Real Deal Economics

An expert poll and income inequality

2012-02-18T18:58:00.010+01:00

Here are some polls of "expert economists" from top institutions (Berkeley, MIT, Harvard, etc.). The response on inequality is intriguing: most of the experts think that rising U.S. income inequality is due to technological change favouring workers with certain skill sets.

This may be true, but it hides an even more fundamental story: given current institutional arrangements (i.e. the wealthy control the money to fund innovation), technological change is driven by elites. For example, the internet was initially funded and proliferated by the U.S. military and CIA for destructive purposes. Thus technological change may benefit elites at the expense of everyday citizens.

This ties into how technological change functions in capitalist democracies: the government initially invests in a project, and if the project is successful, corporations lead the distribution. In other words, the public takes the risk while corporations reap the profits. The internet, airplanes, and lasers illustrate this model of technological development.

Inequality may indeed be driven by "different sets of skills," as the experts claim, but it is worth delving into class and sociological analysis in order to understand the root drivers of inequality.

Economic growth and human rights

2012-02-13T01:12:00.017+01:00

NYU professor Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's excellent 2005 Foreign Affairs article summarises the evidence on the link between economic development and political freedom. Here is an excerpt:

Until quite recently, conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably - and fairly quickly - to democracy... Recent history, however, has complicated matters. As events now suggest, the link between economic development and democracy is actually quite weak and may be getting weaker... This is a truth that has largely been ignored by both development agencies and the Bush administration.

This is because dictators love economic growth; it leads to higher tax revenue. However, this causes envious competitors to covet the dictator's newfound wealth. By suppressing political freedoms, the dictator successfully dissuades his competition without harming the economy. That is why China has a thriving economy with a dismal human rights record.

By the way, I am currently reading de Mesquita's work The Dictator's Handbook. It is rather entertaining so far; expect a review soon!

World Bank adjustments and human rights

2012-02-11T22:59:00.002+01:00

Abouharb and Cingranelli (2006) confirm with statistics what many have known for a while: World Bank structural adjustment programs lead to a worsening of human rights. Yet another blow to the Washington Consensus!

The economics of orgasms

2012-02-06T01:52:00.002+01:00

Hugo M. Mialon has a paper, "The Economics of Faking Ecstasy," that is a rather enjoyable read.

Abu Ghraib cases not isolated

2012-01-06T21:51:00.009+01:00

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal served its purpose the same way My Lai did during the Vietnam War: to demonstrate, to the American public, that the mainstream media challenges authority in pursuing the truth. However, this is a half-truth at best: just like My Lai, Abu Ghraib was not an isolated incident.

The mainstream U.S. media acts as an arm of the United States government, giving the illusion of diversity while concealing actual uniformity. Disagreement is permitted, of course, but only within narrow confines. It is no surprise, then, that the American public is kept in the dark about its country's gravest offences.

I doubt the American public cares, at this point. The media today is not targeted towards the general public, but instead towards college-educated elites. Getting informed about worldwide events, and organising around them, poses a collective action problem: the cost of acquiring the truth is exorbitantly high, and organising is unlikely to succeed given corporate and state interference in the process.

People therefore choose to stay in the dark, and I do not blame them.

Environment versus economic growth: a false dichotomy

2012-01-06T07:40:00.015+01:00

Economics is best served when it allies itself with society's marginalised groups, including the poor and oppressed. My previous blog posts point towards my left-wing politics and skepticism of authority. Nonetheless, hard evidence and solid theory condition my economic views, in spite of my professed biases.

That is why I disagree with left-wingers like Richard Heinberg, who claim that economic growth is always hazardous to the environment. Heinberg makes astute observations about peak oil, but when it comes to some of his other assertions, it is difficult to take him seriously. The idea that economic growth and environmental prosperity are necessarily contradictory is a fairy tale.

Economic growth is not resource-dependent. A finite amount of input (land, labour, capital, etc.) into production can lead to an infinite long-run growth path. This is because growth is contingent on productivity, not just factors of production. And productivity growth can come from green technology.

Heinberg's proposal, zero economic growth and a move towards green technology, leads to poverty and joblessness. Green technology causes growth because it raises efficiency. To counter that growth effect, and have 0% growth overall, people would have to be laid off and unemployment would rise drastically. In Lester Thurow's words, this is like using a nuclear bomb to swat a fly.

We could, of course, return to a pre-industrial tribal society, but I know of very few environmentalists who advocate such an extreme prescription.

Sustainable green technology is needed, and so politics should be the focus. Politicians are aligned with business interests, and therefore uninterested in alternative energy (wind, solar, etc.). Yet in order to grow sustainably, we require such energy sources - the private sector won't provide them, so the government needs to. Massive investments are required, but the political will is nonexistent among self-interested political actors.

This is the problem, and the solution is difficult to determine. Time is better spent on constructive solutions, rather than on desultory attacks on economic growth.

Who influences U.S. foreign policy?

2012-01-03T00:33:00.003+01:00

In a 2005 American Political Science Review paper, Jacobs and Page find that U.S. foreign policy is influenced most heavily by "internationally oriented business leaders," followed by experts (who are themselves influenced by business interests). Public opinion does not influence foreign policy, besides a marginal effect on the House of Representatives. The influence of labour is weak at best.

Given Founding Father James Madison's proclamation that the Constitution should "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," this is not surprising. Democracy in America takes a back seat to the whims of multinational corporations, the "moneyed interests" as it were.

An irrelevant cartoon

2012-01-01T02:11:00.004+01:00

Click for a larger version:

2011: Year of the Dissident

2011-12-31T22:04:00.007+01:00

As New Year's Day approaches, I can't help but reflect on, umm, new things, and old things... and such.

Oh, who am I kidding? New Year's is just another day in our long, uneventful, insignificant lives - except people will have massive hangovers and won't be working (which, to be fair, is not uncommon in Saskatchewan). I also hear that the world is coming to an end soon, which is all the more reason to party!

You might say that I am an optimistic pessimist.

The world may actually end, in a way. Time deemed 2011 "The Year of the Protester," though it is more aptly titled "Year of the Dissident." The protest events witnessed over the past year - the Arab Spring, Chile's Winter of Discontent, Occupy Wall Street, and others - do not merely seek to draw attention to a problem, or to necessarily work within the system for change. Rather, there is a tendency towards radical overhaul of the system, challenging established doctrines, policies, and institutional structures.

And all of this has been accomplished largely without violence. If these dissidents - these "radicals" as some have derogatorily called them - are successful, then 2012 will indeed usher in a new world, one free from the tyrannies of war, inequity, and environmental degradation. We will have been successful in diminishing the power of illegitimate authority.

That, then, is my hope for the New Year.

"J. Edgar" movie review

2011-12-30T21:57:00.017+01:00

Given the dynamic team of DiCaprio, Eastwood, and Oscar-winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black, J. Edgar promised to be an insightful look into the life of the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is so much material to work with here, including the First Red Scare, McCarthyism, and the civil rights era. Only an idiot could completely screw this up.

How wrong I was! The movie attempts to humanise and vindicate an individual who was delusional, self-seeking and power-hungry. The real J. Edgar Hoover was nothing at all like the Hoover of the movie, and it surprised me that libertarian director Clint Eastwood attempted to elevate him to the status of all-American hero.

The film's claim that Hoover transformed the Bureau into the scientific, independent crime-fighting body it is today is ridiculous. Forensic technology was improving all over the world, and it was inevitable that the United States would eventually catch up with the Brits, who had pioneered fingerprinting technology. Furthermore, Hoover himself never made a single arrest in his life (which, to its credit, the film discusses).

Indeed Hoover often put the nation in danger as he misdirected resources from crime-fighting to First Amendment bashing. In 1956 he initiated the illegal COINTELPRO program, which involved wrongful imprisonment and assassination of key political figures, including civil rights leaders, feminists, and anti-war activists. Hoover was also soft on the mafia, and it was only under Attorney General Robert Kennedy's gutsy leadership that organised crime convictions increased 800 percent.

From a technical standpoint, J. Edgar is mixed. The screenplay is disjointed and delves too deeply into Hoover's boring personal life. The editing is clumsy and poorly-timed. The cinematography is nothing to write home about, but the art direction and costume design are exquisite.

Yet eye candy cannot save an otherwise horrible movie. I would have liked to have seen more of Hoover's battle with the civil rights movement, especially after Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination. The FBI's struggle against charismatic radicals like Emma Goldman could have also been explored in depth.

I realise the screenwriter, who wrote Milk, wished to make a statement by portraying J. Edgar Hoover as a closeted (yet chaste) homosexual. This does not work for two reasons. Firstly, I have no idea what kind of statement was made, or how it related to the film. Secondly, I fail to see how Hoover's repressed homosexual desires drove him to do what he did. The difference in Milk is that Harvey Milk was driven to become a political activist precisely because homosexuality was so personal to him. No such connection can be made in J. Edgar - and anyway, does the gay rights movement really want to put such an evil man on a pedestal?

Avoid this film at all costs. I give J. Edgar a rating of 100 - because no one under that age should view it. You're better off staying at home and having a Justin Bieber music video marathon.

Are people rational?

2011-12-29T21:57:00.022+01:00

Economists get a lot of heat for assuming rationality in their models. The naysayers claim that people do not act rationally, and that even if they did, rationality does not explain how preferences, institutions, etc. are formed. I would like to dispel some of these myths surrounding economic theory.

First of all, rationality in this context does not mean self-interest, reason, or even sanity. Rather, rationality has the strict definition of agents - or groups in the case of cooperative games - maximising payoffs subject to constraints. This definition can include concepts like "fairness" (Rabin, 1993), cooperation (Shapley, 1953), or even addiction (Becker, 1988). Rationality can be used to model almost any kind of behaviour.

There are, naturally, observed departures from standard economic predictions. For instance, smokers continue to smoke even though they would rather quit, which appears to contradict rationality - until the behavioural economics concept of hyperbolic discounting is included in modelling. Indeed behavioural economics, which is often cast antagonistically to the neoclassical paradigm, seeks only to build upon and generalise the standard framework, not destroy it. Kahneman and Tversky's "prospect theory" is, after all, merely an ingenious extension of standard utility theory.

The mathematical models themselves may appear overly simple, but that is precisely what a scientific model intends to do: abstract from reality. No true scientist claims that theoretical models are perfect depictions of the world, but models do clarify ideas. The beauty of mathematics is that one's argument becomes crystal clear. A literary argument, while useful, is prone to ambiguity and error.

