The events of recent weeks belie a larger problem. I'm not at all sure that the students in Quebec really know why they are marching. It resembles a tantrum by a toddler that escalates beyond an attempts at reason. A total meltdown. The students have come off as big winners. Tuition increases have been stretched out beyond the time when they are in school and bursaries have been increased so that most will not leave university with crippling debt. They have claimed the scalp of a Quebec cabinet minister. They only place they are not winners are with the public where only about 12% of whom support the students. So, what's it all about?
A panelist on a recent CBC newscast may have put her finger right on the problem. The protestors no longer trust parliament or any other elected body to act in their interests. The protestors have been joined by anarchists, 1 percenters, occupy (fill in the blank) and other social malcontents to demonstrate that they believe that the whole system is rigged against them. From corrupt politicians in Quebec (and I suspect elsewhere) to corrupt corporations in Quebec (Lavalin) to the inability of young people who do graduate to get any kind of meaningful job, the list of grievances are long and the list of answers are short. While in previous generations the grievances may have been just as germane, the frustration with the establishment and recent successes in empowerment are relatively new. Someone has suggested that these students have roots in the Arab spring.
I believe that it all goes back to empowerment. Even 10 years ago the average citizen had no easy venue to vent his or her anger or frustration. The best one could do was write a letter to the editor. Today, a Facebook page can generate 100,000 signatures in days. A flash mob can be generated in hours. Everyone can have his or her say and each say is equal to every other say. The ultimate in democratization. When I was in university it was taken as a given the university students were going to be socially conscious or even radical but given time, a good job and a stake in society these same students would migrate to a more centrist political position. The closest we came to the current demonstrations were in opposition to the Vietnam war where it was clear the politicians had lied to the electorate. Flower children were a response to over materialism but the movement never went mainstream. Today's social media allows the socially conscious young to have a platform and a kind of center of operations that will allow for serious social action.
There are two other curios observations. Notwithstanding the social activism, young adults do not, generally, vote in any kind of election whether it be civic, provincial or federal. Also, the social activism has not spread to other cities. No one is marching in Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver. The seed has not germinated in these other cities. Students are generally stoic about their college tuition level. The situation in Quebec is symbiotic. Once the core objection took to the streets the others who believe that they have serious social issues piled on. The others not associated with the student movement attracted most of the attention by breaking windows and torching cars. It took some time before the student movement and the other malcontents joined forces. What is to be learned is that time is the enemy of political inaction.
Today's political and social environment for young people is almost toxic. Tens of thousands of civil servants are getting their pink slip, the unemployment rate among young adults is unacceptably high, older workers need to keep working to make ends meet thereby not creating any space for new hires and the world economy is generally in a mess. Add to this a cadre of 25-30 year olds who are still living in his or her parent's basement and you have a pretty dismal picture of what it is to be a young adult. Our granddaughter graduated near top of her class as a teacher and has no, repeat no, prospects of employment in her field. It is not unreasonable to expect that these grievances and frustrations will not bubble to the top in the form of social action. The only surprise is that it's not come sooner.
Berne.
Friday 18 May 2012
Sunday 6 May 2012
The Brazilian Miracle
I was in Sao Paulo and other southern cities two years ago and hardly saw much of the country. My current trip will take me to the middle of the country. I have had some time to see Sao Paulo and, while there is much to be critical of, (see my last post about crime and congestion) there is much about one has to wonder and admire. From 1996 to 2001 I spent a great deal of time in Brazil--mostly in the middle and the north of the country. It was a dreadful place where wages were subsistence and graft was endemic. During that time government came and went and much did not (despite extravagant promises) change. The change that I now see is extraordinary.
The Brazilian economy rests of several pillars: oil (whose reserves are said to be only second to Saudi) agriculture (including coffee and beef) and mining (some of the best granite in world comes from Brazil). The turn around came with the election of Lulu, a professed socialist. It was feared that Brazil would again fall into promising government funded programs that it not afford. Laterally these promises lead to inflation that was a high as 40 per month! What happened, in fact, is that the confluence of events favoured Lulu's programs. Minimum wage was brought to more than subsistence levels, much of the endemic graft was removed (but considerable graft still exists) and an emerging middle and wealthy class started spending money at home. Oil helped finance that spending spree on social programs and inflation is a highly manageable 7% or so. Banks are flush with money and small and medium businesses can get the financing that is absent from the US recovery. So the lower classes moved up, a consuming middle class was born and the wealthy became more wealthy. What is required here is for the economy to become less protectionist (many import duties are 100% or more of value) and to fix its tax system that leaks so badly that the only way to keep the government afloat is to impose a30% VAT.
Sao Paulo has invested billions in infrastructure (but obviously not enough to dampen the inevitable traffic jams) and has wi fi and other electronic facilities that are equal to or better than any western G8 country. The lower class, once destitute can now have a low paying but sustainable job. Kids can go to school rather than resort to begging and everyone is moving up the ladder. The lower classes now have a tangible stake in the country by way of the Mia Casa program that makes home ownership affordable to the lowest wage earners in society. These folk now have much to lose and will therefore work hard to protect it. My taxi driver can now make enough money to send his kids to college. He lives in a nice apartment and, while his wife is working, can now look forward to a reasonable life and retirement. That is not to say that live in Brazil is Valhalla. But the country has taken positive steps to give the poor a stake in society. This is much more than can be said of India or China. In these countries the rich get richer and the middle class gets bigger but there is a running sore of poverty that never seems to get healed. This is what Lulu and his successor have done for the country.
This phenomena has not gone unnoticed in the rest of Latin America. Columbia, once controlled by the drug lords is now considered prosperous as is Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. If these countries go the way of Brazil, look out. The G8 will still be looking for a way to solve Greece, Italy and France (with the recent election of a socialist president) while Latin America leaves them in the dust.
Canada is well thought of in this country and in the region but is doing its best to become as hated as the US. Canadian mining interests are running roughshod over local communities. They have the backing of governments who are concerned about job creation at the expense of ecology. We have not had any luck in piercing the protective trade barriers in Brazil or (with the exception of a few central American countries) any other place in Latin America (with the exception of Chile). From person experience I can say that the federal trade people in Brazil are next to useless. Ontario has a successful and helpful presence here (and in Chile) in support of small business.
Canada has made the mistake of betting the farm on the US only to find that the farm had egregious systemic problems that may not be fixed for many years. Canada made a run on Europe but the party appears to be over there. The Euro has had a toxic effect on many economies who cannot correct downturns by devaluating money. Much of North Africa is in turmoil. The middle East is a mess. We have had very little luck with China short of selling it our natural resources and India is an enigma to which we export call centre, clerical and programming jobs. That leaves Latin America. We should be on the doorstep banging on the door until they let us in. Do whatever it takes.
Bernie.
The Brazilian economy rests of several pillars: oil (whose reserves are said to be only second to Saudi) agriculture (including coffee and beef) and mining (some of the best granite in world comes from Brazil). The turn around came with the election of Lulu, a professed socialist. It was feared that Brazil would again fall into promising government funded programs that it not afford. Laterally these promises lead to inflation that was a high as 40 per month! What happened, in fact, is that the confluence of events favoured Lulu's programs. Minimum wage was brought to more than subsistence levels, much of the endemic graft was removed (but considerable graft still exists) and an emerging middle and wealthy class started spending money at home. Oil helped finance that spending spree on social programs and inflation is a highly manageable 7% or so. Banks are flush with money and small and medium businesses can get the financing that is absent from the US recovery. So the lower classes moved up, a consuming middle class was born and the wealthy became more wealthy. What is required here is for the economy to become less protectionist (many import duties are 100% or more of value) and to fix its tax system that leaks so badly that the only way to keep the government afloat is to impose a30% VAT.
Sao Paulo has invested billions in infrastructure (but obviously not enough to dampen the inevitable traffic jams) and has wi fi and other electronic facilities that are equal to or better than any western G8 country. The lower class, once destitute can now have a low paying but sustainable job. Kids can go to school rather than resort to begging and everyone is moving up the ladder. The lower classes now have a tangible stake in the country by way of the Mia Casa program that makes home ownership affordable to the lowest wage earners in society. These folk now have much to lose and will therefore work hard to protect it. My taxi driver can now make enough money to send his kids to college. He lives in a nice apartment and, while his wife is working, can now look forward to a reasonable life and retirement. That is not to say that live in Brazil is Valhalla. But the country has taken positive steps to give the poor a stake in society. This is much more than can be said of India or China. In these countries the rich get richer and the middle class gets bigger but there is a running sore of poverty that never seems to get healed. This is what Lulu and his successor have done for the country.
