- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Rants
- Hits: 2141
I have to confess, I occasionally read the news. The online version, it's a way of postponing work that needs to be done, of procrastinating the endless list of chores that will devour my day. I rationalize it by believing it "Keeps me informed".
It doesn't really. But on that note here's a summary of todays headlines in the Calgary Herald:
It's kinda tough to read, so feel free to enlarge it by clicking. It'll still be tough to read, but bigger. My notes in red....
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Rants
- Hits: 2208
I've been sick. My daughter had it for 2 weeks, and as she shows signs of recovery I'm now coming down with it.
And so I'm sleeping in the middle of the afternoon when there's a "broom...BRRRROOM.. BRRRROOOOM" noise outside, construction, and I get up and look out the front window and the neighbors have begun to assemble a basketball hoop. It's one of the upright ones, and he has a his wife and her sister helping them, they're banging the pipes together on the sidewalk.
He doesn't know what he's doing. When he worked he was a tradesman. But he's not working now and he's brought the same expertise to bear on assembling this basketball hoop.
Plastic, cardboard, all strewn over the front lawn. Wal Mart again. The dumpster, (it was supposed to be gone, I asked him, yeah, he had no explanations) is full, he'll need another one to fit in the packaging for this.
I sit on the front steps to watch. He's pulled a picket off of the fence and is using it to cushion the pipes from the sidewalk, up on a ladder with a hammer banging on it while his sister-in-law holds the pipes together and he bangs with the hammer.
I have a bad feeling about this. There's no place around here they can play basketball. Our yard is grass and dumpster, not concrete, and I can imagine them setting this up in front of my office window, using the sidewalk to dribble and shoot, errant balls coming through the office window....
After another hour or two they give up. The hoop, unassembled, is brought to the back door, they leave it in front of it with their jumbo orange bags filled with beercans, Domino's Pizza boxes, 12 packs of Dr. Pepper. There's a recycling bin and trash area in the back, they haven't figured out how to use it. They leave the plastic wrapping drifting about the yard, the upturned fence picket with nails sticking through in the middle of the front sidewalk. I'm resolved not to clean up after them, my boy and I the weekend previous cleaned up the yard, picked up their cigarette butts, beer cans,and rubbish, I don't want to make it a habit. The fence picket is dangerous though.
I lasted 3 days. The plastic and cardboard were still blowing over the yard, the fence picket with rusty nails poking through still in the middle of the sidewalk. They step over it as they go to get groceries. Against all my better judgement I pick it up - not, I tell myself, for them, but for the other neighbors, the residents of the neighborhood, who must be looking upon all of this with the same skepticism that I am.
I want to talk to them, explain to them what's acceptable, but they wouldn't get it. Wouldn't get it at all. And so it goes.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Rants
- Hits: 2074
In the news today (How I loathe it!) an article about how the Alberta Government is considering leaping upon the bandwagon of suing the tobacco manufacturers to recover expenses related to Health Care.
Now this is an old show, remarkably transparent but a crowd pleaser, it still seems to appease a surprising number of people.
The government has, for a long time, been in the business of "Trying to get us to quit smoking". Now there are too many good arguments as to why we should quit smoking for me to dispute. Smoking is a nasty habit that has proven negative long term health effects.
But there's something about this coming from the government, - the government that makes $8-$10 per pack of cigarettes, that is a little like a pimp lecturing you on the evils of prostitution.
No tobacco company makes even the smallest fraction of what the government does on smoking. The incredibly staggeringly high taxation on cigarettes more than offsets any long term health care costs - despite any paper arguments to the contrary. Think about it. That 8-10$/day per average smoker, applied towards future healthcare bills with compounded interest over a duration of 40 to 50 years, is making the government rich. Add to this the fact that people tend to die reasonably quickly from lung cancer (under a year) and you realize quickly that you, at the end of your stint as a smoker, had you been privately investing the tax dollars, could pass not only the duration of your final illness but a good portion of your stay in paradise in the finest of Swiss clinics, attended upon by the most skilled of chefs and surgeons, without ever touching the principal of your investment.