Finally, the development of preferences, institutions, and cultures can be explained via evolutionary game theory and agent-based modelling. Here instead of strategies, players have strategy sets ("types") that are inherited. And instead of standard Nash equilibrium, Evolutionarily Stable Equilibrium is defined to be a strategy that the population uses, which cannot be invaded by mutant types. Games are repeated for a large number of periods, and evolutionary patterns are studied. This approach neatly explains the development of political institutions, civil society, markets, etc., without the need to forego mathematical clarity.

Economic modelling, of course, has important limitations, including the fact that predictions tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative (unlike the natural sciences). However, critics should know their subject well before undertaking critique. The reason techniques and concepts like game theory, choice theory, and welfare economics have become so widely-adopted in the social sciences is precisely because of their flexibility of use. This is a burgeoning field, so social scientists had better get on board.

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-25T03:03:00.003+01:00

Merry Christmas!

I, like most people, have mixed feelings about the holiday. I enjoy spending time with loved ones, but of course detest the rampant materialism. Furthermore, why should we have a single day in the year to celebrate love, generosity, and peace on earth? Should we not do that every day?

Superpower interventions and democracy

2011-12-24T22:22:00.007+01:00

Yet another fascinating paper by Berger et al.: "Superpower interventions and their consequences for democracy: an empirical inquiry". The paper argues that both CIA and KGB interventions led to significant declines in democracy;

US and Soviet interventions have equally detrimental effects on the subsequent level of democracy; both decrease democracy by about 33%. Our findings thus suggest that one should not expect significant differences in the adverse institutional consequences of superpower interventions based on whether the intervening superpower is a democracy or a dictatorship.

The authors use two measures of democracy most widely used in political science: REG, a dummy variable equal to 1 if the regime is authoritarian; and Polity's continuous measure from -10 to 10 (increasing with greater democracy).

If this result is correct, then it douses the flames of neoconservatives, who claim that America's foreign interventions create democracy abroad.

The CIA and American trade

2011-12-24T21:34:00.003+01:00

First of all, Merry Christmas!

Second of all, check out "Commerical Imperialism? Political Influence and Trade During the Cold War" by Berger et al. which argues that Cold War CIA interventions led to a larger foreign market for American goods. This, again, is evidence that the United States operates under state capitalism and not the mythic free market.

TARP payouts and lobbying

2011-12-22T08:20:00.006+01:00

According to economists Duggan and Deckert (2010), Blau et al. (2011), Duchin and Sosyura (2010), and Igan et al. (2011), firms that lobbied Congress were more likely to receive Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds. In other words, TARP funds' (bailouts) distribution depended on firms' willingness to corrupt the political process for profit.

Again, evidence of state capitalism.

This is also evidence that TARP was poorly designed and implemented. An appropriate auction mechanism is required to deal with toxic assets, not an ad hoc response.

The CIA's effect on corporations

2011-12-21T08:02:00.004+01:00

Dube et al. published a paper in the August 2011 Quarterly Journal of Economics, arguing that CIA-backed coups increased multinational corporations' asset values. As the authors state in the abstract,

The average cumulative abnormal return to a coup authorization was 9% over 4 days for a fully nationalized company, rising to more than 13% over 16 days. Precoup authorizations accounted for a larger share of stock price increases than the actual coup events themselves.

This is just further evidence that the United States operates under state capitalism.

Bailouts and political connections

2011-12-21T07:41:00.005+01:00

Faccio et al. analysed a panel of 450 companies in 35 countries during 1997-2002. They found that politically well-connected firms were significantly more likely to receive government bailouts.

That is what I call economics to the rescue!

UC Berkeley's fascist chancellor

2011-11-20T19:51:00.005+01:00

On November 9th, UC Berkeley students attempted to set up an encampment to support the "Occupy Cal" movement. The tents were forcibly removed by police, who used violence against protesters.

This is what Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau had to say about the incident:

It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers’ efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.

Birgeneau fails to understand that civil disobedience means what it says: refusal to obey government laws and dictates. Furthermore, how is "linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents" in any way violent?

By Birgeneau's twisted logic, we should deprecate Gandhi for his nonviolent struggle against the British:

Leaked lobbyist memo: undermine Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-20T03:23:00.003+01:00

MSNBC recently obtained a leaked memo from lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford (CLGC), which reveals a plan to construct "negative narratives" about the Occupy Wall Street protest.

The masses bite the Big Apple

2011-11-16T17:28:00.009+01:00

I apologize for not posting in over a month. To make it up to you, here is an article I wrote that will be published in The Oxonian Globalist's next issue.

Bleeding Hearts of Liberty

The Occupy movement, an ostensibly worthy crusade, knows its enemy very well, but does not know how to defeat it.

Acclaimed historian Howard Zinn once boldly proclaimed that “democracy doesn’t come from the top, it comes from the bottom.” Indeed every generation has struggled ceaselessly against the overwhelming tides of illegitimate authority. From the Hebrews fleeing slavery in Egypt, to women demanding suffrage in recent times, common goals of freedom and democracy have been hard won.

The torch of liberty has been passed to the present generation, and the clash of the powerless with the powerful has manifested in the form of the Occupy movement. This strange phenomenon has been misunderstood and misanalysed by a hostile and condescending corporate media on the one hand, and overly optimistic leftist intellectuals on the other. The fact is that the Occupy protesters know what they are protesting, but are nonetheless unable to articulate a cogent alternative.

Their fight is against an international menace that has permeated our societies, breaking apart families, destroying the working class, and poisoning the environment: institutionalized economic injustice. Corrupt organizations, mostly corporations and governments, have tainted the democratic process with lobbying, profligate bailouts, and foreign wars that only serve wealthy overlords in their undying quest for power – at the expense of human life.

This link between the business class and the state is not new. An implicit understanding between business and political interests built the U.S. economy itself. Founding Father Alexander Hamilton implemented a system of tariffs and subsidies to aid American manufacturing. The U.S. military massacred Native Americans to clear the land for railway tycoons. And the original U.S. Constitution condoned slavery, much to the delight of Southern cotton farmers.

In this sense, the Occupy movement is long overdue. The richest 1% of Americans now control 40% of the wealth. Over the past thirty years real wages have stagnated while top incomes have risen, as the rich steadily steal productivity gains from the working class. The United States’ income inequality now parallels that of totalitarian Iran and oligarchic Russia. A few miles from the White House, one can find Washington D.C.’s most deprived districts, while in St. Petersburg, the penurious live in the shadows of the prosperous; there are no in-betweens. Is it any wonder then that the rage simmering beneath the surface has now exploded into a cacophony of sound and fury?

This is perhaps why, to shallow observers, the Occupy movement appears inchoate in its aims. A walk through Occupy London, for instance, reveals a potpourri of causes: socialism and anarchism, environmentalism, pacifism, animal rights. There appears no semblance of commonality. Regardless, a careful observer realizes that economic injustice underlies many of these societal ills. After all, we live in democracies in which the affluent have more political power than the impoverished, where the former maniacally twist the instruments of dominance towards their own devilish designs against the latter.

That, then, is the problem. The solution is much more difficult to articulate. Some occupiers endorse greater government largesse, others demand an end to bailouts, and still others seek to abolish the state altogether. Cries for “socialism” occasionally ring out among the troubled masses, but there is no agreement over how to break the cabal that bankers and politicians have established.

The Occupy protesters would rejoin by drawing attention to their particular brand of direct democracy, the general assemblies, whereby key decisions are discussed – anyone is theoretically allowed to speak – and then put to a vote. This experiment in consensus decision-making is just that: an experiment that is unlikely to be adopted by society-at-large. Besides, it is not even that democratic; assembly facilitators can steer conversations as they please.

Is there any truth then to the media’s caricature of protesters as dimwitted ideologues keen on marijuana and two-cent philosophy? Perhaps, but at least occupiers have, finally, engaged the public in dialogue about the intrinsic links between state and corporate avarice. The first step towards recovery is identifying the problem.

But now we must focus on recovery itself. Socialism is probably not the answer; the class war has already been fought and won, by the capitalists. We can only seek to make the current system more fair and equitable. Some elements of the Occupy movement have already made broadly reasonable demands; an end to corporate welfare programs and a halt to hazardous public sector cuts, for instance. They can also demand better financial regulation, tighter limits on corporate lobbying, and a return to the Bretton Woods international monetary system. In short, let us restore the financial system to its original purpose of lubricating the economy, not destroying it.

Still, the light of liberty flickers on from Cairo to New York...

Embarrassing picture of the week: 10/10/11

2011-10-10T19:24:00.004+02:00

In 1982, Reagan welcomed Indonesian President Suharto - who massacred 100,000 East Timorese in an elegantly conducted genocide - to the White House, and praised the dictator for his economic policies.

They look like such good pals!

Anti-war, Trafalgar Square

2011-10-09T00:11:00.015+02:00

Yesterday I attended the Stop the War Coalition's Anti-war Mass Assembly at Trafalgar Square with two friends. The weather was typically British: gloomy clouds emitting intermittent drizzles - fitting, I daresay, for a peace demonstration.

I entered Trafalgar Square, and was immediately harassed by a young Canadian man carrying a dark green flag. My friend asked him, "I noticed you're flying Gaddafi's flag - do you support him?" The Canadian, who later told us he is from Charlottetown, simply answered, "I do." This shocked us tremendously, for who would support a dictator known for his infamous torture chambers and suppression of human rights? We pressed the pro-Gaddafi fellow further, and he replied "Gaddafi is fighting NATO, and NATO is my enemy."

NATO is, without a doubt, an imperialist organization, but the doctrine "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is likewise dangerous. Both Gaddafi and NATO are, after all, creatures of violence.

Thinking the Charlottetonian was in a minority of one, I looked at him square in the eyes and said "Well, you have the right to free speech, but I just don't agree with you." He tramped away, a cruel grin on his face.

Yet he was not alone in his beliefs. As we walked deeper into the square, more green flags caught our attention. When I asked one of those protesters, a Communist Party member, about the irony of Gaddafi support at an anti-war rally, he proclaimed, in true totalitarian fashion, that only violence engenders progress in human history. I reminded him that Mussolini had said the exact same thing, and then asked for his thoughts on Gandhi's nonviolent struggle. He replied, "Gandhi did nothing for India."

The day went by, with stirring speeches from Tony Benn, Bruce Kent, and Julian Assange. At 4PM, we began the march to Downing Street. I was embarrassed and infuriated to be marching alongside Gaddafi supporters, most of whom were white and had probably never even stepped foot inside an Arab dictatorship. I was dying a little on the inside.

However, as we approached Number 10, my spirits were lifted. A small yet vocal group of Arab protesters was gathered outside, chanting "Free free Syria, down down Assad! Free free Yemen, down down Saleh! Free free Libya, down down Gaddafi!" These protesters, clearly, knew what they were protesting against: their friends and relatives have no doubt suffered under oppressive regimes.