This phenomena has not gone unnoticed in the rest of Latin America. Columbia, once controlled by the drug lords is now considered prosperous as is Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. If these countries go the way of Brazil, look out. The G8 will still be looking for a way to solve Greece, Italy and France (with the recent election of a socialist president) while Latin America leaves them in the dust.
Canada is well thought of in this country and in the region but is doing its best to become as hated as the US. Canadian mining interests are running roughshod over local communities. They have the backing of governments who are concerned about job creation at the expense of ecology. We have not had any luck in piercing the protective trade barriers in Brazil or (with the exception of a few central American countries) any other place in Latin America (with the exception of Chile). From person experience I can say that the federal trade people in Brazil are next to useless. Ontario has a successful and helpful presence here (and in Chile) in support of small business.
Canada has made the mistake of betting the farm on the US only to find that the farm had egregious systemic problems that may not be fixed for many years. Canada made a run on Europe but the party appears to be over there. The Euro has had a toxic effect on many economies who cannot correct downturns by devaluating money. Much of North Africa is in turmoil. The middle East is a mess. We have had very little luck with China short of selling it our natural resources and India is an enigma to which we export call centre, clerical and programming jobs. That leaves Latin America. We should be on the doorstep banging on the door until they let us in. Do whatever it takes.
Bernie.
Friday 4 May 2012
Sao Paulo--The City From Hell
I am spending several days in Sao Paulo before going on to Vittorio to the north. I have been to Sao Paulo or SP as it is affectionately known many times before. Each time I swear that I will never, never return but, here I am. It is now a city of 20 million people in a geographic land mass that once held 5 million people with no room to spare. To house some of its people it has gone super high rise--including some low cost housing that is guaranteed to become an instant slum. The Brazilian government has promised its poor affordable housing. In SP it means high rise housing for people who were formerly living in a tin shack on the side of a hill. They have no concept of communal living and these high rises are becoming the source of very nasty crimes. The security situation is so bad that one of my contacts says that there is room for 1,000 bodyguards for the rich. The rich drive in armoured cars and fly to work in helicopters because driving poses too high a crime risk. I was told to stay inside my hotel at night. I could leave with a trusted cab driver (gypsy cabs abound--they get you into a cab and then either rob or kill you) who must see you to the door, wait for your return and see you to the cab. Who, I ask, would live in such conditions?
What everyone hears is how Brazil is one of the BRIC (that is Brazil, Russia, India, China) emerging economies. It's growing at a rate that the G8 countries can only dream about. Most of the revenue has come from rich oil reserves that were found off the coast of Rio. It has a thriving coffee trade and other agricultural products. Because of stable government a rising middle class has had an impact on consumer spending. Banks are so flush with cash that any reasonable project can be funded. It will soon enjoy the economic benefits of the World Cup Soccer and the summer Olympics. Inflation is reasonable (when you consider that 15 years ago it was 40% per month) and wages have increased beyond the subsistence living that workers got just 10 years ago. Brazil has high import duties (some over 100% but average out to 70%) and a stiff VAT ( because tax collection is sometimes iffy). The salaried worker gets hit hardest because of tax deductions at source. Social taxes paid by the employer averages about 100% of salaries. The Real, the local currency is holding stable at about 55 cents on the US dollar.
There are a couple of things that we can learn from Brazil. One is affordable housing. Lulu, the previous President promised 10 million housing units and the country is about 3.5 million into that promise. These are small homes and condos (about 1,100 square feet of living space) that are 100% government financed with mortgage payments tied to income. Aside from Sao Paulo where there has been indiscriminate social housing without socializing the inhabitants the rest of the country is booming with demand outstripping supply by about 40%. Builders work with a pre arranged price set by the government bank. The developer buys the land and starts construction. When the project is 20% pre sold the government bank starts advancing funds to completion of the project. Returns for the developer are reasonable so that many are in the marketplace. All the buildings are "green" with solar electrical power and recycled grey water. The builders compete on good design and amenities. It is an enviable public private partnership which we might adopt in Canada.
The country is generally clean. The streets are not littered. Cab drivers are required to dress with at least shirt and tie. They bear no resemblance to our Ottawa cab drivers who sometime look like ax murderers. Cabs are clean and, despite the crime, the cabs do no wall off the driver such as is done in New York. Many cabs are going to hybrid engines and the city is surprisingly smog free given its size. Hotel room light operate only when you put your plastic key into a slot. When you take the key out of the slot and leave the room the lights go out.
I will be glad to leave SP and get out of the rat race. Will post on my travels to Vittorio.
Bernie.
What everyone hears is how Brazil is one of the BRIC (that is Brazil, Russia, India, China) emerging economies. It's growing at a rate that the G8 countries can only dream about. Most of the revenue has come from rich oil reserves that were found off the coast of Rio. It has a thriving coffee trade and other agricultural products. Because of stable government a rising middle class has had an impact on consumer spending. Banks are so flush with cash that any reasonable project can be funded. It will soon enjoy the economic benefits of the World Cup Soccer and the summer Olympics. Inflation is reasonable (when you consider that 15 years ago it was 40% per month) and wages have increased beyond the subsistence living that workers got just 10 years ago. Brazil has high import duties (some over 100% but average out to 70%) and a stiff VAT ( because tax collection is sometimes iffy). The salaried worker gets hit hardest because of tax deductions at source. Social taxes paid by the employer averages about 100% of salaries. The Real, the local currency is holding stable at about 55 cents on the US dollar.
There are a couple of things that we can learn from Brazil. One is affordable housing. Lulu, the previous President promised 10 million housing units and the country is about 3.5 million into that promise. These are small homes and condos (about 1,100 square feet of living space) that are 100% government financed with mortgage payments tied to income. Aside from Sao Paulo where there has been indiscriminate social housing without socializing the inhabitants the rest of the country is booming with demand outstripping supply by about 40%. Builders work with a pre arranged price set by the government bank. The developer buys the land and starts construction. When the project is 20% pre sold the government bank starts advancing funds to completion of the project. Returns for the developer are reasonable so that many are in the marketplace. All the buildings are "green" with solar electrical power and recycled grey water. The builders compete on good design and amenities. It is an enviable public private partnership which we might adopt in Canada.
The country is generally clean. The streets are not littered. Cab drivers are required to dress with at least shirt and tie. They bear no resemblance to our Ottawa cab drivers who sometime look like ax murderers. Cabs are clean and, despite the crime, the cabs do no wall off the driver such as is done in New York. Many cabs are going to hybrid engines and the city is surprisingly smog free given its size. Hotel room light operate only when you put your plastic key into a slot. When you take the key out of the slot and leave the room the lights go out.
I will be glad to leave SP and get out of the rat race. Will post on my travels to Vittorio.
Bernie.
Tuesday 24 April 2012
Taxing the Rich
The recent Ontario budget provisions and the introduction of legislation in the US congress to tax the rich (the so-called Buffet tax) begs the question. If one has an income of $500,000 or more the extra $3,000 in tax won't break the bank. A minimum tax of $30% on $1 million in income is more serious. But not much more. Recent report from the US indicate that, on average, those who make more than $1 million or more pay an average tax of 26%. So the Buffet tax is much like the Ontario surtax--about 4% increase. The same report indicates that the tax would affect .3% of the taxpaying public. A recent report from Ottawa indicates that the ontario tax would affect about .1% of the taxpaying public. The amount that this tax would raise in Ontario is estimated by the Liberal government to be about $400 million. The best estimate by outside economists is that the tax would raise somewhat half of that estimate. The Ontario provisions were hastily made in order to gain the support (or the "abstain" vote) from the New Democrats in a bid to avoid yet another dreary election. Good politics. Bad policy.
Most of those who read this blog know that I am in favour of a VAT or HST tax as a primary tool in tax reform. Corporate taxes are, properly, coming down. Personal taxes are not. The devil in the tax system is not the rates but the definition of the tax base. Just what is "income". For those who are lucky enough to have investments much of their "income" is in the form of capital gains that are taxed at half the personal rate. Since one can assume that those who have investments are more economically better off than the average working joe the benefit given to the "rich" adds to the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. For example if one taxpayer has income from employment and one has "income" from capital gains, the latter will pay, on average, half the tax than the wage earner. If one is lucky enough to have dividend income the tax on dividends from taxable Canadian corporation on about $50,000 is nil. Yes, nil. So, if I have a family corporation through which I do business I will pay the corporate tax of about 15% and pay no tax on about $60,000 of income earned by me and my wife (the dividend tax credit for small business corporations are less than on corporations who are basically investment corporations). If my wife and I have 4 children and I have established a family trust I can "distribute" $180,000 (6x30,000) at a rate of about 15%. The tax savings is significant. On $180,000 of income I would pay about $65,000 in tax if I lived in Ontario. By using the dividend tax credit I pay corporation tax at $27,000, a savings of $38,000 by my arithmetic. If I am engaged in research and development the government pays me (through a SRED program).
