Occupy

I think it’s going to be interesting watching how governments handle the Occupy protesters. So far the protests have been peaceful and confined to public spaces, but what happens if these locations are then denied to the protesters? If the consequence of occupying a public space is arrest, and these spaces increasingly become unavailable, why not actually occupy the locations of the corporate entities that you are protesting? Or the streets surrounding the communities where the obscenely wealthy live?

Comparisons were made at the outset between the Occupy protestors and the Tea Party. At this point I think there are some fundamental differences. The Tea Party protesters were all rich enough that they were concerned that higher taxes or government spending would decrease their income. The Occupy protesters are out because they have no income to start with. It strikes me that they have much less to lose, and a great deal more time to devote to the cause. Sure, you can have your voice heard once every four (or two as the case may be) years at election time, but if the CEO of Goldman wants to talk to the President, he certainly doesn’t have to wait until the next election cycle. I think it’s going to be very difficult to convince the Occupy protesters to pack up and go home…wherever that might be.

Can Only a Republican President Raise Taxes?

I guess I could broaden this to “Can only a republican fix America’s economy?” Republican opposition to any kind of tax increase seems too fierce to be overcome, even with a Democratic president and Congress since it doesn’t seem possible that the Democrats will get 60 seats in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters. Any reasonable person should accept that both tax increases and spending cuts will be necessary to put the American economy back on track…or even to avert catastrophe.

This leads me to the heart of the issue. If a Democrat talks about raising taxes, they’re a socialist bent on destroying America. If a Republican suggests it, might they be able to accomplish it because they have been against tax increases for their entire political career. And if they are suggesting it, it must be because it’s the only answer. In my mind this seems plausible because as President, a Republican would be held responsible for the economic situation, and I see no hope of reasonable recovery without something that amounts to tax increases. Doing nothing would not an option as the new incumbent would be turfed out at the end of four years owing to continuing stagnation, and closing the budget gap only through cuts to spending would seem to alienate too much of the electorate. This plan could draw in Democrats because it is one of their major policy goals, and they at least seem willing to compromise for the good of the country even if it means handing the Republicans a political victory. And while a Republican president could not count of the support of the entire contingent of Republican congressman, it might be possible for him to bring over a sufficient number who would be concerned with their electoral chances in a perpetually depressed economy to pass legislation in cooperation with Democrats.

It pains me to suggest this, but maybe electing a Republican to the presidency is the only way of avoiding another 4 years of stagnation in American politics and the broader economy.

Romney to America, 2012.

On Helping Revolution Abroad

So there are protesters outside what I imagine is the Syrian consulate in Vancouver. When I first went by, they had placards saying “Expel the Syrian Ambassador”. My questions is, what does that accomplish? I don’t think the Syrian government would really care. They aren’t having problems killing their own people, why would it bother them that Canada has expelled their ambassador? And beyond that, don’t we need the ambassador if we are to communicate with the Syrian government? I guess maybe we could just do it through our embassy in Syria if it exists.

But this leads me to another question. There is little that our government can do. As far as I know we don’t import from, or export to Syria anything of consequence. What leverage do we have, especially since we’ve spent the last decade plus hiding from any international contribution other than in Afghanistan.

I want to tell these people that if they really want to make a difference take all their worldly belongings and go to Syria. Help out as best you can. If you think that providing food and water with the wealth you accumulated in Canada is the way to help, DO IT! If you think picking up a rifle and manning a checkpoint is the contribution you can make, DO IT! If someone with a Canadian passport gets killed by Syrian security forces as they are doing something suitable non violent, that’s as sure a way as any to get the government involved. If that doesn’t work, I don’t see any hope.

There is very little that the outside world can do to topple rotten regimes short of military intervention, so if you truly believe in your cause, get over there and contribute your boots on the ground. Anything short of that is a waste of time.

The Two Greatest Words in the English Language: De-Fault

First off, I think it’s pretty disingenuous for congress to have passed a budget, then turn around and refuse to allow the government to borrow the money in order to pay for it. There shouldn’t have to be two rounds of budget negotiations.

My second thought, is why does Obama have to worry? Either the government shuts down and no one notices because they don’t care about anything the government does other than its “essential” services which will continue, or they will be upset at the shut down of things that would be required to close anyway under the Republican’s “all cuts, no tax increases” plan.

But now I’m trying to put an optimistic spin on the most catastrophic situation. How bad could a default really be? Clearly Americans will stop paying foreigners first, so no real loss there. Even if credit dries up in America is that a real loss? Wasn’t a massive part of the current…or I suppose previous crisis that there was TOO MUCH credit, and not enough real value being generated? Now firms are sitting on huge plies of cash that they are unwilling to spend. Sure interest rates might spike, but that should encourage SENSIBLE allocation of SCARCE capital instead of the fire hose approach we seem to have been witnessing over the last decade. If the crisis can lead to a more productive investment of the resources that are available, bring it on!

On the social side of things a lack of investment will certainly hurt employment. Likely both in terms of overall employment levels, and on the wages that are paid to those people who are actually working. This will likely force some rethinking of our social priorities. If the government has to choose between financing nutrition for people below the poverty line, and F-35’s it seems obvious to me which choice they will make. Even if incomes were to decline, would that be such a bad thing? It seems to me that too much of what people spend money on doesn’t bring any long lasting happiness. If people have to get out to the park, or spend time socializing with their friends and families instead of going to the movies, I don’t really view that as a bad thing either.