I attended the Stop the War protest because I oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Somalia. I came away feeling considerable shame about the minority of anti-war protesters who choose to support lesser evils, instead of opposing evil altogether. Overall, however, I came away with hope; if the Arab Spring can overthrow dictators and tyrants in the Middle East, perhaps we can overthrow our oppressors in the West and institute a more democratic and equitable system of governance, free from the Obamas, Gaddafis, and Goldman Sachs's of the world.

700 Wall Street protesters arrested

2011-10-02T06:41:00.004+02:00

Yet another blow to democracy, as hundreds of Wall Street protesters were arrested on Saturday. These protesters were peacefully walking across Brooklyn Bridge, when police descended upon them and made mass arrests.

Not only is this a violation of the First Amendment, but this is also a huge waste of police resources. I guess the NYPD was bored because, you know, New York is one of the safest cities in the world!

A war poem

2011-09-28T08:09:00.003+02:00

This poem was written by Siegfried Sassoon, who fought in World War I:

SUICIDE IN THE TRENCHES

I knew a simple soldier boy
Who grinned at life in empty joy,
Slept soundly through the lonesome dark,
And whistled early with the lark.
In winter trenches, cowed and glum,
With crumps and lice and lack of rum,
He put a bullet through his brain.
No one spoke of him again.

You smug-faced crowds with kindling eye
Who cheer when soldier lads march by,
Sneak home and pray you'll never know
The hell where youth and laughter go.

Embarrassing picture of the week: 27/09/11

2011-09-28T02:36:00.011+02:00

Here's Obama bowing before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is a country with an utterly abysmal human rights record, where women are treated like sex dolls. The Saudi royal family is also alleged to be involved in human trafficking. The nation is basically a rotten dictatorship that the United States buys oil from.

Let us abolish marriage

2011-09-25T21:41:00.011+02:00

The topic of gay marriage engenders sound and fury in debate. Social conservatives castigate it as a degradation of moral values. The left counters, claiming that marriage is a right that anyone in love should possess. Both views are severely misguided; human moral behaviour has never been exemplary, and romantic love is an overplayed emotion. A more dispassionate position is that state-sanctioned marriage, in general, should be abolished.

I sympathize with the left to some extent. By forbidding anyone, besides heterosexual couples, from being legally wed, the state raises the traditional family unit to a pedestal, implying that nonorthodox unions are inferior. Yet the solution to this conundrum is not to legalize gay marriage, but rather to remove the government from marriage altogether. In other words, do not allow the state to recognize any marriage as legitimate, for otherwise sexual inequities would be exonerated.

This does not mean that marriages should be banned. Rather, let marriages continue openly, but without government involvement. Let churches, synagogues, and casinos continue to wed young fools in love.

For what is marriage today besides a legal contract that confers property rights among two people? This should not be the reason to get married - it should not even count as a reason. The state has no business in matters of "love", and marriages should, ostensibly, be founded on mutual respect and admiration, not on tax benefits and prenuptial agreements. We can continue to marry people, but let us keep the state out of our bedrooms, and out of our lives.

Harper opposes peace

2011-09-23T20:28:00.006+02:00

Disappointing news plopped on my breakfast table a few days ago: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper opposes Palestine's United Nations statehood bid. The bid would recognize Palestine as an independent nation in the UN, a gesture that Israel, the United States, and now Canada are against. Instead of UN deliberation, Harper suggests that Israelis and Palestinians resume two-way talks, which up till now have done nothing but create tension.

Although Palestinian terrorism pales in comparison to Israel's state terrorism, Israel nonetheless has legitimate concerns about a free Palestine. One of those concerns is Hezbollah's extremist actions. A two-state solution will of course not eradicate violence, but it will mitigate it. Even right-wing pundits like Alan Dershowitz recognize this. Palestinian terrorists gain mass support by appealing to the fact that Israel is oppressing Palestinians. If that oppression is lifted, then the terrorists lose their popular ammo.

Unfortunately, Harper, Obama and Netanyahu are listening to religious fanatics like West Bank settlers, and to the far-right panderings of people like Henry Kissinger. Perhaps if leaders instead listened to the voices of reason and morality - usually the voices of The People - the world would not be as screwed up as it is now.

Wall Street protest - huzzah!

2011-09-20T21:57:00.006+02:00

This has been a long time coming, but it is better late than never: thousands of protesters are on Wall Street, united against corporate welfare and bailouts. I hope that their demands are satisfied. It is events like these that restore my faith in the American people.

The protest appears to be having an effect. New York police are already using extra-legal tactics to harass peaceful demonstrators.

Embarrassing picture of the week: 20/09/11

2011-09-20T21:32:00.005+02:00

In 1983, Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein. At the time, the United States was supporting the Iraqi dictator in his fight against Iran. Economic aid, weapons, intelligence, and Special Operations training were all provided to Iraq, courtesy of the Pentagon.

How awkward it must have been to flip that policy around a decade later, when Hussein became a burden to U.S. ambitions abroad.

Embarrassing picture of the week: 14/09/11

2011-09-14T05:17:00.003+02:00

Here's George W. Bush with former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak:

Wait a minute, are they holding hands? How cute! Perhaps they're on their way to discuss world domination over a candlelit dinner.

The brutality of the pencil

2011-09-09T17:28:00.018+02:00

Milton Friedman's book Free to Choose came out in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected President. I read it about two years ago. Friedman is a gifted writer who makes cogent arguments in favour of free-market capitalism. However, like all right-leaning libertarians, Friedman's philosophy is overly simplistic, and does not account for the barbaric power structures that enforce capitalism's cruel hegemony.

Consider his prosaic analogy of the pencil, used to illustrate the magic of the market system:

As Friedman says, no single individual makes a pencil; coordinated market activities, from the mines of Latin America to the mills of South Korea, combine to create such products. Herein lies capitalism's brilliance: its efficiency in bringing millions of people together, through voluntary contracts, to buy and sell.

Yet Friedman's analogy is incomplete. He speculates that the pencil's wood is extracted from Washington forests, but he does not speak of deforestation's countless ills, or the forced removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans from their homelands in order to clear the forests for white settlers. Although Friedman briefly mentions South American graphite, he fails to mention the CIA's violent interventions in Latin American democracies on behalf of U.S. corporate interests. Finally, he correctly states that the rubber tree is not native to Malaya, but that it was imported from South America thanks to the British colonial government - a government that ruthlessly oppressed the Malayan people, culminating in events like the Batang Kali Massacre.

The "free market" is not free. It requires the collusion of government and business interests in the application of direct force against workers, indigenous peoples, and grassroots political movements. It has crushed families, destroyed communities, and wrecked individual dignity. The pencil Milton Friedman holds in his wrinkly hands was carved with sweat, blood, and pus. It is not a miracle. It is a curse, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can begin to create a society free from the abuses of state and corporate tyranny.

ECON 101: Rent controls

2011-09-08T20:02:00.024+02:00

My younger brother, bless him, is taking introductory microeconomics this autumn. In preparation for his class, I went over some basic theory with him. One of the items we discussed was rent controls. Traditional economic theory predicts that rent controls are harmful and inefficient - which is true, given capitalism's predatory nature. However, as often happens when one returns to the basics, my mind was opened to alternate possibilities.

Textbooks claim that rent controls reduce the quantity of rental housing available, making society worse off. The diagram above, familiar to those who have taken introductory microeconomics, shows the market for rental property (click on diagram for a bigger version). The equilibrium rent is p*, and the equilibrium quantity of rental property is q*. At equilibrium, consumer (tenant) surplus is area A+C and producer (landlord) surplus is area B+D+E, so total surplus is A+B+C+D+E.

The rent control reduces the price to p_r. At this lower price, landlords do not want to supply as much rental property, so quantity reduces to q_r. Thus, with rent controls, consumer surplus is A+B, producer surplus is E, and so total surplus is A+B+E, which is less than what it would have been under a free market. "Deadweight loss" from rent controls is triangle C+D.

However, the above analysis is static, and does not account for off-equilibrium behaviour or information asymmetries. For example, standard theory implies that if rental price increases beyond equilibrium, then market forces will push price back down to equilibrium. Yet it is equally rational for landlords and tenants to interpret the price increase as a signal that rents will further rise in the future. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: landlords hoard housing in hopes that rents will rise, while tenants demand more housing to prevent having to pay higher prices in the future. This, in turn, increases rents even further, and leads to a housing bubble. In such a situation, rent controls may be desirable, though not necessarily as a first-best solution.

Furthermore, we have to ask: does society care more about efficiency or equity? The standard textbook analysis prioritizes efficiency without discussing equity concerns. What if, for instance, we live in a semi-feudal society in which landlords are wealthy industrialists and tenants are poor labourers? Refer to the above diagram again, and notice that although rent controls decrease total surplus, they may indeed increase consumer surplus, provided area A+B is larger than area A+C. In other words, although tenants have less housing available, they can benefit overall from lower rents.

Please do not misinterpret this as evidence that I support rent controls. I do not. The capitalist system does not allow for goodhearted policies like rent controls to function well. Nonetheless we do a disservice to our students whenever we castigate rent controls as unequivocally deleterious.

Pipeline to Hell

2011-09-07T21:55:00.019+02:00

How would you feel if an oil pipeline ran through your only source of drinking water? Heck, how would you feel if it ran through your province, your town, your home? Furthermore, what if you had never given your informed consent for this pipeline to be built?

That is probably how those protesting the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta's tar sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast feel. To turn sentiment around, the oil industry has unethically exploited the dismal economic situation. According to Calgary-based TransCanada Corp, in charge of Keystone, the pipeline will create about 20,000 American jobs. This is based on a report by the Perryman Group, a consulting firm TransCanada hired to crunch numbers. However, a U.S. State Department analysis provides vastly different estimates, highlighting the dubious and potentially inefficient nature of Keystone as a job-creating device.

The Perryman study uses dynamic input-output analysis to reach its projections. The input-output model is a useful method, but nonetheless lacks robustness and often fails to account for externalities, like the costs of pollution. Furthermore, the Perryman study fails to adequately ponder a fundamental economic question: what are the alternatives? What if, instead of the Keystone XL pipeline, the U.S. government had invested in clean energy jobs, as President Obama promised in 2009? This is at the core of economics - opportunity cost - and the Perryman study does not highlight it. That is to be expected, given what Chevron CEO John Watson recently said about government subsidies and environmental regulation.

Regardless of the economics, the Keystone XL pipeline is not democratic. I cannot recall any referendums being conducted in Nebraska, Texas, or Alberta seeking permission for this project to go through. That of course makes sense; if such referendums were to be undertaken, TransCanada knows it would be defeated. The People put their own interests above those of remorseless multinationals. Such concerns should be reflected in policymaking, but rarely ever are.