You get the picture now. Capital gains were introduced to reward those who take risk. Dividend tax credits were introduced to refund the tax paid by a corporation to its shareholders. The theory is that there should not be double taxation: one at the corporate level and one at the personal level. It's called integration. However, the dividend tax credit and the capital gains rate have had unintended negative consequences. And no one is in a rush to change the rules. Good for the rich and self employed and very bad for the working joe.
Those of my age recall the upheaval that occurred in 1971. We started again. At the direction of PE Trudeau we threw out the old income tax legislation and brought in a new piece of legislation. There was considerable turmoil for a number of years but when the dust settled much of the inequities of the old legislation were remedied. Nothing less is needed now. What I propose is a simplified definition of income, no capital gains tax, a resolution of the dividend tax credit anomaly, reduction of the vast number of allowances and inducements in the tax legislation that are no longer needed, a resolution of the tax inequity between the self employed and the wage earner, and, lastly a tax at the top rate of about 15%. The balance of the revenue would be made up by a harmonized sales tax. Unfortunately there is no political will, either in Canada or the US to do so.
Bernie.
Most of those who read this blog know that I am in favour of a VAT or HST tax as a primary tool in tax reform. Corporate taxes are, properly, coming down. Personal taxes are not. The devil in the tax system is not the rates but the definition of the tax base. Just what is "income". For those who are lucky enough to have investments much of their "income" is in the form of capital gains that are taxed at half the personal rate. Since one can assume that those who have investments are more economically better off than the average working joe the benefit given to the "rich" adds to the economic disparity between the rich and the poor. For example if one taxpayer has income from employment and one has "income" from capital gains, the latter will pay, on average, half the tax than the wage earner. If one is lucky enough to have dividend income the tax on dividends from taxable Canadian corporation on about $50,000 is nil. Yes, nil. So, if I have a family corporation through which I do business I will pay the corporate tax of about 15% and pay no tax on about $60,000 of income earned by me and my wife (the dividend tax credit for small business corporations are less than on corporations who are basically investment corporations). If my wife and I have 4 children and I have established a family trust I can "distribute" $180,000 (6x30,000) at a rate of about 15%. The tax savings is significant. On $180,000 of income I would pay about $65,000 in tax if I lived in Ontario. By using the dividend tax credit I pay corporation tax at $27,000, a savings of $38,000 by my arithmetic. If I am engaged in research and development the government pays me (through a SRED program).
You get the picture now. Capital gains were introduced to reward those who take risk. Dividend tax credits were introduced to refund the tax paid by a corporation to its shareholders. The theory is that there should not be double taxation: one at the corporate level and one at the personal level. It's called integration. However, the dividend tax credit and the capital gains rate have had unintended negative consequences. And no one is in a rush to change the rules. Good for the rich and self employed and very bad for the working joe.
Those of my age recall the upheaval that occurred in 1971. We started again. At the direction of PE Trudeau we threw out the old income tax legislation and brought in a new piece of legislation. There was considerable turmoil for a number of years but when the dust settled much of the inequities of the old legislation were remedied. Nothing less is needed now. What I propose is a simplified definition of income, no capital gains tax, a resolution of the dividend tax credit anomaly, reduction of the vast number of allowances and inducements in the tax legislation that are no longer needed, a resolution of the tax inequity between the self employed and the wage earner, and, lastly a tax at the top rate of about 15%. The balance of the revenue would be made up by a harmonized sales tax. Unfortunately there is no political will, either in Canada or the US to do so.
Bernie.
Monday 9 April 2012
The Long Hard Talk
I recently saw a Facebook post from a young friend whose uncle was dying. Unlike most of us who know that we are going to die but, thankfully don't know when, my friend's uncle knows (and everyone around him knows) that death is quite imminent. My friend has disclosed that he has had long meaningful talks with his uncle. He will cherish these moments and will carry away a memory of his uncle that will endure forever.
My first reaction to his post was "why do we wait so long to have these talks"? Whether a relative or a friend we allow our lives to go on thinking that both we and those who surround us will live forever. My friend avows that these talks are difficult--not so much because of the content, I suspect, but because both who are engaged in the talk know the imminent finality that will engulf these talks. There is an old Talmudic saying that we should comport ourselves as if we were going to die tomorrow. When challenged that we don't know when we are going to die, the Rabbi said "exactly right". So many things unsaid, so many deeds undone, so many hurts unrepressed, so many thanks not given--or received. When we are confronted with the inevitable we make hasten to "make things right". We say our "goodbyes" without having said our "hellos".
I make this post from the perspective of being well into my 70th decade of life. The mere effluxion of time gives me a rather limited future. My perspective on life when I was 30 was that I was going to live forever. At my present age I know that my future is closer to the ultimate than the past. If I have learned anything during these past 70+ years is that words are dangerous. I own a book of Jewish curses. While the content is not very exciting the title has been with me for years: Words Like Arrows. I can remember a slight that was delivered to me when I was about 6 years old. I say this because I am not that fragile but because words have a lasting effect on both the deliverer and and the person to whom they are delivered. If left unattended harsh words grow like thorns that keep stabbing the psyche. If dealt with, the hurt may linger but the redress blunts the hurt. I have seen many families (not mine, thank goodness) where words have cleaved them asunder and the members have died without rapprochement. While the deceased may no longer feel the hurt I have seen many family survivors who regretted not putting things right. When seen in the perspective of the ultimate a family quarrel seems quite insignificant.
The lesson that I learned is to have the long hard talk when you can. Many of us don't really know our parents. Many of us don't really know our relatives. Many of us don't really know our friends. We go through the motions and exchange banalities. These long hard talks should not await someone's demise where the talks are accompanied by sadness but should be undertaken as a positive and cathartic exercise.
Bernie.
My first reaction to his post was "why do we wait so long to have these talks"? Whether a relative or a friend we allow our lives to go on thinking that both we and those who surround us will live forever. My friend avows that these talks are difficult--not so much because of the content, I suspect, but because both who are engaged in the talk know the imminent finality that will engulf these talks. There is an old Talmudic saying that we should comport ourselves as if we were going to die tomorrow. When challenged that we don't know when we are going to die, the Rabbi said "exactly right". So many things unsaid, so many deeds undone, so many hurts unrepressed, so many thanks not given--or received. When we are confronted with the inevitable we make hasten to "make things right". We say our "goodbyes" without having said our "hellos".
I make this post from the perspective of being well into my 70th decade of life. The mere effluxion of time gives me a rather limited future. My perspective on life when I was 30 was that I was going to live forever. At my present age I know that my future is closer to the ultimate than the past. If I have learned anything during these past 70+ years is that words are dangerous. I own a book of Jewish curses. While the content is not very exciting the title has been with me for years: Words Like Arrows. I can remember a slight that was delivered to me when I was about 6 years old. I say this because I am not that fragile but because words have a lasting effect on both the deliverer and and the person to whom they are delivered. If left unattended harsh words grow like thorns that keep stabbing the psyche. If dealt with, the hurt may linger but the redress blunts the hurt. I have seen many families (not mine, thank goodness) where words have cleaved them asunder and the members have died without rapprochement. While the deceased may no longer feel the hurt I have seen many family survivors who regretted not putting things right. When seen in the perspective of the ultimate a family quarrel seems quite insignificant.
The lesson that I learned is to have the long hard talk when you can. Many of us don't really know our parents. Many of us don't really know our relatives. Many of us don't really know our friends. We go through the motions and exchange banalities. These long hard talks should not await someone's demise where the talks are accompanied by sadness but should be undertaken as a positive and cathartic exercise.
Bernie.
Sunday 8 April 2012
On The Passover/Easter Connection
Every few years the Jewish and secular calendars collide and the first night of Passover coincides with Good Friday. When this happens I am taken with the Jewish/Christian connection. The Last Supper was, of course, a Seder--a Jewish dinner at which the exodus from Egypt by the Jews is commemorated and discussed. Christ--then known as Yehoshua--was first and foremost a Jew. Not only a Jew but a Jewish rabbi or teacher. The Temple, and consequently the Jewish religion was being run by bureaucrats who had a vested interest in the status quo. Yehoshua was, as were many of his Jewish compatriots, no fan of the Temple leaders. He was of the view that these leaders had strayed far from the basic principles of Judaism. Thus did Yehoshua became a liability to the status quo. While certainly killed by the Romans I am certain that there were no Temple tears shed over Yehoshua's untimely demise. Yehoshua's followers were Jews as well and had no thought of breaking away from the mainstream religion of the day. Christianity's foundlings as a separate religion was many years away.
