 50s.

Aside from age, there is no significant association between a man's ability to reach a toe-curling climax and his household income, occupation, education or religion. Men were less likely to have an orgasm if they had been sexually active for two years or less, were uptight about sex or if they were engaging in casual sex, rather than with a regular partner.

There were much greater associations between socio-economic factors and female orgasms, however. Higher levels of education and income were associated with a greater prevalence for climaxing in women. Women were also more likely to reach orgasm if they used sex toys, or had sex more than twice a week in the month before they were surveyed.

Becoming sexually active before age of 16, length of time they were sexually active, number of past sexual partners, whether they masturbated, trolled Internet porn or watched X-rated videos had little association with a woman's ability to have an orgasm.

“The association between orgasm and demographic characteristics suggest a social-effect, with better-educated, non-immigrant women more likely to have orgasms,” the researchers state in their report. “Use of sex toys and orgasm in women may indicate a link between orgasm and sexual interest or adventurousness.”

The telephone survey was conducted by researchers from Sussex University, England, and the universities of Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. More than 10,100 men and 9,100 women aged 16-59 across Australia participated in the survey.

The study, “Sexual Practices at Last Heterosexual Encounter and Occurrence of Orgasm in a National Survey,” asked respondents what practices they engaged in during their last sexual encounter and whether they had an orgasm as a result.

Almost all the men surveyed said they reached orgasm from vaginal intercourse. Roughly 80 per cent said they did from oral sex.

For women, however, it was a different picture. Only 50 per cent reached orgasm from vaginal sex, while 70 per cent said they did through manual or oral stimulation.

Alexandre Trudeau on Castro

2006-09-17T00:26:00.000-05:00

I mentioned this article in my last post, and got a few requests of the text.

Well, here you go. This is quite "scary". I don't know what Sasha Trudeau is on.

---------------------------
The last days of the patriarch; EXCLUSIVE Pierre Trudeau had a friendship with Fidel Castro that went beyond politics. It was a mutual admiration between two men who put their unmatched intellects at the service of their country. On Castro's 80th birthday, an essay by Alexandre Trudeau

Toronto Star: Aug 13, 2006. pg. A.4

Alexandre Trudeau

I grew up knowing that Fidel Castro had a special place among my family's friends. We had a picture of him at home a great big man with a beard who wore military fatigues and held my baby brother Michel in his arms. When he met my little brother in 1976, he even gave him a nickname that would stick with him his whole life "Micha- Miche."

A few years later, when Michel was around 8 years old, I remember him complaining to my mother that my older brother and I both had more friends than he did. My mother told him that, unlike us, he had the greatest friend of all he had Fidel.

For many years, Cuba remained Michel's exclusive realm; whenever someone would accompany my father there, it would naturally be Michel. It wasn't until after both my father's and brother's deaths that I got a chance to visit Fidel and his country, Cuba.

Fidel may have been at first a political contact of my father's but their relationship was much more than that. It was extra- political.

Indeed, like my father, in private, Fidel is not a politician. He is more in the vein of a great adventurer or a great scientific mind. Fidel doesn't really do politics. He is a revolutionary.

He lives to learn and to put his knowledge in the service of the revolution. For Fidel, revolution is really a work of reason. In his view, revolution, when rigorously adopted, cannot fail to lead humanity towards ever greater justice, towards an ever more perfect social order.

Fidel is also the most curious man that I have ever met. He wants to know all there is to be known. He is famous for not sleeping, instead spending the night studying and learning.

He also knows what he doesn't know, and when he meets you he immediately seeks to identify what he might learn from you. Once he has ascertained an area of expertise that might be of interest, he begins with his questions. One after the other. He synthesizes information quickly and gets back to you with ever deeper and more complex questions, getting more and more excited as he illuminates, through his Socratic interrogation, new parcels of knowledge and understanding he might add to his own mental library.

His intellect is one of the most broad and complete that can be found. He is an expert on genetics, on automobile combustion engines, on stock markets. On everything.

Combined with a Herculean physique and extraordinary personal courage, this monumental intellect makes Fidel the giant that he is.

He is something of a superman. My father once told us how he had expressed to Fidel his desire to do some diving in Cuba. Fidel took him to the most enchanting spot on the island and set him up with equipment and a tank. He stood back as my father geared up and began to dive alone.

When my father had reached a depth of around 60 feet, he realized that Fidel was down there with him, that he had descended without a tank and that there he was with a knife in hand prying sea urchins off the ocean floor, grinning.

Back on the surface, they feasted on the raw sea urchins, seasoned with lime juice.