The land of the free indeed.

Will Wilkinson, my apologies

2011-09-07T01:31:00.018+02:00

I was harsh on libertarian writer Will Wilkinson in an earlier post, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt after reading this eloquent piece. The article, about U.S. Presidential hopeful Ron Paul, forcefully criticizes contemporary right-leaning libertarianism.

I disagree with right-of-centre libertarians over the desirability of capitalism, and I still find Wilkinson's near-admonishment of African malaria treatments disgusting. However, I do agree with rightist libertarians on a wide range of issues: gay rights, foreign policy, immigration, the drug wars, etc. Indeed there may be more in common between myself, and right-leaning libertarians like Wilkinson.

This paragraph in particular caught my attention:

Of course, those who suffer most from the absence of adequate public goods are the poor and powerless. So it’s sadly no surprise that this isn't one of those issues that compels Paul to consider the complexities of political practicability. What good are taxes anyway when, as Paul argues, “[t]he only people who benefit are the bureaucrats, and the special interest recipients of government spending programs”? Recipients like poor kids who go to public schools.

Sounds like Wilkinson secretly has a soft heart.

Be wary of Warren Buffett

2011-09-05T19:07:00.013+02:00

Warren Buffett wrote a New York Times op-ed piece about a fortnight ago, demanding that taxes be raised on the affluent. There is much to merit his article, yet we should be wary of his motives.

Where was Buffett's outrage in 2001, when the Bush tax cuts were passed? Where was it in the 1980s, when Reagan drastically reduced taxes on the rich? America's wealthy now realizes that their nation is on a steep declivity towards ruin, and that raising taxes on themselves is a last resort to assuage future economic calamities. They did not demand this before, when they were profiting off the backs of the working class.

Buffett's rhetoric is quintessentially upper-class American. As Howard Zinn writes in A People's History of the United States,

The New Yorker Cadwallader Colden, in his Address to the Freeholders in 1747, attacked the wealthy as tax dodgers unconcerned with the welfare of others (although he himself was wealthy) and spoke for the honesty and dependability of "the midling rank of mankind" in whom citizens could best trust "our liberty & Property." This was to become a critically important rhetorical device for the rule of the few, who would speak to the many of "our" liberty, "our" property, "our" country.

Nothing has changed.

Warren Buffett's words are largely true, and redistribution of wealth is an important priority for a regressive nation like the United States. However, we should not be misled into thinking that Buffett is some kind of sweet humanitarian who cares about the poor.

Embarrassing picture of the week: 05/09/11

2011-09-05T09:47:00.004+02:00

The homoerotic undertones evident in this picture are all too obvious. Clearly, Tony Blair is in love with Muammar Gaddafi. No wonder they met discretely in 2004, in Gaddy's tent, for a romantic tryst.

They're such a cute couple.

Canada murders Salvadoran activists?

2011-09-04T22:35:00.006+02:00

Pacific Rim Mining, a Vancouver-based company, has been thriving in El Salvador. The corporation is allegedly involved in profound environmental degradation, illegal treatment of workers, and collusion with right-wing paramilitary groups. It therefore comes as little surprise that Juan Francisco Durán Ayala, a linguistics student and environmental activist, was shot dead after campaigning in Ilobasco for tougher environmental regulations.

It is difficult to say whether Pacific Rim was involved with the murder. However, the company does operate in an atmosphere of state terror, allowing for indiscriminate profit extraction from El Salvador's rich mineral landscape. This is state capitalism, the most violent and ruthlessly efficient kind there is, and everyone who benefits from it is complicit in its crimes.

It must not be tolerated! Canadians should get mad about this kind of injustice, which is supported by our own mining companies and government. This is not the first time Salvadoran environmental activists opposing Pacific Rim have been slain, and if we don't stand together in opposition to these practices, it won't be the last.

Chess boxing: smart and violent

2011-09-03T23:40:00.007+02:00

So, apparently, there's an actual sport called "Chess Boxing" in which competitors box and play chess in alternating rounds. I always knew those nerdy chess club kids were up to something! Imagine the anger: "You took out my queen? I'll take out your eye!"

This has just made my day.

"Manufacturing Consent" book review

2011-09-02T19:04:00.018+02:00

I would not consider Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent an exciting read. This is an academic text, meticulously researched with painstaking analysis. Chomsky's writing style is dry, and his co-authorship with economist Edward Herman does not appear to have mitigated the book's feeling of density, despite its meagre 307 pages. What rescues this work from tedium, however, is its intellectual probity and interesting content. Those wishing to truly understand how the press function in Western liberal democracies should absorb Herman and Chomsky's model.

For here we are presented with a radical idea: that although the mass media portrays itself as an obstinate seeker of truth and justice, in reality it often confines itself to elite opinion, and rarely strays outside a narrow set of views. The authors posit a "propaganda model" to explain why this is the case. The model itself contains five filters through which news reporting must pass before reaching the public at large: ownership, funding, sourcing, flak, and ideology.

The first, ownership, refers to the fact that news agencies are frequently giant corporations (or subsidiaries thereof) with boards of directors drawn from elite classes: retired state officials, bankers, corporate executives, and lawyers. Funding, the second filter, is how the media makes money: namely, through advertising. Sourcing comes third; profit-driven media avoids costly investigative reporting, and instead "sources" its reporters in high-profile areas like the White House and Pentagon, where prepared PR statements are readily available to be passed on as "news". Flak, the fourth filter, refers to corporations' ability to engender negative reactions to news reporting in the form of lawsuits, think tanks, Bills before Congress, etc. Lastly, ideology is the dominating political religion of the time - "Anti-communism" during the Cold War, and "The War on Terror" today.

These five filters combine to limit the scope and depth of news reporting, and the bulk of the book proves this with case studies. Among the more fascinating examples is the Vietnam War. The traditional story is that the United States intervened to save South Vietnam from Hanoi's communist aggressions. This could not be further from the truth. After the First Indochina War (1946-54), America imposed an unpopular puppet regime in South Vietnam, contravening the 1954 Geneva Accords. Realizing that socialist elements were gaining popular support, the U.S. mobilized to suppress the South Vietnamese population. By 1956, executions and forced dislocations were common, and by 1962 the U.S. had adopted a strategic bombing campaign that left hundreds of thousands dead and wounded. These well-documented facts were never reported by the media, and even when the media came around, after the Tet Offensive, to opposing the war, it was only on the grounds that the "well-intentioned" conflict was becoming too "costly" for the United States. The very reasons for going to war in the first place were never discussed.

Thus the media, rather than questioning power, upholds and exonerates it. Further case studies include Watergate, Jerry Popiełuszko's murder, and Mehmet Ali Ağca's attempted assassination of the Pope. In each case, Herman and Chomsky's application of the propaganda model leaves littles room for doubt; their arguments are clear, logical, and well-cited. Although some parts are tedious to get through, especially the overly repetitive Chapter 3, I found the work overall enjoyable to read.

Despite their sometimes bleak tone, the authors have a delightfully sardonic sense of humour, and conclude the work with a suggestion for positive change: those of us operating outside the mainstream media's deceitful ways should organize community and local alternatives. Already there are notable examples of independent journalism - Democracy Now, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and Z Magazine, among others. Instead of the corporations controlling the press, the public should. As The New Yorker's A.J. Liebling hilariously put it, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

Three cheers for Canadian cancer researchers!

2011-09-01T21:13:00.004+02:00

A recent Nature article by twenty-five health researchers (twelve of whom work at Canadian institutions) shows hope in the fight against cancer. The idea seems quite original, at least to laypeople like me: a virus that only targets cancer cells. The lead researcher, John Bell, is Canadian and works at the University of Ottawa.

Canadian achievements are indeed significant, yet understated. Hopefully this idea leads somewhere.

Corporations pay more to CEOs than they do in taxes

2011-09-01T18:39:00.007+02:00

According to a recent Institute for Policy Studies report, twenty-five of America's largest corporations (including General Electric and Verizon) pay more to their CEOs than they do in taxes! Twenty of those corporations also pay more in lobbying than they do to the Internal Revenue Service.

Is it any wonder, given U.S. tax loopholes and corporate bailouts, that high-end retailers like Tiffany's are experiencing excellent sales?

Superb (and free) documentaries

2011-08-31T23:19:00.007+02:00

Few journalists do their job as well as John Pilger, who courageously asks the really difficult questions. It is hilarious watching him interview a corrupt state official, only to have the interviewee freeze up in an awkward manner. No wonder Pilger has been honoured with a Sydney Peace Prize and a Richard Dimbleby Award.

I recommend his documentaries, most of which are available for free to view online, without advertising. I especially enjoyed The War on Democracy, which chronicles the U.S. government's chilling interference in Latin American politics.

A tirade against my fellow comrades

2011-08-30T19:03:00.011+02:00

A dilemma pervades the modern-day Left: leftists themselves. I am not necessarily referring to the progressives and liberals who accept the ills of capitalism yet wish to assuage them; their hypocrisies are self-evident. No, I speak of those fringe elements, like myself, who are guilty of the inexpiable crime of self-righteous indignation.

Indeed a typical leftist seems incapable of imagining that others would have opposing viewpoints. Granted, this is an issue every ideologue falls prey to, yet it appears particularly pronounced among the Left. Mantras are often chanted in their presence: "Capitalism is bad", "Nuclear energy is evil", and "Global warming skeptics are a joke", among others. It never occurs to them that there are intelligent scholars who disagree, and that a truly open-minded individual seeks and dispassionately considers the other side.

Leftists moreover seem incapable of discerning the inherent contradictions in their own reasoning. I recently attended a community organizing event in Saskatoon. It was rightly pointed out that Saskatchewan's natural resources had contributed to an economic boom, and that immigrants were flooding into the province as a result. The open-minded activists gathered there were so pro-environment that I was subject to some of the most sickeningly subtle xenophobia I have ever witnessed: "If we got rid of the nuclear industry, we wouldn't need 'these people' to come into the province," said one of the attendants. Forget sensible discussion about how the provincial economy could sustainably diversify, thus preventing immigrant unemployment. All that matters to these altruists is that Cameco is destroyed, along with immigrants' hopes and dreams. Sadly, I hear such pronouncements from the Left more often than I would like to.

Indubitably a leftist's mind is coloured with grandiose portrayals of pasture-esque utopias dotted with multicultural glory. To be frank, I too seek a better society free from the pernicious grips of capitalist intrigue. However, leftists envision themselves as the vanguard saviours of mankind, leading a Gandhian quest for working-class liberty. I would term this Avatar syndrome, after the recent blockbuster. Elitism, ironically enough, is fundamental to this sort of thinking, which suggests that educated/enlightened/privileged leftists should be the ones to lead the revolution against capitalism and its associated ills of sexism, racism, environmental degradation, and class oppression. Because, as we all know, the disadvantaged are incapable of organizing themselves.