The fact that Passover and Christianity are so closely related is no accident. Passover is completely interwoven in the founding of Christianity and, for Jews, Yehoshua's participation in a Passover Seder is completely normal. There are other common factors as well. Passover is well known as a festival of freedom. It commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt after 400 years of slavery. The teachings surrounding Passover seem to indicate that, since the time of Joseph when Israelites first settled in Egypt, they were a separate and distinct people who observed their own customers and circumcised their male children. The fact that this "nation within a nation" had to be liberated so that they could settle in Israel is not lost on modern day Zionism. The fact that Pharaoh would not let them go is also curious. It appears to me that Egypt relied on slave labour to make bricks and the Jew's departure would have resulted in an economic loss to Egypt. Whatever the reason the withdrawal from Egypt of the Jewish slaves has been a clarion call to every enslaved people. Negro spiritual songs are replete with references to Moses and the sales--and their eventual emancipation. Teaching Negro slaves Christianity imparted Jewish values to the converts that created a backlash resulting in eventual emancipation. When African Americans were politically emancipated in the early 1960s Jewish leaders walked beside Martin Luther King in solidarity with a people who craved real emancipation.
And yet the early Christians could not let go of Passover as one of the events that contributed to the founding of the breakaway religion. Whether this link was necessary to persuade Jews to join the new religion will probably never been known. Paul, when founding the Roman Christian religion. still hangs on the the Passover link. It could just have been deleted as one of the arcane historical facts but it was not.
For me it is the link between Jews and Christians that will never be broken. As a festival of freedom I can see that the emergence of Yehoshua was a break with the oppressiveness of the Temple hierarchy. As a festival of freedom it gave millions a new way to communicate with God. We have much to celebrate together.
Bernie.
The fact that Passover and Christianity are so closely related is no accident. Passover is completely interwoven in the founding of Christianity and, for Jews, Yehoshua's participation in a Passover Seder is completely normal. There are other common factors as well. Passover is well known as a festival of freedom. It commemorates the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt after 400 years of slavery. The teachings surrounding Passover seem to indicate that, since the time of Joseph when Israelites first settled in Egypt, they were a separate and distinct people who observed their own customers and circumcised their male children. The fact that this "nation within a nation" had to be liberated so that they could settle in Israel is not lost on modern day Zionism. The fact that Pharaoh would not let them go is also curious. It appears to me that Egypt relied on slave labour to make bricks and the Jew's departure would have resulted in an economic loss to Egypt. Whatever the reason the withdrawal from Egypt of the Jewish slaves has been a clarion call to every enslaved people. Negro spiritual songs are replete with references to Moses and the sales--and their eventual emancipation. Teaching Negro slaves Christianity imparted Jewish values to the converts that created a backlash resulting in eventual emancipation. When African Americans were politically emancipated in the early 1960s Jewish leaders walked beside Martin Luther King in solidarity with a people who craved real emancipation.
And yet the early Christians could not let go of Passover as one of the events that contributed to the founding of the breakaway religion. Whether this link was necessary to persuade Jews to join the new religion will probably never been known. Paul, when founding the Roman Christian religion. still hangs on the the Passover link. It could just have been deleted as one of the arcane historical facts but it was not.
For me it is the link between Jews and Christians that will never be broken. As a festival of freedom I can see that the emergence of Yehoshua was a break with the oppressiveness of the Temple hierarchy. As a festival of freedom it gave millions a new way to communicate with God. We have much to celebrate together.
Bernie.
Thursday 5 April 2012
The Hidden Agenda Is Not So Hidden
It is no exaggeration that I am not a fan of either Conservative politics or their leaders. I was born into a family that was both liberal and Liberal. I have no doubt that excessive behaviour by politicians are not confined to either conservatives or Conservatives. I remember well the governments headed by Diefenbaker, Clark and Mulroney--although the latter prime minister was found to be either disingenuous or outright crooked. The Liberals, too have had their scandals not the least of which involved spurious payments to Quebecers that were, to say the least, just short of criminal. My rant goes to a rather fundamental issue that seems to occur and reoccur in current Canadian politics.
It is now a well proven fact that, at best, Parliament was misled about the purchase of a modern jet aircraft. My military friends assure me that the purchase of a modern jet aircraft is absolutely necessary if Canada is to participate in NATO functions. Our current airplanes can't carry the armament that is being used by other, more current and sophisticated, airplanes. Whether Canada should participate in these diversions is yet another question. But, assuming that the answer is 'yes" we need a more up to date fighter jet. So, why the kafuffel? It appears that the best jet to buy was not an open and shut question. The candidate for purchase was rife with problems. The price was a moving target. There was a serious question as to whether the performance deficiencies could ever by remedied. And yet we Canadians were told that all was well and that the cost of the airplanes would not exceed a number that everyone knew was fictitious. It has taken the Auditor General to tell us that the king has no clothes.
In any ordinary government the resignation of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the armed forces would be a foregone conclusion. Such incompetence reflects badly on the Prime Minister so that, in some countries like Japan, the prime minister would also be a casualty. Not in Canada. The Prime Minister is going to tough it out. To date the Minister of Defence (of pick me up in a government helicopter at my fishing camp fame) is still at his desk. The Prime Minister, with a straight face, says that the Auditor General has done his job well and that the purchase of the plane is now being thoroughly investigated by Public Works--a department that has had its own measure of political interference. What about all those statements made during the election? Who misspoke? Who lied?
It is the style of this government to face down any criticism of how it does business with answers that do not accept responsibility and deflect the problem on the questioner. For example, what appears to be egregious tampering with a riding election by directing voters to a non existent voting station is said to be "smear tactics" by the questioner. When asked if the Minister of Defence should step down the Prime Minister (and not the minister in question) answers that the matter is now properly sent to Public Works. What is everyone yammering about? See, we didn't buy the airplanes. Forged changes in documents did not claim yet another minister. These answers are worthy of Vladimir Putin. This is the government that has sold off the Wheat Board without consultation of farmers. This is the government that has dismantled Katimivik, Canada's organization closest to the Peace Corp in the United States. The arts have been pilloried. The CBC has been gutted (because, I hear, that the Prime Minister does not like its liberal bent). In my years of following politics I have never seen such a blatant exercise of power by a Prime Minister.
Many forms of government force collaboration between the administrative and legislative arms. Neither the US congress nor any of its arms such as the House of Representatives or the Senate can pass legislation without the concurrence of the other house and the President. The President can propose but can't pass legislation and can only veto bills that he does not like. While such a system can produce stalemate--particularly when there are serious divergences of political philosophies between the parties, there can be no tyranny of any one party except where, in the unlikely circumstances, all three bodies are of the same party. Even then, there is a wide range of political philosophies within each party so that no one can be assured that any measure can make it into law without significant compromise.
In the parliamentary system of government there can be a tyranny of the majority party. That tyranny is deflected by the fact that voters vote for their constituency representative rather than for a party leader. The party leader must have the confidence of his own caucus and of the house. There have been circumstances where strong leaders wreaked havoc with the system. Diefenbaker single handedly denuded Canada of its aeronautics industry with cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Trudeau bludgeoned the country into bilingualism and the national energy party. Both paid with defeat at the polls. However, almost any other leader that I can think of has at least played the game of being politically sensitive to how the rest of the country perceives government action: until Harper. With the exception of the Minister of Finance and possibly the Foreign Minister he has surrounded himself with weak ministers. He has, in fact, taken charge of government on a unprecedentedl level. Senior civil servants with whom I have spoken tell me that the very essence of Canada's civil service as unbiased advisors is a serious risk.
So, the hidden agenda is not so hidden. Harper has become the autocratic leader of Canada. For ill or for good. Those who criticize him are pilloried. He intends to lead Canada well to the right of any Conservative leader. And watch out when he does.
Bernie.
It is now a well proven fact that, at best, Parliament was misled about the purchase of a modern jet aircraft. My military friends assure me that the purchase of a modern jet aircraft is absolutely necessary if Canada is to participate in NATO functions. Our current airplanes can't carry the armament that is being used by other, more current and sophisticated, airplanes. Whether Canada should participate in these diversions is yet another question. But, assuming that the answer is 'yes" we need a more up to date fighter jet. So, why the kafuffel? It appears that the best jet to buy was not an open and shut question. The candidate for purchase was rife with problems. The price was a moving target. There was a serious question as to whether the performance deficiencies could ever by remedied. And yet we Canadians were told that all was well and that the cost of the airplanes would not exceed a number that everyone knew was fictitious. It has taken the Auditor General to tell us that the king has no clothes.