Maybe a US default is just what the US, and the wider Western world needs in order to reorient its priorities.

Should Having Kids Make you Special?

From the Globe a while back...


“My opinion … was that if leave would be available to parents, it should also be available to people who choose to make some other significant commitment of their time. I didn’t see any moral distinction between having children and having a life goal of, say, climbing Mount Kilimanjaro or something. I was the only person in the room who felt that way.”

Really? This guy can't see a moral distinction between climbing a mountain, and caring for a defenseless human being?! If you fail to climb the mountain, you've just failed. If you fail to care for your child, you go to jail. That seems like a PRETTY CLEAR MORAL DISTINCTION TO ME! While I somewhat agree with some of the other points in the article it just strikes me that this is blind selfishness. We need children to continue society, that's why we value the contribution. If people are willing to help out with that, I'm willing to give them a free pass on a few things.

Unnecessary Elections

I see Harper calling this election “unnecessary”. Now, I don’t know about other people, but it seems that if the parties which received a majority of the votes in the previous election don’t like the direction being taken by a minority government, it is their prerogative to precipitate an election. I certainly think there have been better times when this could have been called, but I find it offensive that the government feels that giving me an opportunity to cast judgement on their policies is “unnecessary”. This seems to be an excellent starting point for a critique of their entire time in office. Consultation is unnecessary. We’re just going to do what we want and Canada is just going to have to deal with it. That’s no way to run a country, ESPECIALLY not with a minority government. It’s just a shame that it has taken the opposition this long to came up with the backbone to topple the government.

Were I in charge of the Liberal campaign, I would be focusing on how the government has used the threat of an election like a gun for their entire time in office. Vote for this bill you disagree with or there will be an election. This is not how a minority government should operate. ALL of the opposition parties need to get together and make that known to Canadians. And they need to be upfront about it at the start of the campaign. The current opposition parties need to let the electorate know that if there is another election in a year it’s because the government is trying to run the country like they had a majority while in fact they only have a minority.

Fears of a coalition also need to be overcome. Lots of countries in Europe are governed by coalitions. Even the UK is governed by one now and shows no sign of catastrophe, at least not one due to issues of coalition governance.

If Canadians are unable to deal with an election every two years, maybe they need to have a look around the world today to see what people elsewhere are willing to sacrifice for the privileges we currently enjoy.

Developing World Unrest

I had been pretty disillusioned with the state of the world since the campaign for the US mid terms began in earnest. I’m feeling a bit better now. With America essentially sidelined from impactful international engagement it’s heartening to see others taking matters into their own hands. Maybe the new Libyan licence plates will say “give me liberty or give me death”.

A few people have suggested to me that America has got to be behind the unrest, or that they have some sort of hidden agenda because they are not coming to the aid of their despots. I think this is a questionable read of the situation. During the cold war the Americans supported these dictators with the aim of containing the Soviet Union. That time has passed, and I think finally the Americans are getting what they wanted all along.

In my view, the US interest in the middle east boils down to three issues: oil, basing, and Israel. What’s happening now may cause short term problems on one or all of those fronts, but even in the medium term Arab democracies should alleviate many of those problems in America’s eyes.

First off oil. The US has protected dictators with the goal of securing their oil supply. During the cold war, this may have been of great importance, but less so today. Since oil is traded on an open and quite liquid market who sells to whom is much less of an issue. Any supply diversion will result in more oil available from a different source, assuming consistent demand. Civil war might temporarily disrupt supply, but both sides have a strong interest in getting their hands on oil revenue so the actual disruption is not likely to be overly severe.

The next issue is basing. While during the cold war, the ability to station troops abroad ready to respond to an emerging threat may have been viewed as a necessity it is certainly less so today. The US has the capacity for rapid response short of an invasion even without fixed bases in theatre. Combined with America’s current fiscal situation the shuttering of regional bases might even be in the governments interest. It’s much easier to sell when you are being booted out, than if you can be portrayed as unilaterally reducing your commitment.

The final issue is Israel. It seems unlikely to me that any Arab country is itching to invade Israel. Repelling their aggression is one thing, but taking the fight to them is quite another. I find the threat of a traditional style war with Israel far fetched. The Israeli’s certainly have the capability to hold out until US help arrives, if not repel the invaders on their own.

Another argument that parallels the fear of an invasion of Israel I frequently here is that the new governments may be more friendly to extremists or terrorists who aim to do America harm. This is possible, but safe havens already exist. If there was a motivated Egyptian who wanted to commit terrorism against the US it seems likely that he could have made it to somewhere where he could have made that happen. Travel to Pakistan is relatively cheap and reliable. I don’t know that the difference between having to travel to Cairo instead of all the way to the North West Frontier Province would cause a marked uptake in terrorism.

In addition, even if a radical government were to come to power the day to day struggles of having to provide for the electorate is likely to trump a great deal of the desire to cause trouble abroad. If the US embraces the new governments with an open hand, they will lose a convenient scapegoat for their national problems. If citizens have an outlet for their anger which is not violence, and the government has priorities larger than fermenting unrest, the situation seems to improve for all involved.

Now the US is in a situation where they can sever relationships with dubious leaders while having a replacement government in waiting that will have at least some legitimacy with citizens as a whole. The entire process aligns with America’s interests in the region and at home, and as such should be embraced with open arms and as much support as is asked for.