I do not levy these criticisms lightly. Nor do I mean to suggest that most leftists think along these terms. However, a significant minority of leftists are infecting the entire movement at a time when it cannot afford to be so diseased. Right-of-centre working class movements like the British National Party, Front National, and Tea Party are gaining traction across the United States and Europe. They offer people solutions - volatile solutions that even mainstream political parties are adopting. The Left, in the meantime, is crippled by infighting and cannot bare to see the light beyond its rose-tinted spectacles. The Left preaches to the choir, without reaching a mass audience. We can blame this on the corporate media, but perhaps we should direct the criticism towards ourselves.

I include myself among those laughable clowns yearning for the impossible, and at times i have even been grossly hypocritical. Yet I am willing to admit that change may not come fleetingly, and that it often requires compromise. The masses do not care about the intricate and unjust institutions of state and corporate power; most of us prioritize comfort and security for ourselves and our loved ones. Until we leftists learn to accept that, we will never move forward in our endless struggle, but will forever be borne back ceaselessly into the past.

Guatemalans are worthless guinea pigs

2011-08-30T03:20:00.009+02:00

In the 1940s, the U.S. government tested how syphilis and gonorrhoea react to penicillin in a very unique manner: without consent, 5500 Guatemalans were infected with the STIs and subsequently given the treatment. By 1953, 83 of the 5500 subjects had died.

And that, boys and girls, is why we honour Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower for their contributions towards making the world a freer and fairer place. Because as long as straight white American males are healthy, who gives a damn about STIs.

Embarrassing picture of the week: 29/08/11

2011-08-29T17:53:00.008+02:00

This blog is getting a weekly feature: embarrassing picture of the week, featuring some of the free world's most-loved leaders. These pictures are 100% real - no photoshopping whatsoever.

This week, Obama meets Gaddafi at a G8 summit:

The Economist lacks knowledge about, well, economics!

2011-08-26T00:11:00.023+02:00

The Economist, despite its right-wing slant, usually does a good job of covering financial matters. Those who read the financial press, after all, are not interested in polemical prose. That is why outlets like The Financial Times and Bloomberg report more truthfully than competitors like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Similarly, because wealthy investors comprise The Economist's audience, it covers economic news well.

There are, of course, exceptions. Consider this rather lousy Economist blog post by the otherwise sharp and handsome Will Wilkinson:

According to James Altucher:

"[Mr Jobs] doesn't give any money to charity. And when he became Apple's CEO he stopped all of its philanthropic programs. He said, "wait until we are profitable". Now Apple is profitable, and sitting on $40 billion in cash, and still no corporate philanthropy. I actually think Jobs is probably the most charitable guy on the planet. Rather than focus on which mosquitoes to kill in Africa (Bill Gates is already focusing on that), Jobs has put his energy into massively improving quality of life with all of his inventions."

I endorse Mr Altucher's point that charity very often does rather less to improve quality of life than selling people ever better products at ever lower prices.

Let us ignore, for a minute, the author's callous nature, and instead consider his economic reasoning. Wilkinson argues that selling superior computer products at lower prices is better than mitigating malaria epidemics. If by "quality of life" Wilkinson speaks of gross income, then he is right: Apple has added more to world GDP than African malaria interventions.

But economists do not think in gross monetary terms, but rather at the margin. In other words, who gains more per dollar spent: a consumer who buys an Apple product, or an impoverished African who receives antimalarial treatment? At the margin, the impoverished African obviously gains more than the relatively wealthy consumer. That is basic, cold economic reasoning and Wilkinson fails at it.

From a moral perspective, by the way, I would definitely not want to be acquainted with someone who implies that we should enrich Apple consumers at the expense of developing regions.

I am Canadian, not Indian

2011-08-25T17:51:00.007+02:00

I have a pet peeve when it comes to meeting people. Conversations sometimes go like this:

RANDOM DUDE: Hey, I'm Bartholomew, how about you?

ME: ... Cornelius.

BART: Cool man, so where are you from?

ME: Canada.

BART: Ah right, but where are you from originally?

Seriously - originally? If I were white, would you be asking that question? I don't feel a particularly strong affinity towards my country, but I am Canadian nonetheless. Stop judging a person by their skin colour. I am every bit as "Canadian" as the Ukrainian, Irish, English, French, and other immigrants who settled here originally and brutally raped and pillaged the First Nations people.

Racial discrimination in research awards

2011-08-23T17:50:00.007+02:00

According to the latest issue of Science, black scientists are 13% less likely to receive U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants than their white counterparts. Controlling for applicants' educational backgrounds, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics had little effect; African-Americans are still 10% less likely than whites to receive research funding.

The article is fascinating to read. This particularly caught my eye:

Although applicants self-identify race, ethnicity, and gender, this information does not appear in the application and is not available to the review committee, staff, or council. However, information contained in the application biosketch, such as the undergraduate or doctoral institution attended and applicant names, may in some cases be used as a proxy for race/ethnicity.

This reminds me of a classic 2004 paper by economists Bertrand and Mullainathan: "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination". Bertrand and Mullainathan randomly assigned resumes "black" or "white" sounding names, and then submitted the resumes to actual employers in Boston and Chicago. As one would expect, blacks received 50% less callbacks than whites.

Does racism still thrive in the United States? Probably.

Entertaining cartoon on participatory economics

2011-08-21T17:27:00.002+02:00

I don't subscribe to participatory economics, but it is nonetheless interesting.

Evicting rioters from council housing

2011-08-21T16:49:00.015+02:00

The British press has been blowing a particular item out of proportion: the eviction of rioters' families from council housing. The fact is, when signing council housing agreements, tenants agree to refrain from illegal or "anti-social" activities. They also consent to be responsible for the actions of anyone (including children) visiting or living in their home. Violating these contractual obligations are grounds for eviction.

That is reasonable. Council housing is subsidized by taxpayers in order to fulfil a legitimate need: adequate housing for those who need but cannot afford it. It is only fair that taxpayers demand certain conditions in return. Rioters' families, under such conditions, should be evicted for the rioters' misdeeds.

Of course, if the families do not indulge in further illicit activities after a suitable period of time has eclipsed, I see no reason why they should not be readmitted to council housing. Yet for the British press to report on the evictions, with no emphasis on tenancy agreements, is irresponsible indeed.

Canada supports Latin American terrorism

2011-08-20T14:34:00.021+02:00

Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper returned from Honduras, where he announced the completion of the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement. Never mind that Honduras actively promotes and conducts state terrorism against its own people: from January 2010 to January 2011, there were 34 killings of peasant activists, 10 murders of journalists, and the massacre of 31 LGBT persons. Corporate profits are clearly more important to Harper than human rights.

The neoliberal policies of President Porfiro Pepe Lobo have all but destroyed Honduras. Lobo has, with rabid ideological zeal, privatized the well-functioning state electricity and telecommunications companies, and has illegally appropriated large tracts of indigenous land for tourism purposes. This has yielded tremendous benefits for Canadian investors. The free trade agreement will no doubt further profit Canadian corporations, as they squeeze return-on-equity from the blood of Honduran labour. Canada, in sum, politically supports and privately funds Honduras' state terrorism.

Do not misread me: I am not against free trade. Free trade, when properly conducted, is a liberating policy that strengthens international relations. However, free trade is not free when it runs counter to democratic principles and human rights. Canada, by signing this free trade agreement, is enriching a government that terrorizes its own people.

I urge all Canadians reading this to write to their MP now, demanding a repeal of the free trade agreement; such agreements should help the general population, not just multinational corporations intent on making a quick buck.

The masses cut the American deficit!

2011-08-20T14:12:00.009+02:00

According to a study conducted by the Program for Public Consultation, affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, average Americans are better at slashing the federal budget than politicians and economists. The study's respondents even managed to dramatically reduce Medicare and Social Security shortfalls.

Defense spending ($109.4 billion), intelligence ($13.1 billion), and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ($12.8 billion) were the largest spending cuts. Greater taxes on the rich led to increased tax revenues ($291.6 billion). Most respondents also favoured taxing estates worth over $3.3 million at a 45% rate. On average, respondents made net spending cuts of $145.7 billion - much better than Congress!

This study highlights two points:

1. The general public is smarter than elected officials. This just proves that one does not require a degree in economics in order to comment meaningfully on budget deficits. If the United States had direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy, then the debt ceiling crisis would be easily resolved.

2. There is a significant democracy deficit in the United States. There is a glaring gap between what politicians want and what the general population demands. If Obama and Congress were serious about the United States' fiscal situation, they would raise taxes on the rich and slash military spending.

Christine O'Donnell's wild ejaculations

2011-08-19T21:36:00.010+02:00

Normally I don't get caught up in vapid celebrity gossip, but this particular incident has irked me past the zenith of my tolerance. I speak, of course, of Christine O'Donnell's recent appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight. Ms. O'Donnell rudely walked out of the interview when Piers asked her a pointed yet fair question about gay marriage. For some reason, she felt that Piers was being "creepy" and later accused him of sexual harassment.

Christine O'Donnell is nothing but a skilled opportunist who has used the Tea Party, a once grassroots conservative movement, to gain political capital for herself. She does not care about fiscal responsibility, the Constitution, or responsible government. What she does care about are votes, like most politicians. Once, when asked whether she would pose in a bikini if it would help her gain political leverage, she flippantly responded "I'm not concerned [with] the reason you vote for me, as long as you vote for me."

Hell, I don't know why she isn't accusing the guy who asked that question of sexual harassment.

The fact is, most of our elected officials are like O'Donnell, though they hide it better. David Cameron, Barack Obama, and Stephen Harper are all hypocrites who prey upon our naivety. Until we replace representative democracy with direct democracy of the people, our parliaments, senates and legislatures will be full of Christine O'Donnells.

Animal testing is useless, say scientists

2011-08-15T18:33:00.015+02:00

Here are four academic articles from reputable journals, and a newspaper opinion piece, that expose the truth behind animal testing (i.e. that it is a rather inefficient research method):

1. Pound, Pandora, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken, and Ian Roberts, "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?" British Medical Journal, 2004, 328(7438): 514–517.

2. Collins, Francis S., George M. Gray, and John R. Bucher, "Transforming Environmental Health Protection," Science, February 15 2008, 319(5865): 906-907.

3. Bracken MB, "Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 102:120-122, 2009.

4. Sandercock, Peter, and Ian Roberts, "Systemic review of animal experiments," The Lancet, Volume 360, Issue 9333, Page 586, 24 August 2002.