In any ordinary government the resignation of the Minister of Defence and the Chief of Staff of the armed forces would be a foregone conclusion. Such incompetence reflects badly on the Prime Minister so that, in some countries like Japan, the prime minister would also be a casualty. Not in Canada. The Prime Minister is going to tough it out. To date the Minister of Defence (of pick me up in a government helicopter at my fishing camp fame) is still at his desk. The Prime Minister, with a straight face, says that the Auditor General has done his job well and that the purchase of the plane is now being thoroughly investigated by Public Works--a department that has had its own measure of political interference. What about all those statements made during the election? Who misspoke? Who lied?
It is the style of this government to face down any criticism of how it does business with answers that do not accept responsibility and deflect the problem on the questioner. For example, what appears to be egregious tampering with a riding election by directing voters to a non existent voting station is said to be "smear tactics" by the questioner. When asked if the Minister of Defence should step down the Prime Minister (and not the minister in question) answers that the matter is now properly sent to Public Works. What is everyone yammering about? See, we didn't buy the airplanes. Forged changes in documents did not claim yet another minister. These answers are worthy of Vladimir Putin. This is the government that has sold off the Wheat Board without consultation of farmers. This is the government that has dismantled Katimivik, Canada's organization closest to the Peace Corp in the United States. The arts have been pilloried. The CBC has been gutted (because, I hear, that the Prime Minister does not like its liberal bent). In my years of following politics I have never seen such a blatant exercise of power by a Prime Minister.
Many forms of government force collaboration between the administrative and legislative arms. Neither the US congress nor any of its arms such as the House of Representatives or the Senate can pass legislation without the concurrence of the other house and the President. The President can propose but can't pass legislation and can only veto bills that he does not like. While such a system can produce stalemate--particularly when there are serious divergences of political philosophies between the parties, there can be no tyranny of any one party except where, in the unlikely circumstances, all three bodies are of the same party. Even then, there is a wide range of political philosophies within each party so that no one can be assured that any measure can make it into law without significant compromise.
In the parliamentary system of government there can be a tyranny of the majority party. That tyranny is deflected by the fact that voters vote for their constituency representative rather than for a party leader. The party leader must have the confidence of his own caucus and of the house. There have been circumstances where strong leaders wreaked havoc with the system. Diefenbaker single handedly denuded Canada of its aeronautics industry with cancellation of the Avro Arrow. Trudeau bludgeoned the country into bilingualism and the national energy party. Both paid with defeat at the polls. However, almost any other leader that I can think of has at least played the game of being politically sensitive to how the rest of the country perceives government action: until Harper. With the exception of the Minister of Finance and possibly the Foreign Minister he has surrounded himself with weak ministers. He has, in fact, taken charge of government on a unprecedentedl level. Senior civil servants with whom I have spoken tell me that the very essence of Canada's civil service as unbiased advisors is a serious risk.
So, the hidden agenda is not so hidden. Harper has become the autocratic leader of Canada. For ill or for good. Those who criticize him are pilloried. He intends to lead Canada well to the right of any Conservative leader. And watch out when he does.
Bernie.
Tuesday 13 March 2012
Robocalls and Other Election Antics
I have been away for almost a month. Here we go again.
We all seem to forget that genteel electioneering is a product of the last half of the 20th century. In the 19th century scurrilous statements and cartoons about opponents were the norm. It was assumed that the electorate would filter out the hyperbole when voting for their man (and latterly woman) of his or her choice. When compared to electioneering in the the United States, even the negative ads in Canada seem tame. Words out of context and outright lies are circulated as authoritative comments on the other candidate. Why have ads gone so negative? Because, out pollsters say, they work. Unlike voters of old, it seems that modern voters are more included to believe the bumf. Whether incredulous or just plain dumb the modern voter seems to have been sucked into the slime. It may be that ever more scandalous reality shows and outright rudeness by almost everyone has carried itself over to the elections. Or, it may be that many of the voters, seeing through the bumf just don't vote. What is seriously lacking from any of these techniques is an honest discussion of the issues.
What I find most disturbing in all of this robocall posturing is the position taken by Her Majesty's government. When facts are inconveniently against them they call the Oppositions position a "smear campaign". This goes along with those who believe that the nearly passed criminal legislation is ill advised, they are called "soft on crime". These are but a few instances where the objector is attacked while any debate on the merits is stifled with Closure votes. It appears that, along with robocalls, Canada is now heading toward totalitarianism where one party dictates what is "good for the country" and to hell with anyone else's view. All this is commandeered by a Prime Minister who manages every piece of news, every statement by every Minister and tends to blame civil services when things go seriously wrong.
As if this was not bad enough, we are going to get, full force, what the Conservatives believe to be it's "going forward" policy. This will be brought down from on high in the next budget to be given at the end of March 2012. We have been given glimpses of what Canada will be like for the next several years. Pensions will be significantly reformed. This announcement was made by the Prime Minister while out of Canada. Our civil service, once the pride of the world as a politically independent cadre of public servants, is going to be seriously restructured. Scientific research is going to be reigned in in favour of applied (read business) research. Labour rights are a laugh. Any serious strikers are quickly legislated back to work. And on, and on, and on. All of this will little public debate and almost no parliamentary debate.
So robocalls are the tip of the iceberg. It is nationally unhealthy when reasoned debate is stifled and government rams through legislation based on what it thinks is right. While you might say that this, like all things, will pass the damage that would be done in the next 3 years could be inestimable. Lest you think that I am a Liberal mouthpiece let me point out that the last time this kind of fundamental change was undertaken was when Trudeau almost unilaterally decided that the whole country had to be bilingual. That nearly bankrupted Canada and caused a rift in Canada that is not healed to this day. Autocratic actions rarely work--even if they are coupled with the best intentions.
Bernie.
We all seem to forget that genteel electioneering is a product of the last half of the 20th century. In the 19th century scurrilous statements and cartoons about opponents were the norm. It was assumed that the electorate would filter out the hyperbole when voting for their man (and latterly woman) of his or her choice. When compared to electioneering in the the United States, even the negative ads in Canada seem tame. Words out of context and outright lies are circulated as authoritative comments on the other candidate. Why have ads gone so negative? Because, out pollsters say, they work. Unlike voters of old, it seems that modern voters are more included to believe the bumf. Whether incredulous or just plain dumb the modern voter seems to have been sucked into the slime. It may be that ever more scandalous reality shows and outright rudeness by almost everyone has carried itself over to the elections. Or, it may be that many of the voters, seeing through the bumf just don't vote. What is seriously lacking from any of these techniques is an honest discussion of the issues.
What I find most disturbing in all of this robocall posturing is the position taken by Her Majesty's government. When facts are inconveniently against them they call the Oppositions position a "smear campaign". This goes along with those who believe that the nearly passed criminal legislation is ill advised, they are called "soft on crime". These are but a few instances where the objector is attacked while any debate on the merits is stifled with Closure votes. It appears that, along with robocalls, Canada is now heading toward totalitarianism where one party dictates what is "good for the country" and to hell with anyone else's view. All this is commandeered by a Prime Minister who manages every piece of news, every statement by every Minister and tends to blame civil services when things go seriously wrong.
As if this was not bad enough, we are going to get, full force, what the Conservatives believe to be it's "going forward" policy. This will be brought down from on high in the next budget to be given at the end of March 2012. We have been given glimpses of what Canada will be like for the next several years. Pensions will be significantly reformed. This announcement was made by the Prime Minister while out of Canada. Our civil service, once the pride of the world as a politically independent cadre of public servants, is going to be seriously restructured. Scientific research is going to be reigned in in favour of applied (read business) research. Labour rights are a laugh. Any serious strikers are quickly legislated back to work. And on, and on, and on. All of this will little public debate and almost no parliamentary debate.
So robocalls are the tip of the iceberg. It is nationally unhealthy when reasoned debate is stifled and government rams through legislation based on what it thinks is right. While you might say that this, like all things, will pass the damage that would be done in the next 3 years could be inestimable. Lest you think that I am a Liberal mouthpiece let me point out that the last time this kind of fundamental change was undertaken was when Trudeau almost unilaterally decided that the whole country had to be bilingual. That nearly bankrupted Canada and caused a rift in Canada that is not healed to this day. Autocratic actions rarely work--even if they are coupled with the best intentions.
Bernie.