This doesn't even consider that savings the treasury makes when smokers die early, leaving behind unclaimed pensions, benefits, etc. that overflow the governments coffers. Or the fact that if you don't die from smoking chances are you'll die of something else, and it just might be every bit as expensive.
It's the government, though, and it's in the business of making people "Feel Good". Simple people. So if you read that news story as well, and thought somewhere in the back of your mind that the tobacco companies were villains anyway and "had it coming", or "it's about time", rest assured you have plenty of company. And your simple.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Rants
- Hits: 2518
3, 4, 5 times a day they call. The Old Timers Hockey League. The Canadian Liver Foundation. The Heart and Lung Foundation. The Diabetes Foundation. Apparently you can't have an organ without some group of people wanting to fundraise for it. And the charities..."Christians against poverty", which implies everybody else is for it. Or the "Firefighters for children" and the "Policeman's Calendar", funds used for the Children. Children are a great cause, they tear at the heartstrings. If you're going to raise money, do it for the children.
I've often wondered if the police ever check your calendar subscriptions when they're pulling you over, if your speeding ticket goes down because you like to see burly officers without their shirts on helping children.
I made the mistake once of actually making a donation over the phone, "Miracles for Children" or some such cause, which is where I think it all started. I got on a bad list, my name was traded like shares, the sucker list passed out and sold to a hundred other charities and telesolicitors.
More often than not there's dead air when you answer and sometimes you're requested to hold while your call is transferred to a live agent. Something about this abuse of technology offends me. Or you listen to a prerecorded message advising you you've won a prize in a contest you didn't enter. And they leave a number to call back. And I have to wonder who is stupid enough to call these people back, but I know the answer: Old, lonely people, bereft of family, varying degrees of senility, calling because they're lonely and want to talk to someone, anyone, even a telesolicitor, and this is on what the sharks are feeding.
There was the false sense of relief when the government created it's do not call list. Which you can register for here. But I've gotta warn you, I've recieved more calls since registering than ever I did before. It doesn't stop charities from calling you. Or local newspapers. And the low long distance rates now mean you'll be getting calls from all over the USA and even as far away as Columbia. I almost suspect it's yet another list the government puts you on and trades with other countries, somehow fulfilling our commitment to NAFTA.
I stopped answering the phone after a particularly inept call from the Calgary Herald. The girl began:
"Mrs. Lovejoyce, we'd like to offer you...."
I interrupted - "There is no Mrs. Lovejoyce at this residence."
She continues - "...great promotion, a free week of the paper of your choice...."
I repeat myself - "There is no Mrs. Lovejoyce at this residence....".
She doesn't hear me and keeps babbling. I hate to be rude but I interrupt yet again: "I'm sorry, you must have a wrong number, there is no Mrs. Lovejoyce at this residence.". Now there is no way anyone could mistake my voice for that of a woman. Any woman. And maybe there was a break in her script or something because this time she seemed to hear me. There's a pause while she regroups and begins again:
"Well, Mr. Zelinski, there's no reason you can't take advantage of this excellent promotion...."
I hung up.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Rants
- Hits: 2287
As of late there has been a great deal of talk of spending our way out of the recession. Principally it's politicians and fringe economists who advise this. Realizing that the average household doesn't have money to spend (the current debtload of the average American household, not including mortgage, is somewhere around $20, 000) the US government provided a bailout package to the banks, $350 Billion dollars (already issued) with another $350 Billion to follow - a sort of economic stimulis. In theory the banks lend this money, consumers borrow it to spend, the recession is over...
Canada has implimented a similar strategy, shoring up the banks and lowering interest rates. Odd that the lowering of the interest rate is not yet reflected anywhere in the commercial banks lending rates, but that's a different posting.
In theory, while enormously short-sighted, this will in some small measure work. More people spending money means more jobs. So far, so good. But there are some deeply flawed inherit propositions in this.
The first flaw is placing the onus on consumers to free themselves from the recession by spending borrowed money.
Bear in mind that the current recession was, at least symbolically, caused by the collapse of Lehmans, AIG and others in the US. Now had these banks been allowed to simply collapse - go under - most Americans would have lost absolutely nothing. A few Americans might have each lost a few hundred to a few thousand dollars or so - bearing in mind that most Americans have debt, not savings. And a very few - very very few - would have lost fortunes that totalled the vast bulk of the losses.