5. Not an academic article, but rather an opinion piece in The New York Times about animal testing.

P.S. In citing these studies, I am in no way claiming that all animal testing is inefficient, at least from a scientific perspective (moral considerations aside). Rather, the vast majority of animal trials are indeed useless.
This raises the question: why do animal trials continue to be widely practiced? The answer is that a few self-serving scientists enjoy peppering their CVs with mindless research that contributes nothing to human knowledge yet advances their careers - a problem that pervades every academic endeavour.
There is also significant money involved; in the UK, for instance, more public money is spent on animal testing than on clinical trials. Clearly those performing research on animal subjects do not want their spending cut.

Die, Verizon, die!

2011-08-13T23:30:00.009+02:00

Good news: 45,000 Verizon workers are participating in one of the biggest strikes in U.S. history. Verizon is sabotaging its workers' healthcare plans, bargaining rights, and pension benefits, even though the company earned impressive profits over the past year.

The Verizon employees have the right idea. It is time for all working Americans to rise up and take to the streets in demonstration against the economic and political potentates that have taken their country ransom. If that does not happen, then I despair for the future of the nation; it will be goodbye America, and au revoir to true freedom.

David Cameron, meet irony

2011-08-12T22:08:00.009+02:00

Does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that both David Cameron and Boris Johnson are harshly condemning the rioters, even though they, in their youth, were themselves involved in a gang that looted and trashed private property? Trickle down morality is what it is!

Peter Oborne has a brilliantly insightful article about such hypocrisy in The Telegraph.

American engineers need Canadian ingenuity

2011-08-12T09:27:00.011+02:00

How embarrassing. The U.S. military has lost contact with its taxpayer-funded hypersonic aircraft. According to reports, the glider crashed into the Pacific Ocean, where it found its eternal resting place. There go billions of dollars down the drain as the federal government slashes welfare benefits. Recessions sure are great times for experimenting with fun new government-sponsored technology!

American engineers clearly require Canadian ingenuity. The hypersonic aircraft the Americans built pales in comparison to the Avro Arrow project, which Canada completed in the 1950s. The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow fighter could, via its own engines and propagation mechanisms, fly to the edge of outer space. The American hypersonic craft, by comparison, had to be propelled to outer space through external rockets. The Arrow, in sum, was ahead of its time.

The Arrow project was cancelled by the Diefenbaker government under mysterious circumstances. Ostensibly, Diefenbaker vowed to slash wasteful spending, but the Arrow could have cemented Canada's place in the world as a technological leader and would have yielded future dividends as costs were driven down. That being said, I am glad that Canada does not prioritize profligate military spending, like the United States does.

The London riots

2011-08-10T23:37:00.012+02:00

There has been a lot of rhetoric and ideology flaunted about as a result of the British riots, much of it irresponsibly fostered by the mainstream media. Here are a few important points that are not being discussed in the mainstream news:

1. The riots were sparked by the London Metropolitan Police's beating of a 16 year old girl. Be sure to check out this slightly disturbing video and this BBC interview. This is not surprising; the London Met is a disreputable organisation, given its involvement in the Murdoch phone hacking scandal and negligent treatment of prisoners.

2. The riots come at a very convenient time for the London Met, as the organisation seeks to rebuild its reputation following the phone hacking scandals.

3. Many commentators have attempted to explain the riots without referring to academic literature. Psychological research has demonstrated that mob violence is not due to the "irrational thuggery" politicians attribute it to, but can be explained by underlying social factors. This research might be wrong, like any scientific research, but that's how science progresses: debate and experimentation.

4. This is just my opinion as a pacifist, but I do not believe that violence is ever justifiable - whether it is committed by mobs on the streets, or the military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the media should be focused more on civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than the British riots.

Chile's Winter of Discontent

2011-08-10T15:04:00.005+02:00

I previously mentioned that Israel is protesting against state capitalism. It appears that Chile is as well, as students riot against the government's proposed education reforms, which would involve handing over power to for-profit universities. The protesters are also opposed to high tuition fees and lack of financial support for low-income students.

Chile is one of Latin America's richest economies, yet possesses an abysmally wide disparity between rich and poor (a Gini index of 52). Every level of its government is corrupt, allowing the fat cats in charge to widen their bellies. Unsurprisingly, this is because Chile has openly embraced the crony capitalism endorsed by the Washington consensus, and has blindly bowed to U.S. demands. The students' protests are merely manifestations of the anger Chileans feel towards their government.

Israel protests capitalism

2011-08-09T23:27:00.004+02:00

Amidst the chaos of the London riots, it is worth highlighting some pleasant news: the Israeli protests against low wages, high housing prices, and soaring childcare costs. About 300,000 Israelis turned out to protest.

Hopefully demonstrations like these will spread across the Western world. The people of Britain, the United States, and Canada need to rise up against the capitalist oligarchs who control the wealth.

Warren Buffet is an apologist for the rich

2011-08-01T21:03:00.009+02:00

Warren Buffet is a hypocrite. Yes, he has pledged to give 85% of his wealth to charity, but at the same time, he has defended trillions in bailouts for wealthy bankers like himself. So, on the one hand, he believes in helping the less fortunate, but on the other hand, he believes in screwing them over. He is therefore either very sinister, or very senile.

America: designed for the top 1%

2011-08-01T13:56:00.002+02:00

Check out this well-written article by Joseph Stiglitz.

Early marriage: a good idea?

2011-07-30T22:04:00.009+02:00

I was quite upset by this National Post article, which claims that getting married early is better than waiting to get hitched. Here are just a few of my issues:

1. Lack of science. University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, who was interviewed by The National Post, is an evangelical Christian; thus his research is biased towards a Christian worldview. Furthermore, his opinion does not appear to be the consensus among sociologists.

2. The children may suffer. If marriage is a struggle, then why should the kids have to struggle along with the parents, especially if the parents are young, naive, and immature? It is better to be settled, and have a stable family, rather than have young, inexperienced parents.

3. Divorce. Couples who marry young are more likely to divorce. Young people may not be emotionally mature enough to get married in the first place.

I am not claiming that all young marriages are necessarily bad, but Dr. Regnerus is intellectually dishonest in claiming that early marriage in general is a good thing.

Penis size and economic growth

2011-07-27T07:42:00.005+02:00

I kid you not, it's an actual paper by economist Tatu Westling. This just goes to show how hilarious growth regressions in general are.

Proud to be Canadian!

2011-07-25T09:53:00.001+02:00

I'm so patriotic I own Canadian flag toilet paper! Oh wait...

The difference a teacher can make

2011-07-23T01:07:00.002+02:00

I just wanted to share this amazing article from The Globe and Mail.

Most feminist country in the world?

2011-07-22T17:52:00.003+02:00

The world's most feminist country is Iceland, according to The Guardian. Last year, the nation banned all strip clubs, thanks to the tireless campaigning of women's rights activists.

Perhaps Icelandic feminists realize that concrete goals are far superior to superficial protests.

Obama destroys credit unions

2011-07-22T04:04:00.022+02:00

Last year, President Barack Obama signed into law a string of financial regulations, among them the ill-conceived Dodd-Frank Act. The horrible repercussions of this Act are only now being felt.

For instance, debit card interchange fees are being severely capped. Interchange fees are paid whenever you use a debit card to buy from merchants. In a debit card transaction, the merchant pays a fee to your bank, thus allowing the bank to cover administrative and fraud-prevention costs.

The Dodd-Frank Act would reduce the cap on interchange rates by 50 to 70 percent, meaning that merchants would pay far less to the banks. Banks, naturally, will shift the costs onto consumers - those opening a checking account, for instance, may have to pay in order to do so. ATM fees may also increase.

This particularly affects small institutions like credit unions, who will find it harder to meet the needs of their members and communities. Although the cap is said to not affect institutions with assets worth $10 billion or less, market forces will surely erode the gap between interchange rates, as merchants migrate towards medium and large banks. Thus credit unions would need to reduce their interchange rates in order to remain competitive.

I really hope the Act is amended! America has enough problems as is: wars, recession, a debt crisis, and bad television programming. The deterioration of credit unions should not be another one.

Madeleine Albright: genocidal psychopath

2011-07-20T18:48:00.007+02:00

From 1990-2003, the UN Security Council (mainly the United States) imposed a complete trade embargo on Iraq, popularly called the "Iraq sanctions". The sanctions resulted in a doubling of the Iraqi child mortality rate and roughly 100,000 civilian deaths (a conservative estimate).

The United States, knowing these figures, nonetheless decided against lifting the sanctions. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when confronted with the massive casualties, even claimed that they were "worth it". Wilful killing of civilians, of course, contravenes international law, and by this standard Mrs. Albright is a bloody criminal, along with her master Bill Clinton. In a just world, she would be imprisoned for life.

Instead, what has become of Mrs. Albright? She has become Georgetown University's Mortara Distinguished Professor of Diplomacy. I suppose that in the United States, "diplomacy" really means genocide.

How to save the United States, Italy, and Ireland

2011-07-20T01:23:00.019+02:00

I have a brilliant idea for rescuing the U.S., Irish, and Italian economies: gladiator fights!

Not just any gladiator fights, mind you. These gladiators will be Wall Street CEOs, and they will fight to the death. The winning CEO will earn a bailout for his company. This will decrease America's debt by reducing egregious government bailouts.

The Roman Coliseum will have to be resurrected so that the CEOs have a place to fight. Who better to undertake this architectural feat than Irish workers who, after all, built the Erie Canal? The Irish should also provide refreshments during the fights (i.e. copious amounts of beer, potatoes, and profane Catholic priests).

As for the Italians, their economy will be saved, thanks to the resulting tourism. Hell, who wouldn't pay good money to see Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein square off against AIG's Robert Benmosche? Oh, and perhaps Silvio Berlusconi can join in!

The Murdoch fiasco

2011-07-15T07:40:00.008+02:00

The News of the World phone hacking scandal is a big media item now. What Murdoch's organization did was very wrong, but in times like these I recall Chomsky's propaganda model.

The phone hacking incident affects elite and "newsworthy" subjects like Gordon Brown, The Queen, and Sir Alex Ferguson. That's why it elicits widespread media coverage. However, entities like the U.S. government (thanks to the Patriot Act) invade personal information on a daily basis. The only difference is that when the U.S. government does it, it is vaguely branded an "anti-terrorist measure" by the press, and therefore not given as much attention.

Cutting U.S. government spending

2011-07-08T19:21:00.006+02:00

Peter Boettke has some good ideas for cutting government spending: abolish the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, and the War on Poverty.

I am not so keen on abolishing the War on Poverty. Welfare programs need reform, not cuts. However, abolishing the War on Drugs and the War on Terror are admirable goals to work towards.