Monday 6 February 2012
The Right To Be Heard--Facebook As A Tipping Point
Anyone within hailing distance of a newspaper or TV has heard about the imminent underwriting that will make Facebook a public company. Much as been said about the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg, the people who invested in his company and the cadre of Facebook managers who are poised to purchase expensive cars. We have also heard that much of the Arab spring was rooted in social media such as Facebook. Facebook has been excoriated for violating privacy rights. What is undeniable, though, is the sheer scope of its reach: soon to be one billion persons all over the world.
In a recent CBC radio program, Sparks, the social and political impact of Facebook and the Internet as a whole was thoughtfully examined. Facebook, it was said, had the same impact of socializing people in the same way that the printing press gave access to information heretofore dominated by the elite classes. The ability of a large number of ordinary people to communicate with one another, easily, will change the world. All of this is well known and predictable. What was different about this discussion were the following points.
In a recent CBC radio program, Sparks, the social and political impact of Facebook and the Internet as a whole was thoughtfully examined. Facebook, it was said, had the same impact of socializing people in the same way that the printing press gave access to information heretofore dominated by the elite classes. The ability of a large number of ordinary people to communicate with one another, easily, will change the world. All of this is well known and predictable. What was different about this discussion were the following points.
- Most social upheaval is a bottom up process. From the Magna Carta through to the French and Russian revolutions through to the Arab spring, the impetus for social change was not "granted from above" but rather demanded from below--from relatively ordinary people (notwithstanding that the Magna Carta was promulgated by the earls and barons).
- Strong leaders depend on the relative inability of the rank and file to communicate with one another. They are top down leaders. While all this goes well when strong leaders are also good leaders, it does not go so well when strong leaders are poor leaders. Strong leaders tend not to listen to the rank and file: being strong and self indulgent they believe that they know better.
- Social upheaval depends on the rank and file having access to information and being able to meet to formulate plans for change. Sometimes this information is disseminated through pamphlets, sometimes through underground radio but, recently, through social media.
- Social change depends on perceived entitlement of the rank and file. This entitlement is wide ranging and, if wide ranging enough, leads to significant social change. The Internet and social media such as Facebook grant this entitlement.
The discussion then turned to the current leaders in the United States. Both President and Obama and the Republican contenders point to themselves as strong leaders. This appears to be exactly what the rank and file do not need. Strong leaders got the United States into the mess that it's in. What the rank and file want to hear is the political leaders will be collaborative. We have a classic confrontation between the the rank and file and the political leadership. The Republicans are hidebound in that they will not entertain higher taxes and more spending. The Democrats are hidebound in that they will entertain higher taxes in order to preserve the social safety that citizens are entitled to expect. The two solitudes are unable to have any meaningful discourse. And so there is a political stalemate that is not going to get better in the near term. Unless one of the parties can carry the presidency, the house and the senate, the negotiation need to pass meaningful legislation will lead nowhere. The rank and file can't understand why this is happening. After all, the country is in a mess and it appears relatively easy to identify where the mess is and what to do about it. They are not doctrinaire about this. The fact that legislators couldn't pass a jobs bill is criminal. The fact that banks are still foreclosing on mortgagors because only by foreclosing can they collect from
Fanny Mae is equally criminal. Aside from the political rallies of the faithful there is no real dialogue going on between the leaders and the rank and file. This is, potentially, dangerous. While the "Occupy" movement was poorly organized and directed, the next group will be better organized and better directed. Look out.
Bernie.
Thursday 2 February 2012
Old Age Insecurity
The current firestorm over deferring the OAS payments until age 67 brings up some key issues involving Canada's social safety net. Unlike the CPP (which is, theoretically, funded out of contributions made over the lifetime of the pensioner) the OAS is a direct hit on the consolidated revenue fund--that is the public cash fund from which government receives taxes and pays expenses. As Canadians age, the cohort that is upcoming (and making a significant bite into the consolidated revenue fund) is the so called "baby boomers". This population bulge will work its way through the system the way a rabbit works its way through a snake. After that, the working cohorts will contract significantly and the OAS should become more sustainable out of current taxes. However, with a smaller workforce, the tax base should contract--that is unless we woo more new working Canadians to our shores. These will make up the labour shortfall that is predicted in about 20-30 years from now. However, as lifespans continue to lengthen the OAS hit on the revenue will continue to make a sizable dent. This problem affects no only the safetynet of seniors but also will put stress on the cost of medical services and social services that deal with the elderly.
The problem with attacking the OAS is that it represents only part of the puzzle. Canada opted into a social safety net in the 1930s and that has largely distinguished Canadians from our southerly neighbors. If we are to continue to be a more enlightened society we need to rethink the whole social safetynet. This would include employment insurance (newspeak for the old unemployment insurance), social assistance for the poor, the whole medical insurance system and the guaranteed old age security system and so on. They go lock step with one another. The greater difficulty is that no level of government speaks for all of these services. Some are provided by municipalities, some by provinces and some by the federal government. If we can, for example, forsee that there will be significant immigraion in the future we can also see that families will want to bring elderly parents to Canada. These will put an undue burden on the system without making a contribution through taxes for their working life. The OAS is just the tip of the iceberg.
One area that has already been earmarked for federal provincial conflict relates to health insurance. It is well recognized that the health system is highly inefficient. However, bringing efficiencies into the equation means that some citizens will be more affected than others. Perhaps it is time to rethink the "universal" nature of our medicare system instituted by Trudeau. Perhaps we should be thinking about user fees or some private facilities that can operate more efficiently than what we now have. Whatever it is, it appears that the Harper government has served notice that current funding will continue for several years and then be recast on a formula that is not yet revealed. Just part of the puzzle.
Social services agencies throughoput North America are overworked and underfunded. Their impact on the community is challenged against higher crime rates for young offenders. There has been no real dent in poverty over the past 50 years. Social housing is a scandal. Municipalities should now buldoze many rent to income properties that are beyond repair,
Aside from education, the delivery of social services has a highest impacT on the public purse than any other public expenditure. And yet we keep pouring money into the same hole without the slightest idea of whether these "investments" are making a positive difference.
If 65 is the new 55 then the OAS should cut in at age 75. The low income unemployed should be assured that, through some program, they will be brought up to a minimum standard of living. The high income retirees are already having their OAS payment clawed back through the tax system. If people are living longer they should be entitled to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts until age 75 with mandatory removal of tax deferred funds after that age. Those who need the money will break up their tax deferred saving accout earlies. Others will not.
We need a rethnk of the whole system. Putting a patch on the OAS doesn't cut it.
Bernie.
The problem with attacking the OAS is that it represents only part of the puzzle. Canada opted into a social safety net in the 1930s and that has largely distinguished Canadians from our southerly neighbors. If we are to continue to be a more enlightened society we need to rethink the whole social safetynet. This would include employment insurance (newspeak for the old unemployment insurance), social assistance for the poor, the whole medical insurance system and the guaranteed old age security system and so on. They go lock step with one another. The greater difficulty is that no level of government speaks for all of these services. Some are provided by municipalities, some by provinces and some by the federal government. If we can, for example, forsee that there will be significant immigraion in the future we can also see that families will want to bring elderly parents to Canada. These will put an undue burden on the system without making a contribution through taxes for their working life. The OAS is just the tip of the iceberg.
One area that has already been earmarked for federal provincial conflict relates to health insurance. It is well recognized that the health system is highly inefficient. However, bringing efficiencies into the equation means that some citizens will be more affected than others. Perhaps it is time to rethink the "universal" nature of our medicare system instituted by Trudeau. Perhaps we should be thinking about user fees or some private facilities that can operate more efficiently than what we now have. Whatever it is, it appears that the Harper government has served notice that current funding will continue for several years and then be recast on a formula that is not yet revealed. Just part of the puzzle.
Social services agencies throughoput North America are overworked and underfunded. Their impact on the community is challenged against higher crime rates for young offenders. There has been no real dent in poverty over the past 50 years. Social housing is a scandal. Municipalities should now buldoze many rent to income properties that are beyond repair,
Aside from education, the delivery of social services has a highest impacT on the public purse than any other public expenditure. And yet we keep pouring money into the same hole without the slightest idea of whether these "investments" are making a positive difference.
If 65 is the new 55 then the OAS should cut in at age 75. The low income unemployed should be assured that, through some program, they will be brought up to a minimum standard of living. The high income retirees are already having their OAS payment clawed back through the tax system. If people are living longer they should be entitled to contribute to tax deferred retirement accounts until age 75 with mandatory removal of tax deferred funds after that age. Those who need the money will break up their tax deferred saving accout earlies. Others will not.
We need a rethnk of the whole system. Putting a patch on the OAS doesn't cut it.
Bernie.