Fidel turns 80 years old today. A couple of weeks ago, he shocked the world by turning power over to his brother Raul after holding it without interruption since the 1959 revolution. In newspapers across the world, pundits solemnly declared that even giants are mortal and that no revolution is eternal. Historians even began to prepare the space that will be granted Fidel in history books.

Fidel may seem an anachronism a visionary statesman in a world where his kind have long since been replaced by mere managers, a 20th-century icon still present in the 21st century.

There is also wild speculation about what fate awaits Cuba after Castro. It is important to note, however, that while the whole world works itself up about the matter, Cubans themselves play it cool. Some of my shrewder Cuban friends even say that this temporary withdrawal from power is another one of Castro's clever strategies; that it is something of a test and that he will soon be back at the helm. They say that, on one hand, Castro is allowing the Cuban people, and more specifically the Cuban state apparatus, to become accustomed to the leadership of his brother Raul. On the other hand, Castro is carefully watching for hints as to how the world - and, more importantly, the United States - will react to his final departure.

Cubans remain very proud of Castro, even those who don't share his vision. They know that, among the world's many peoples, they have the most audacious and brilliant of leaders. They respect his intellectual machismo and rigour.

But Castro's leadership can be something of a burden, too. They do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father. The Jefe (chief) sees all and knows all, they might say. In particular, young Cubans have told me that an outsider cannot ever really imagine what it is like to live in such a hermetic society, where everyone has an assigned spot and is watched and judged carefully. You can never really learn on your own, they might say. The Jefe always knows what is best for you. It can be suffocating, they say.

I met a young man in the small provincial town of Remedios who worked there as a cigar roller. We shared a great love for the works of Dostoyevsky. When I expressed to him my excitement at meeting a fellow aficionado of Russian literature, he flatly told me "Yes, Fidel has taught me to read and to think, but look what work he sets me out to do with this education I roll cigars!"

Cuba under Castro is a remarkably literate and healthy country, but it is undeniably poor. Historians will note, however, that never in modern times has a small, peaceful country been more subjected to unfair and malicious treatment by a superpower than Cuba has by the United States.

From the very start, the United States never gave Castro's Cuba a choice. Either Castro had to submit himself and his people to America's will or he had to hold his ground against them.

Which is what he did, in the process drawing the Cuban people into this taxing dialectic that continues to this day. Cubans pay the price and may occasionally complain of their fate, but they rarely blame Castro. The United States never fails to make the Cuban people well aware of its spite for this small neighbouring country that dares to be independent.

With the possible exception of Nelson Mandela, already well into retirement, Fidel is the last of the global patriarchs. Reason, revolution and virtue are becoming more and more distant and abstract concepts. We will perhaps never see another patriarch.

We thus have to conceive of the departure of the last patriarch in psychoanalytical terms. The death of the father doesn't signal our liberation from him - quite the contrary. The death of a father so grand and present as Castro will, rather, immortalize him in the minds of his children.

It is true that Cubans may eventually cast away the communist orthodoxy of the revolution. They will become tempted by American capital and values as soon as the embargo against them is lifted, something that will surely follow in the not so distant future. They will have new opportunities for individual fulfilment and downfall. Without a doubt, Cuba without Castro will not remain unchanged.

But Cubans will continue to be subjected to Castro's influence. Whether they like it or not, they will continue to be called out by his voice, by his questions, by his inescapable rationality, which, whether they heed its call or not, demands they defend the integrity of Cuba and urges them to seek justice and excellence in all things.

For a generation to come, they will be haunted by the vision of a society that never existed and probably never will exist, but which their once-leader, the most brilliant and obsessed of all, never stopped believing could exist and should exist.

Cubans will always feel privileged that they, and they alone, had Fidel.

Copyright (c) 2006 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved.

This May Pose a Problem for the Tories

2006-09-09T17:08:00.000-05:00

If the NDP is moving to the left, which means those moderates, like Paul Summerville, will go with the Liberals. This is not a good sign, as the NDP is self-disintegrating themselves.

Here is an excerpt from the Globe's article:

"Among the resolutions are calls for the party to criticize Israel and the United States; calls for all industry to be taken over by workers; and calls for Canada to show “solidarity” with the socialist governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as communist Cuba."

I mean what the f*^k is that?? Calls for all industry to be taken over by workers???? Show "solidarity" with Cuba? That sounds like Sacha Trudeau (if you have read his Toronto Star article recently, you will know what I am talking about. If not, e-mail me, and I will send you a copy of the text.)

This is going to alienate a lot of middle of the road Canadians, and the NDP's support base will shrink. Those people will flock to the Liberals.