Of course, debate over the debt ceiling is very silly. Republicans will eventually agree to raise it, since not doing so would be politically costly. Thus the Republicans' threat to keep the ceiling intact is not credible, even if the Tea Party offers the Republicans support.

Rap music ain't my cup of tea

2011-07-08T15:35:00.004+02:00

Some people have told me that they cannot relate to rap music, because it deals with life "in da hood": poverty, crime, drugs, etc.

Such a reaction completely misses the point. Hip hop is an art form and as such transcends boundaries. Tupac's "Dear Mama", for instance, is an homage to mothers everywhere, while his song "Keep Ya Head Up" is a stirring feminist anthem. Dead Prez's "They Schools" criticizes the U.S. education system. Public Enemy's album It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is an ode to democracy. These themes are universal, regardless of whether or not you're from the projects.

Brits are nicer than Canadians

2011-07-08T03:49:00.010+02:00

I apologize for not having blogged in over a month. I had exams.

I have returned home to Canada, having finished the first year of a two year masters program in England. Having spent a year in the UK, I have concluded that Brits are much friendlier than Canadians.

Yes, Brits are known for their "stiff upper lips" and cold manner. However, I often found that within a week of meeting a Brit, I would be asked out for drinks or to dinner. Canadians are not as amiable. Canucks are polite to everyone, but reserved when it comes to making friends. They also tend to obsess over personal space.

Of course, my sample size is small so my conclusion is not scientific. Nor is it meant to be.

Anarchism: in defense of an ideal

2011-06-03T01:05:00.023+02:00

About four weeks ago, I was invited to write an opinion piece for a university newspaper. I gladly accepted the invitation. Before I began writing, I emailed the editor my proposed topic, and he approved it. Then, after reading the article, he backtracked and refused to publish it.

I am more than a little annoyed, especially since my opinion was invited, not solicited. But I am not about to let my time be wasted, so here is my article in full:

Anarchism: in defense of an ideal

Anarchists are a hot media item these days. From anti-cuts protests to royal wedding ceremonies, anarchists appear to be ubiquitously breaking windows and causing mayhem. However, if you were to ask even well read and intelligent people what anarchism actually is, an inchoate picture of chaos, violence and criminality would emerge. What rational person would support such a system?

Yet Noam Chomsky, renowned scholar and political dissident, is an anarchist. Chomsky, whose theory of generative grammar revolutionized linguistics, has been an anarchist since the age of ten, when he wrote an essay on the rise of fascism in Europe. Since then, he has persuasively written about the importance of challenging existing power structures.

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Chomsky at his MIT office in March. Initially intimidated, I was soon put to ease by his warmth and humility. We discussed various topics, from economics to Libya to global warming, but ultimately settled on the issue of the modern anarchist movement.

“What is it?” Chomsky rhetorically asked me. “There was a time when you could point and say ‘that is the anarchist movement.’ You can’t do that anymore… I was in Belgium last week and they even hired police to protect me from anarchists.”

Indeed, anarchism is fragmented. Anarchists themselves squabble over proposed goals and strategies. Yet serious anarchists, who are not mindless rabble-rousers seeking violence, hold several beliefs in common.

“Anarchism,” says Chomsky, “is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary.”

In other words, anarchism applies scientific reasoning to questions of power, rather than simply assuming that power is good for its own sake. Anarchists conclude that most institutions of power – private corporations and state bureaucracies, for instance – are illegitimate and cause unnecessary harm, and should therefore be replaced by free and participatory structures.

Anarchism, then, is extreme democracy: a highly organized society in which everyone holds equal power. We are all anarchists, in a sense, whenever we gather to engage in collective activities like informal sports and study groups. Anarchist philosophy suggests extending such cooperation to the political realm. Instead of corrupt representative government, people should represent themselves collectively.

This framework guides much of Chomsky’s political thinking. In Manufacturing Consent, for example, Chomsky argues that “freedom of the press” is largely illusory, even in supposedly democratic societies like Britain and the United States. The Guardian and Telegraph may appear to have different editorial stances, but they are nonetheless media giants reliant on corporate funding and government sources of information. They thus endorse a narrow subset of views within which disagreement is permitted; thinking and writing outside the box however is risky for journalists. As Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, “A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.” The powerful thus persuade the electorate to vest control in the hands of a small minority.

This “propaganda model” is difficult to test. Yet its validity is demonstrated by media coverage of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s COINTELPRO program. The program ran from 1956-71; its aim was to disrupt American socialist, black, and feminist organizations via harassment, wrongful imprisonment, and downright assassination. Although the operation was exposed in 1971, the mainstream media had little interest in covering it, preferring instead to focus on the Watergate scandal. Watergate, of course, affected the Democratic Party’s powerful elites, whereas COINTELPRO affected powerless individuals organizing for political and social change. The interests of the powerful take precedence in these matters. Freedom of the press, a hallmark of liberal democracy, is less than liberating.

In this manner anarchists like Leo Tolstoy, Oscar Wilde, Alan Moore, Henry David Thoreau, Banksy and Noam Chomsky critique power, though their mediums and motivations differ. Tolstoy’s anarchism stems from his Christianity, especially Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, while Thoreau’s inspiration is the American spirit of liberty. Tolstoy, Thoreau, Wilde and Chomsky write eloquently about anarchist philosophy, while Banksy and Moore communicate anarchist ideas through art.

It is appropriate at this juncture to ask what we as Oxford students can do to constructively achieve social progress, even if we are not anarchists. Our privileged position grants us academic training, access to information, and freedom of expression, which in turn allow us to effectively uncover truths about economic and political potentates – not sex scandals, mind you, but rather substantive truths hidden from the general public.

A good case in point is the powerful financial institutions that “the City” represents and its cozy relationship with government in Whitehall. Amidst dire economic conditions and painful public sector cuts, David Cameron’s government continues to profligately bail out failing banks. The rich are given handouts, while the poor are told they must suffer. The City-Whitehall courtship, of course, is a long one; finance built the British Empire and continues to dictate government policy. The present bailouts, then, are merely the tip of the iceberg. The Oxford University community can direct resources towards researching these power dynamics and informing the public-at-large about them.

Although anarchists criticize power effectively, they say surprisingly little about how an alternate society would look like, or how to achieve it. When confronted by this topic, a humble anarchist accepts his movement’s flaws – not in the movement’s ideology itself, which is attractive in its simplicity and purity, but in the means by which these ideas can evolve into living things.

For anarchism is charged with the peculiar task of reconciling individual freedom and democracy with collective good and equity. “I have no confidence in my own views about the ‘right way,’ and am unimpressed with the confident pronouncements of others,” Chomsky remarks.

Paradoxical? Perhaps. But that does not mean we should not attempt this better society. The most lofty and unlikely dreams are within the reach of those men and women unafraid of implementing them. We need only take the first courageous step into what may at first be the dark and lonely abyss of uncertainty, whilst the dawn of a better tomorrow works itself out.

Noam Chomsky wins Sydney Peace Prize

2011-06-01T23:53:00.001+02:00

Chomsky has won the Sydney Peace Prize.

The taxpayers' curse

2011-06-01T04:03:00.001+02:00

Peyton Young, a professor of mine, wrote an excellent article in 2009 critical of Geithner's toxic assets program.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and markets

2011-06-01T03:11:00.015+02:00

I have just finished reading Kenneth Arrow's seminal 1950 paper A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare. Arrow's theorem basically states that a democratic system with manipulation-prevention devices (formally, Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Rationality) cannot logically exist. Arrow even extends his Impossibility Theorem to markets: "the market mechanism does not create a rational social choice."

The Theorem's applicability to markets is intriguing. Arrow's five axioms easily translate: individual consumer preferences are complete and transitive, unanimous demand implies that the market supplies the good demanded subject to resource constraints (exceptions include public goods and positive externalities), collective preferences might be rational, independence of irrelevant alternatives might hold, and there need not be a central planner. Under these assumptions, a contradiction is found. If the first four axioms are satisfied - as they ideally should be - then the fifth axiom is not. Succinctly, the market is then controlled by a single individual!

Of course, Arrow did not allow for interpersonal comparison of utilities in his framework. If consumers' utilities are cardinal, however, then Arrow's Theorem may not hold for markets - we could for instance maximize a utilitarian aggregation of utility levels. Nonetheless, the result is startling, and mildly depressing.

My favourite chick flicks

2011-05-25T01:01:00.004+02:00

I'm man enough to admit I dig chick flicks, provided they're well-made. So here are my top five:

1. Roman Holiday (1953)
2. Enchanted (2007)
3. Legally Blonde (2001)
4. Some Kind of Wonderful (1987)
5. Dirty Dancing (1987)

Stack's suicide note

2011-05-21T15:51:00.005+02:00

On February 18, 2010, pilot and software consultant Joseph Stack committed suicide. Although the media has ridiculed his suicide note, I think it deserves a closer look. This paragraph about the bailouts particularly caught my eye:

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

Feminists opposed to Slutwalks

2011-05-21T00:04:00.004+02:00

I have already argued that Slutwalks is a misguided campaign. However, these feminists offer much better arguments.

Who should the next IMF chief be?

2011-05-19T16:51:00.003+02:00

Silvio Berlusconi:

The U.S.-Canada border paradox

2011-05-19T00:28:00.015+02:00

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin, the U.S.-Canada border poses a greater threat to American security than the border with Mexico. This is partly due to Canada withholding its no-fly list from the U.S. government, allowing potential terrorists to allegedly cross the land border.

Leaving aside the fact that the United States is the world's biggest supporter of terrorism, Bersin's remarks are idiotic. Canada is under no obligation to share its own national security concerns with other countries. Despite this, it shares privileged information about Canadians with the U.S. all the time. This makes Bersin's statement seem contradictory:

Under the Canadian charter – as that’s been interpreted to me – they do not believe that they can accept information that would affect Canadian citizens, and therefore don’t.

Bersin is either a liar, or poorly informed about his own job, both of which are grounds for dismissal.

There is also a logical problem with Bersin's remarks. Perhaps more terrorist suspects are apprehended along the U.S.-Canada border because American and Canadian intelligence services communicate more effectively, not because there are more terrorists coming to the U.S. from Canada than from Mexico. If anything, potential terrorists are probably hopping over from Mexico undetected.

I wonder what Americans expect of Canadians. When we cooperate with them, they claim that we are not cooperating enough, so we submissively bow before our southern masters, pleading with them to cleanse us of our sins. I believe it was Margaret Atwood who once wrote that "The only position Canada takes towards the United States is the missionary position [on the bottom]!"