Thursday 26 January 2012
Research In Commotion
It is hard to pick up any Canadian newspaper or listen to any Canadian television news program without getting the latest update on the fortunes of Research in Motion (or RIM as it is affectionately known). The two founders who said they would never step down, did in fact do so. Their replacement is an internal corporate type who does not seem to engender the kind of pizzaz that seems to drive technology companies.
I have read (and reread) the current book on Steve Jobs. Setting aside his persona (which at best was bizarre and at worst was inhumane) I consider the book to be one of the finest business books written in recent years. It is a textbook on how to get creative people to work together, how attention to detail trumps "the big picture" and how looking at products from the customer's perspective "changes everything". When asked if he worked with focus groups on the iPod, Jobs shot back: "Did Bell work with focus groups when he invented the telephone?". Make it well and they will come. The most fascinating aspect of the book was what his co-workers called Job's "altered reality". Jobs believed that if he said it enough times, asked for it enough times, insisted upon it enough times (the "it" being any objective that others said couldn't be done) it would eventually get done Jobs' way. Most business is about making compromises. Job's approach to business is that if the product was good enough it would engage his customer.
When Scully took over the company after Job ran it into the ground, he, in turn, ran the company into the ground. When Jobs returned to the company some years later his first job was to review every product that the company made and focus on the "core products" that the company made well. Employees who did not subscribe to Job's view found themselves out of work. I had always wondered where Jobs thought that he could take over the music business when Sony had invented the Walkman. The similarities between the iPod and the iMac is that they are a consistently integrated business. The iMac was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and software. The iPod was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and music content. The iPhone was less a telephone and more a computer and web surfer in the pocket of the owner. The iPad was fully integrated to the iMac and iPHone. Outside developers' applications (apps) drove the demand for the phone and the tablet: utterly brilliant.
RIM had a brilliant idea too: integrate a telephone with a device that had access to a close ended email system. As other "smartphones" began to use webmail email accounts the singularity of the close ended email system began to fade. Sure, Blackberrys ran on dedicated servers but not everyone needed high ended security.
Also, there were disturbing demands from countries that wanted the right to peek into email accounts that email security had to, in some small way, be breached. The close ended email system was not so close ended. However, where RIM seemed out of touch was that the phone and even the email service was a small part of the consumer satisfaction as it related to the phones. People wanted to surf the web and see webpages as they saw them on their computer. They wanted to play games. They wanted apps that were business friendly. Little or none of this could be done on the Blackberry. When RIM decided to offer its web-ready phone it was too late for the North American markets. Blackberrys sell well in emerging markets where web-ready phones are less popular but that will end soon. The Arab Spring was fuelled on
Facebook and Twitter--both web based applications. So, it appears, that RIM is selling into a dwindling market. Web based phones are now carrying apps developed by their employers where job related tasks are now being done on their iPhones and iPads.
RIM is not the only company that is suffering. Smart phone companies worldwide are hurting. The phone itself has become a commodity. It's what else they do that counts. So Microsoft has developed an operating system that's pretty good. Google has done the same. But these operating systems have a ways to catch up to Apple. Notwithstanding Jobs' decease, Apple users form a formidable cult. A recent survey indicated that while general computing systems in large corporations are PC based most of the bosses and senior managers sport Apple gear.
RIM's next mistake was to follow Apple into the tablet market. Aside from producing a clunker it failed to realize that it was not in the same business as Apple. The iPad was mainly entertainment--really a large iTouch. RIM was not. It should have stayed out of the market and let the others blow their brains out. Tablet sales, other than iPads, are dismal. Apple apps numbered in the hundreds of thousands; RIM developers quickly deserted the company.
Where does RIM go from here? It has enough money to withstand the onslaught for some time. It should not be dismembered a la Nortel. It has an admirable R&D facility. However, it should stop following and start leading. It has gone through stage I of the Apple saga--that of near ruin. It now has to go through stage II--that of renewal and reinvention. It's biggest asset is its innovation and its entrepreneurship. All it has to do is to use these assets on the "next big thing". Apple was rescued from bankruptcy by Jobs' altered reality. RIM has to do the same thing.
Bernie
I have read (and reread) the current book on Steve Jobs. Setting aside his persona (which at best was bizarre and at worst was inhumane) I consider the book to be one of the finest business books written in recent years. It is a textbook on how to get creative people to work together, how attention to detail trumps "the big picture" and how looking at products from the customer's perspective "changes everything". When asked if he worked with focus groups on the iPod, Jobs shot back: "Did Bell work with focus groups when he invented the telephone?". Make it well and they will come. The most fascinating aspect of the book was what his co-workers called Job's "altered reality". Jobs believed that if he said it enough times, asked for it enough times, insisted upon it enough times (the "it" being any objective that others said couldn't be done) it would eventually get done Jobs' way. Most business is about making compromises. Job's approach to business is that if the product was good enough it would engage his customer.
When Scully took over the company after Job ran it into the ground, he, in turn, ran the company into the ground. When Jobs returned to the company some years later his first job was to review every product that the company made and focus on the "core products" that the company made well. Employees who did not subscribe to Job's view found themselves out of work. I had always wondered where Jobs thought that he could take over the music business when Sony had invented the Walkman. The similarities between the iPod and the iMac is that they are a consistently integrated business. The iMac was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and software. The iPod was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and music content. The iPhone was less a telephone and more a computer and web surfer in the pocket of the owner. The iPad was fully integrated to the iMac and iPHone. Outside developers' applications (apps) drove the demand for the phone and the tablet: utterly brilliant.
RIM had a brilliant idea too: integrate a telephone with a device that had access to a close ended email system. As other "smartphones" began to use webmail email accounts the singularity of the close ended email system began to fade. Sure, Blackberrys ran on dedicated servers but not everyone needed high ended security.
Also, there were disturbing demands from countries that wanted the right to peek into email accounts that email security had to, in some small way, be breached. The close ended email system was not so close ended. However, where RIM seemed out of touch was that the phone and even the email service was a small part of the consumer satisfaction as it related to the phones. People wanted to surf the web and see webpages as they saw them on their computer. They wanted to play games. They wanted apps that were business friendly. Little or none of this could be done on the Blackberry. When RIM decided to offer its web-ready phone it was too late for the North American markets. Blackberrys sell well in emerging markets where web-ready phones are less popular but that will end soon. The Arab Spring was fuelled on
Facebook and Twitter--both web based applications. So, it appears, that RIM is selling into a dwindling market. Web based phones are now carrying apps developed by their employers where job related tasks are now being done on their iPhones and iPads.
RIM is not the only company that is suffering. Smart phone companies worldwide are hurting. The phone itself has become a commodity. It's what else they do that counts. So Microsoft has developed an operating system that's pretty good. Google has done the same. But these operating systems have a ways to catch up to Apple. Notwithstanding Jobs' decease, Apple users form a formidable cult. A recent survey indicated that while general computing systems in large corporations are PC based most of the bosses and senior managers sport Apple gear.
RIM's next mistake was to follow Apple into the tablet market. Aside from producing a clunker it failed to realize that it was not in the same business as Apple. The iPad was mainly entertainment--really a large iTouch. RIM was not. It should have stayed out of the market and let the others blow their brains out. Tablet sales, other than iPads, are dismal. Apple apps numbered in the hundreds of thousands; RIM developers quickly deserted the company.
Where does RIM go from here? It has enough money to withstand the onslaught for some time. It should not be dismembered a la Nortel. It has an admirable R&D facility. However, it should stop following and start leading. It has gone through stage I of the Apple saga--that of near ruin. It now has to go through stage II--that of renewal and reinvention. It's biggest asset is its innovation and its entrepreneurship. All it has to do is to use these assets on the "next big thing". Apple was rescued from bankruptcy by Jobs' altered reality. RIM has to do the same thing.
Bernie
Thursday 12 January 2012
On Being Jew-ish
I have always found it curious that Jews are described as being Jewish. I have no accounts of Catholics being called Catholicish or Protestants being called Protestantish. I could on. Being "ish" connotes being "somewhat like". Being "foolish" for example is being somewhat a food. Reddish is being somewhat red.The only example I could find that is innocuous is British. What's the point, you say?
I have always held that being Jewish is nine parts tribal and one part religious. We have all the attributes of being a tribe: we mutilate our young through circumcision, we have elaborate celebrations of boys and girls who gain adulthood, marriages are performed as a public (tribal) display of bonding, etc. Being part of the tribe is traced through matrilineal lines because patrilineal lines are uncertain. We almost always know who the mother is. If the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish: no questions asked. Until recently.