Now I would argue that an "Average Joe" - your thrify saver, retired pensioner, etc - who loses say $5, 000 in savings is far worse off than you're multi millionaire/billionaire who loses a few million. The difference is one of basic needs. The "Average Joe" is now possibly without the means to feed him or herself, the millionaire/billionaire is now short a few digit on his investment statement. In terms of lifestyle, the "Average Joe" is hit hard, the millionaire not at all.
Note that millionaires/billionaires aren't big spenders. Their basic needs - food, shelter, healthcare - are the same as everone elses. And the fact that they have built up these monumental reserves of investment capital within banks is proof that their money isn't contributing to the economy in the same manner as everyone elses.
There is an old rule - the 90% - 10% rule - that states that, in the US, North America, 10% of the people control (own) 90% of the resources. The other 90% percent of the people control (own) the remaining 10%. Give or take a few percent (the ratio is actually growing more dramatic, not less) this is true. Now then, with this in mind, why would you charge the 90% of the population that only has 10% of the resources with the enormous task of "saving" the economy?
Herin lies the irony. If 90% of the population increased spending by 100% - doubled - over the course of a year, the economy would be robust and booming. Why then is it not charged to the wealthy? The 10% of the population who were rich would only have to spend 10% of their reserves to achieve the same effect. And no one has suggested that consumer spending needs to double, in fact the rate would be far, far lower.
The second flaw is allowing these Monumental reserves of cash to be built up and held in private hands
The Wall Street bailout was entirely done to protect the assets of the very, very rich. As stated earlier, few Americans would have noticed anything. The bailout - $700 Billion dollars of taxpayer's money - ensured that every American felt something (700 Billion divided by 350 Million people = $2000 per man, woman and child in the US - not counting governmental service and administrative fees. And if the money was borrowed interest.).
Money held in banks is dead. Money not in circulation, simply "Garnering Interest" or other returns, in no way contributes to an economy. Banks of course would disagree, money held in reserve allows them to create further money, but this is imaginary wealth without any real-world correlation. Imaginary Wealth works very well in an Imaginary Economy, but sooner or later this will have to end. You can only play this game for so long, as the economic downturn has shown.
Money that is real and spent, however, drives the economy. By real money I refer to that cash earned by the tangible exchange of good and services. Addressing the issue of keeping it in circulation, however, is a big one, and requires a complete rewrite of the current economic system.
Finally
Despite the dire economic forecasts in North America we're in the enviable position of producing all the food - locally - that we need to survive. If you live in the US you're even luckier, you have California and Florida, where a hospitable climate will grow almost anything you could want to eat. The "recession" should by no means imply that we will be going hungry or missing the necessities of life. Yes, that imported car or HD TV might have to wait until foreign nations feel we can be trusted. But that's a good thing. It teaches independance.
Meanwhile we should be looking at sustainable economic alternatives. We should realize we are wealthy - wealthy beyond our wildest dreams - and look at implementing processes to recover some of that wealth. How can we do this?
- Work ourselves out of a job. Build quality products that are meant to last - ensuring we consume only when necessary
- Consume less. Less gas for our cars, less processed foods, by investing in energy efficient housing and public transport.
- Recycle. Reclaim lands lost to industrialization. Invest in technology that will help us to recover toxic soils and waterways. In this alone there is an economic boom that should busy us for the next 50 years.
- Educate ourselves. We don't need more junk. We need to make junk that lasts. We need to realize that a new working economy will be one primarily based on services, not consumption and manufacture.
- Implement processes to ensure wealth doesn't pool or remain stagnant (as in Banks or Private Hands). Do not confuse this with communism. Rather, think of it as an appreciation that we are only holding our resources "In Trust" for future generations.
Practical Ideas:
- Locally printed currency: http://calgarydollars.ca/ - Money that can't be banked or used to create interest is real money. Real money drives the economy. Local money stays local.
To Conclude:
In every crisis there's opportunity. In this economic downturn perhaps we can reappraise our values and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again. The first step is not to shore up the banks and insulate them against their imagined losses. They may have been a good idea once, but their time has come and gone. We need to get real.