Why 'Slutwalks' are misguided

2011-05-11T22:05:00.001+02:00

Thousands have taken to the streets in "Slutwalks" in response to a Toronto police officer's offhanded comment about rape. Although the response has been spirited, the Slutwalks campaign is misguided and vapid.

First of all, the officer who made the remark apologized. He did not mean to imply that rape is the victim's fault. He said sorry. So forgive him and move on. That is the mature thing to do, instead of engaging in maudlin demonstrations.

"Slutwalks" itself gives off a mixed signal. The term "slut" is demeaning to women, and according to news reports there are men at these Slutwalks marches wearing "I love sluts" t-shirts. What kind of message does that send to young and impressionable girls? Just because a woman has an active sex life with various partners does not make her a "slut".

Finally, and most pertinently, protesting against rape and sexual violence will not end these horrid crimes. Sure, it may draw attention to them, but in what manner and to what end? Is labelling women "sluts," even in an ironic manner, supposed to further the feminist cause? No. These protests are being conducted in an overly reactionary manner.

Why can't Slutwalks be more like the "Take Back the Night" campaign, which Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media organized in the 1970s? I cannot imagine the feminists of history using the word "slut" to promote their causes, after all.

Famous anarchists

2011-05-09T00:48:00.007+02:00

Did you know that novelist Leo Tolstoy, playwright Oscar Wilde, artist Gustave Courbet, impressionist painter Camille Pissarro, and activist Mahatma Gandhi were anarchists? Perhaps the most famous anarchists of modern times are comic book writer Alan Moore, linguist Noam Chomsky, and, apparently, Alicia Keys (though she is just a poser).

Canada invades America

2011-05-07T21:30:00.019+02:00

The United States of America has tried to invade Canada several times: 1775, 1812, and 1866-71. The Americans have thus far been unsuccessful, for we stouthearted Canadians can withstand anything: snow, polar bears, ice, mutated beavers, snow, the Sasquatch, snow...

But did you know that Canada once had a plan to invade the United States? That's right, it was called Defence Scheme No. 1, and it was not at all a bad idea. By the scheme, Canada would seize American cities along the border like Albany, Seattle, and Minneapolis. The Canadian military would then focus on defending Ontario (Western alienation). If retreat were necessary, a scorched earth policy would be adopted.

It makes you wonder if the Canadian military still has top secret plans to pre-emptively invade the United States. Fall on your knees and despair America, as we impose universal healthcare upon yo ass! Bow before our might Maple Leaf, and worship Tim Horton's coffee while learning to speak French... oh how we will make you suffer! Muwhahaha!

Obama's hilarious White House Correspondents' Dinner

2011-05-02T17:37:00.008+02:00

I don't have much respect for him as a President, but Barack Obama is amazing as a comedian. The White House Correspondents' Dinner owed its success largely to the President, who cracked jokes about Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, and Fox News.

It is tragic that Mr. Obama chose a career in politics instead of comedy. Obama's performance even exceeded Seth Meyer's bland humour.

He also made major political strides thanks to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. It wouldn't surprise me if U.S. intelligence has known about bin Laden's location for years, and were just waiting for the opportune moment to destroy him. If that is the case, Obama played his cards well, for he will surely be re-elected now!

Get rid of The Church of England

2011-05-01T01:26:00.017+02:00

One of the many predicaments facing contemporary Britain is the Anglican Church. This archaic institution has historically served to vindicate the most deplorable forms of coercion undertaken by the British Empire. The Church still prays for British armed forces to inflict violence on enemies. It is no wonder the Anglican hierarchy defends "just war" theory, which Jesus Christ himself opposed.

To add insult to injury, the Church recently received £5 million to fund its own "Big Society" project. In other words, the Church of England is receiving taxpayer pounds while such funds are drying up in sectors that desperately need money.

Britain should implement immediate separation of church and state. Around three-quarters of the Church's budget comes directly from parishioners' pockets anyway. After that has been accomplished, the British government should tax the church for activities that are not charitable. Perhaps this would offer a partial fix to David Cameron's unfair austerity measures. More importantly, it would put the Church of England in its rightful place as a looney religious organization.

Canadian Senate reform

2011-04-30T21:47:00.010+02:00

Canada's main political parties have different visions for the Canadian Senate, a nondemocratic body that holds political power much like Britain's House of Lords. The NDP wants to abolish it, while the Conservatives want to make it more democratic. Liberals don't want to do anything, and the Bloc Québécois doesn't care.

My suggestion is to make the Senate democratic. Unlike Parliament, however, the Senate should have proportional representation. That way we'd get the best of both worlds: MPs with local concerns, along with senators that represent Canadians' general interests.

Truth, justice, and the anarchist way

2011-04-30T15:25:00.003+02:00

Superman has renounced his U.S. citizenship. The Man of Steel has finally realized that the American government is not necessarily a force for good, something Captain America realized a long time ago.

Will Stephen Harper protect Canadians?

2011-04-28T00:04:00.009+02:00

None of the four main parties running in the 2011 Canadian election are particularly strong, but there is an excellent reason for not returning the Conservatives to power: Stephen Harper is uninterested in protecting Canadians' constitutional rights.

Exhibit A: Omar Khadr, a Canadian who was arrested as an "enemy combatant" when he was 15 years old. The Harper government repeatedly refused to repatriate Khadr to Canada to face trial. Khadr has spent several years in Gitmo, where he was tortured, and threatened with rape and sleep deprivation. This begs the question: if the Harper government cannot be counted on to protect the rights of an underage Canadian, can we depend on it to defend any of our rights?

Exhibit B: The 2010 G8 and G20 protests. Police brutality was, of course, rampant. The police also felt that it would be appropriate to arrest protesters without laying charges, a direct violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservative government spent $1 billion on security for the summits.

Exhibit C: Afghan detainee documents. The House of Commons recently passed legislation to release the documents, but Harper refused to do so. This is naturally an anti-democratic move, suggesting Harper has something to hide.

Exhibit D: Barring students from rallies. I have already covered this here and here.

Case closed.

A daft wedding old chap?

2011-04-27T10:24:00.007+02:00

Christine Jones of the Met Police was out of line in making this statement to the press:

"We would be wrong not to consider spontaneous protest as part of our contingency planning. But let us make it absolutely clear - this is a day of celebration, joy and pageantry. It is a fantastic day for Britain,"

Whether or not the royal wedding is good for Britain is not a police officer's call to make. This is a political issue, and the police are meant to appear apolitical on these matters. Not everyone agrees that the royal wedding is a joyous occasion deserving of Britons' tax money.

The only reason I'm happy about it is the holiday I get out of it. Yay, more time to study!

Peter King is a flaky hypocrite

2011-04-27T06:45:00.007+02:00

Does anyone else find it hilariously ironic that U.S. Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, openly supported terrorism? It's like appointing a fox to guard the hen house.

It's funny how crooks like King roam the world freely, while men like Bradley Manning are being tortured and jailed. Truth really is stranger than fiction!

The Real Housewives of Wall Street

2011-04-27T04:45:00.007+02:00

Fantastic interview with Eliot Spitzer about how Wall Street executives' wives received $220 million from the U.S. federal government. The United States - a corrupt oligarchy? No!

All kidding aside, you would expect this level of corruption from a Third World dictatorship.

Electronic voting in Canada

2011-04-26T00:30:00.003+02:00

The Globe and Mail makes a convincing case for online voting. I like it. Perhaps through electronic voting we can eventually abolish Parliament and the Senate (the latter of which should have been abolished ages ago). Canadians themselves can determine legislation, and we can have many referendums on national issues.

The anti-war movement and Obama's Presidency

2011-04-25T21:12:00.007+02:00

According to this study by Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, Democrats' participation in the anti-war movement fell dramatically after Obama was elected:

The results of our analysis provide important insights into the dynamic relationship between the Democratic Party and the antiwar movement. Democratic activists left the antiwar movement as the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success. While the declining magnitude of protests suggests that activists of all partisan persuasions were leaving the movement, the analysis demonstrates that Democrats left at a greater rate than third-party members or non-party members. As a result, third-party members and non- partisans made up an increasing proportion of activists in the movement, leaving the remaining Democratic activists increasingly isolated in the dwindling movement.

Isn't it sad that Democratic anti-war activists put politics before principles? After all, little has changed in Afghanistan and Iraq since Obama was elected, and the President was even willing to attack Libya and fund its rebels. Barack Obama is a lot of things, but he certainly isn't anti-war.

China surpasses the United States

2011-04-25T20:32:00.003+02:00

The recent IMF World Economic Outlook claims that China's economy will surpass America's by 2016. How interesting.

The Canadian Rambo

2011-04-24T05:29:00.010+02:00

A movie must be made about this badass, Leo Major. He single-handedly captured the heavily guarded town of Zwolle during World War II, destroying both the Gestapo and SS headquarters and taking many German prisoners in the process. And the best part is this: he was blind in his right eye and wore an eyepatch! I can't believe Canadians commemorate Vimy Ridge instead of this guy.

The new "Sherlock" TV series

2011-04-23T21:37:00.013+02:00

I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. In grade 7 I carried around The Original Illustrated 'Strand' Sherlock Holmes, a tome that contained all of Arthur Conan Doyle's detective stories. I read a short story per day. It was an obsession, and I wanted to share my glee with others.

The problem is misinformation. Sherlock Holmes is a cerebral hero, not an action star. It was thus very disappointing when Guy Ritchie turned Holmes into a common thug with a 2009 disaster starring Robert Downey, Jr. The movie was clearly marketed towards immature adolescents. Ritchie murdered a cultural icon and replaced him with a goofy impostor.

My hopes were dashed against the floorboard... until I found out about this spectacular BBC series. At first I was skeptical: the premise is Sherlock Holmes, set in 21st Century London. I expected this to be silly, much like the so-bad-it's-good Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century. Yet the new Sherlock exceeded my expectations. While Benedict Cumberbatch is not as good a Holmes as Jeremy Brett, he sure as hell comes close!

Cumberbatch plays an intelligent and meticulous Holmes who can discern a person's biodata via simple observation and logical reasoning - exactly how Holmes is meant to be portrayed. In the new series, modern CSI techniques are inferior to Holmes' superhuman mental abilities. He's not beyond using technology however - the new Holmes even has his own website.

For some reason, I cannot imagine this new series being produced in the United States. Perhaps Americans' taste for Sherlock Holmes is not as strong as the British (the detective is English after all). Or perhaps, dare I say, American audiences do not fancy cerebral fiction as much as the British. Regardless, I recommend Sherlock to those who enjoy a good mystery, regardless of their nationality.

Oh no he didn't!

2011-04-23T05:25:00.003+02:00

This is of course a bit old, but I loved Jack Layton's sucker punch at Michael Ignatieff during the English language debate.