The state of Israel was founded by Theodore Herzl who wanted a home for the Jews. Not necessarily religious Jews but all Jews. Herzl was, himself, quite assimilated and, at first religious Jews were not overjoyed by the identification of Israel as the home for the Jews. They had religious qualms having to do with the messiah. The first Jews of the state of Israel were anything but religious. They identified with being Jewish (somewhat Jews) but drew the line at religious observance. No one wore are kippah (small head covering) and certainly the girls were anything but modest. The army was a great leveller and Israeli Jews (and other non-Jewish) citizens benefited from their army contacts. There was a small Jewish settlement in Jerusalem by religious Jews who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived there, refused to recognize Israel on religious grounds. Everyone was happy with that arrangements.
In the early 1970s things changed radically (pun intended). Ex-Israeli religious Jews began to take an avid interest in Israel as a place where non religious Jews could be "converted". They made their mark in politics where they funded political parties who had strong religious beliefs. The fragmented voting system in Israel did the rest. Soon, religious Jewish parties were able to form a government. The price for this kind of aid was that religious people did not have to serve in the army (though many serve in the medical corps), rabbis were institutionalized as quasi-civil servants and religious Jews were allowed to settle in the "occupied" territories. The latter was fuelled by religious American Jews who asserted that Jews were promised all of Israel--including the West Bank or Samaria. The rest, as they say, is history.
From my reading it is only a small number of Israeli Jews that are at all religious. However, religious Jews have become the tail that is wagging the dog. They have mandated "who is a Jew" in challenging religious conversions by rabbis who are not "Jewish enough". Because rabbis are quasi-functionaries, those citizens who are not "Jewish enough" are forced to go to Cyprus to marry. There has been some discussion about who is "Jewish enough" to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Until recently the religious faction has been seem by ordinary Israelis as a quaint wrinkle in the general fabric of society. That is until recently. Religious Jews have now been given to striking out against those who are deemed to be dressed immodestly (spitting at young girls by religious extremists is now in vogue), or who desecrate the Sabbath by driving or going to the beach. While Israel is a free society where one can express his or her opinions freely (two Jews, three opinions) there are many who are calling for some definition of where religious rights impinge on the freedom of others. The recent spitting incident and a further incident where a young women was strongly urged to go to the back of the bus as a sign of "respect" for religious men on the bus. Both incidents made international news.
I have always been a strong proponent of litigation as a means of settling the rights and obligations of various factions in society. I declare my bias as a lawyer. When corrupt legislatures refused to deal with the tobacco industry civil litigation brought the industry to heel whereupon legislatures jump in, both feet. If Israel is not to become Iran (G-d forbid) there has to be some demarcation between the synagogue and the state. The recent incident is a good place to start. In the one case, spitting, the remedy is for assault; in other bus case, the remedy is for another kind of assault: harassment. In both cases, religious Jews should pay a hefty fine as punitive damages--some indication by the courts that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of rabbis who proclaim who is and who is not Jewish a constitutional challenge is in order. There will come a time when the West Bank settlers will have to have their legal rights defined as it is related to living on land that is clearly, legally, not theirs. The alternative to these legal definitions is anarchy.
To sum up, being Jewish embraces those who are religious and those who are somewhat (the "ish") religious and those who are not at all religious but are clearly identifiable (by themselves or others) as Jews. The problem is mainly Israeli because there is enough civil and religious pressure in the West to allow all forms of Jewish expression to stand side by side. But the Israeli problem has a strong effect on non Israeli Jews. If Israel is a place where all Jews can return, circumscribing these rights affects everyone. If I have a "right of return" I believe that I have that right unconditionally. A right that can't be taken away from a rabbi-functionary.
What has this to do with my many friends who are not Jewish? The imposition of one's religious will on another is not limited to Israel. Witness the latest crowd running on the Republican ticket who want to be President. No one is "Christian" enough. What happens if one of these candidates is (God forbid) elected. The whole national will have to genuflect a la Tim Tebow. Only a glance of most of the Muslim countries discloses practices that are biblical (don't get caught stealing if you want your right hand). The Israeli problem is a small one compared to some of the others. However, if you have a free country (such as Israel) you need to make sure that the law protects religious diversity. It's a slippery slope if it does not.
Bernie.
I have always held that being Jewish is nine parts tribal and one part religious. We have all the attributes of being a tribe: we mutilate our young through circumcision, we have elaborate celebrations of boys and girls who gain adulthood, marriages are performed as a public (tribal) display of bonding, etc. Being part of the tribe is traced through matrilineal lines because patrilineal lines are uncertain. We almost always know who the mother is. If the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish: no questions asked. Until recently.
The state of Israel was founded by Theodore Herzl who wanted a home for the Jews. Not necessarily religious Jews but all Jews. Herzl was, himself, quite assimilated and, at first religious Jews were not overjoyed by the identification of Israel as the home for the Jews. They had religious qualms having to do with the messiah. The first Jews of the state of Israel were anything but religious. They identified with being Jewish (somewhat Jews) but drew the line at religious observance. No one wore are kippah (small head covering) and certainly the girls were anything but modest. The army was a great leveller and Israeli Jews (and other non-Jewish) citizens benefited from their army contacts. There was a small Jewish settlement in Jerusalem by religious Jews who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived there, refused to recognize Israel on religious grounds. Everyone was happy with that arrangements.
In the early 1970s things changed radically (pun intended). Ex-Israeli religious Jews began to take an avid interest in Israel as a place where non religious Jews could be "converted". They made their mark in politics where they funded political parties who had strong religious beliefs. The fragmented voting system in Israel did the rest. Soon, religious Jewish parties were able to form a government. The price for this kind of aid was that religious people did not have to serve in the army (though many serve in the medical corps), rabbis were institutionalized as quasi-civil servants and religious Jews were allowed to settle in the "occupied" territories. The latter was fuelled by religious American Jews who asserted that Jews were promised all of Israel--including the West Bank or Samaria. The rest, as they say, is history.
From my reading it is only a small number of Israeli Jews that are at all religious. However, religious Jews have become the tail that is wagging the dog. They have mandated "who is a Jew" in challenging religious conversions by rabbis who are not "Jewish enough". Because rabbis are quasi-functionaries, those citizens who are not "Jewish enough" are forced to go to Cyprus to marry. There has been some discussion about who is "Jewish enough" to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Until recently the religious faction has been seem by ordinary Israelis as a quaint wrinkle in the general fabric of society. That is until recently. Religious Jews have now been given to striking out against those who are deemed to be dressed immodestly (spitting at young girls by religious extremists is now in vogue), or who desecrate the Sabbath by driving or going to the beach. While Israel is a free society where one can express his or her opinions freely (two Jews, three opinions) there are many who are calling for some definition of where religious rights impinge on the freedom of others. The recent spitting incident and a further incident where a young women was strongly urged to go to the back of the bus as a sign of "respect" for religious men on the bus. Both incidents made international news.
I have always been a strong proponent of litigation as a means of settling the rights and obligations of various factions in society. I declare my bias as a lawyer. When corrupt legislatures refused to deal with the tobacco industry civil litigation brought the industry to heel whereupon legislatures jump in, both feet. If Israel is not to become Iran (G-d forbid) there has to be some demarcation between the synagogue and the state. The recent incident is a good place to start. In the one case, spitting, the remedy is for assault; in other bus case, the remedy is for another kind of assault: harassment. In both cases, religious Jews should pay a hefty fine as punitive damages--some indication by the courts that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of rabbis who proclaim who is and who is not Jewish a constitutional challenge is in order. There will come a time when the West Bank settlers will have to have their legal rights defined as it is related to living on land that is clearly, legally, not theirs. The alternative to these legal definitions is anarchy.
To sum up, being Jewish embraces those who are religious and those who are somewhat (the "ish") religious and those who are not at all religious but are clearly identifiable (by themselves or others) as Jews. The problem is mainly Israeli because there is enough civil and religious pressure in the West to allow all forms of Jewish expression to stand side by side. But the Israeli problem has a strong effect on non Israeli Jews. If Israel is a place where all Jews can return, circumscribing these rights affects everyone. If I have a "right of return" I believe that I have that right unconditionally. A right that can't be taken away from a rabbi-functionary.
What has this to do with my many friends who are not Jewish? The imposition of one's religious will on another is not limited to Israel. Witness the latest crowd running on the Republican ticket who want to be President. No one is "Christian" enough. What happens if one of these candidates is (God forbid) elected. The whole national will have to genuflect a la Tim Tebow. Only a glance of most of the Muslim countries discloses practices that are biblical (don't get caught stealing if you want your right hand). The Israeli problem is a small one compared to some of the others. However, if you have a free country (such as Israel) you need to make sure that the law protects religious diversity. It's a slippery slope if it does not.
Bernie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)