-------------------------

NDP convention opens with attack on Layton

POSTED AT 12:33 AM EDT ON 09/09/06

BILL CURRY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

QUEBEC — Two senior members of the NDP's Quebec wing and a star candidate from Toronto are publicly criticizing Leader Jack Layton as the party opened a weekend policy convention yesterday aimed in part at wooing Quebeckers.

The co-president of the New Democrats' Quebec campaign in the past election, Carl Hétu, and Pierre Laliberté, the NDP candidate in Hull–Aylmer the past two elections, have both accused Mr. Layton of spending too little time in the province during the election early this year and of centralizing power at the expense of the party's grassroots.

Mr. Hétu said he was leaving the party while Mr. Laliberté said he was “taking his distance.”

Economist Paul Summerville, who ran for the NDP in the Toronto riding of St. Paul's, said he was leaving the party because the leadership would not counter the strong “anti-market rhetoric” from the grassroots. Mr. Summerville said he hopes to attend the Liberal leadership convention in Montreal as a supporter of Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario.

Speaking at a news conference with former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, Mr. Layton dismissed the criticisms, pointing to the large number of delegates at the convention.

“Our support here has been on a steadily upward trajectory, perhaps rising faster here than anywhere else,” he said.

Commenting on “anti-market rhetoric,” he said: “I don't see that at all. What we believe is that the economy should be fair to people.”

Convention delegates broke into small groups yesterday to decide behind closed doors which resolutions will be voted upon by the full convention today.

The vast majority of the roughly 600 proposed resolutions would move party policy dramatically to the left of what the NDP advocated in the 2006 election.

Among the resolutions are calls for the party to criticize Israel and the United States; calls for all industry to be taken over by workers; and calls for Canada to show “solidarity” with the socialist governments of Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as communist Cuba.

Mr. Summerville, a former chief economist for RBC Dominion Securities, said the party's economic resolutions led him to leave the NDP.

“I think the leadership of the party needs to make a statement that the market economy is not a necessary evil,” he said in an interview. “The anti-market rhetoric makes it a place where I would not be comfortable.”

The grumbling from Quebec began Thursday when Mr. Hétu published an opinion piece in Le Devoir announcing he was leaving the party after 20 years as an activist and candidate in the 2000 election.

“I am disappointed with the way Jack Layton and his party are directing the party,” he wrote, accusing Mr. Layton of ignoring Quebec. “The MPs who did not support Mr. Layton's [leadership bid] in January, 2003, had good reason. Their concerns have been proven. Like me, many activists in the party are disappointed.”

Mr. Laliberté, who received the third-highest percentage of votes among Quebec NDP candidates at 15.5 per cent, said he also heard many concerns from voters that Mr. Layton delivers only rehearsed lines that sound like they were crafted by a public relations firm.

“People want to know what sort of person they are going to put in high office and if they keep giving scripted answers, then at a certain point you don't know who you're voting for,” he said. “I think at some point you have to be honest.”

Mr. Laliberté said the NDP failed to capitalize on the troubles of the Liberals and Bloc in Quebec.

“I'm tired of being with a party that's out of sync with what needs to be done and said,” he said.

2006 White House Correspondents Dinner

2006-09-09T00:58:00.000-05:00

Now, you think this is funny.

Try this. Here is a larger file - the same clip. You can find both from here.

An Economist Trying to Explain the Rise in Teen Oral Sex

2006-09-06T02:00:00.000-05:00

Got this story via Mankiw's blog. Again, both Mankiw and DeLong's blog are becoming my daily "fixes".

For those who don't know, "Economists do it with models!!"

Tall People Earn More??

2006-08-24T18:35:00.000-05:00

Again, found this on Mankiw's blog. This guy (together with Brad DeLong and Gary Becker/Richard Posner) just got some very interesting posts!!

Earthquake in Riderville

2006-08-21T22:50:00.000-05:00

I want to know what you Riders fans think of this.

Friedman TV

2006-08-12T19:10:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Mankiw for these links.

I watched "How to Cure Inflation". You couldn't learn the subject in a better way than from Milton Friedman!!

In this video, Friedman not only touched on the Quantity Theory of Money, but also topics included the Philip's Curve (the cost of controlling inflation is to have short term spike of unemployment - think of John Crow's zero-inflation policy and the high unemployment rate in Canada in the early 90s), and Rational Expectation.

The best quote from Friedman, in this video:

"There is only one way to ease the pain of curing inflation, and that way is not available - and that way is to make it credible to the American people that you [politicians] are going to follow the policy you say you're going to follow" (i.e. control inflation by cutting government expenditure and stop financing government spending by printing money.)