And Now For Some Un-Conventional Wisdom…
I'm reposting this as it has some great stuff for Manitoban's to be proud of, and I think as we move into election season, it becomes more and more relevant. As a Real Estate investor, I look favourably on this as confirmation that Manitoba is a great place to continue investing in in the long term.
Cian
--
All the responses to the 2011/12 provincial budget in the April 13 Winnipeg Free Press speak with one voice that is critical of this year’s budget and the NDP government that tabled it. That so many well-known political pundits (Messrs. Craig, Martin, Brown and Kelcey) would speak with such commonality may make one think that these voices represent some sort of “conventional wisdom”. In the true sense of the term, they do.
The term “conventional wisdom” was made famous by renowned Canadian economist John Kenneth Galbraith in his book The Affluent Society. He used the expression ironically to describe the prevailing, but wrong-headed thinking of the day. Conventional wisdom in this sense is not wisdom at all, but stylized facts repeated over and over in order to convince an audience of the truthfulness of a particular message. The message of course originates with a group that stands to benefit greatly from having the public accept the idea as “wisdom”. Repeat an idea – no matter how questionable - enough times, and eventually it becomes the “truth.”
The “truth” according to the collection of analyses in the Winnipeg Free Press is that all government debt is harmful; all government spending is wasteful; the NDP is particularly wasteful and irresponsible; and that Manitoba is a have-not (second rate) province because of poor policy choices. But as with all conventional wisdom, this collection of pronouncements deserves a critical look.
Is government debt always harmful? On the contrary, government deficits are necessary in recessionary times. When lack of spending in business investment, consumption and exports drag the economy down and cause unemployment to grow, government spending is the only force strong enough to alleviate that drag. Without government stimulus spending following the events of 2008, the recession would have been deeper and longer.
Is government spending necessarily wasteful? Absolutely not. To read the words of the pundits one would think that every dollar spent by government goes into a black hole. In fact, the average per capita benefit from public services in Canada in 2006 came to $16,952, and around 56% of that benefit comes from our access to health care, education and personal transfer payments. Canadians in median income households benefit from public services in the amount of $41,000 — equivalent to roughly 63% of their total income. Furthermore, when the government spends on healthcare, education, childcare, infrastructure and cities there are long-term benefits that increase productivity and economic wellbeing for Canadian businesses and citizens.
Is the NDP is particularly wasteful and irresponsible? This is one of the stranger of the contentions given that the obvious comparator to the NDP’s recent economic performance is that of the previous Conservative government. Let’s look at the facts. Before the global recession necessitated a deficit, Manitoba’s debt/GDP ratio was around 24.7%, compared to 32.9% when, in 1999, the NDP took over from the Conservatives. Current stimulus spending will cause this year’s ratio to increase to 26.2%, still one of the lowest in Canada and the world. Furthermore, debt servicing costs have decreased from 13.2¢/dollar of revenue under the Conservatives to 6¢/dollar of revenue.
Mr. Martin, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Manitoba believes that Manitoba needs to compete with its Western neighbours in the tax-reduction game, stating that our personal exemption is almost 70% lower. But raising the personal income tax exemption to match Saskatchewan’s would remove an estimated $72 million from provincial revenues. Given concerns around paying down the debt, would that be responsible? And lest you think that this move would help low-income Manitobans, think again. Of the $72 million, just over a quarter would benefit individuals with incomes of less than $25,000; less than one half would benefit those making between $25,000 and $50,000, and a little more than a quarter would accrue to those earning more than $50,000. Regular and measured increases in minimum wages, a staple of this government, do more to help low-income people while keeping the revenue stream flowing.
Is Manitoba a second-rate province? The tendency is to compare to Alberta and Saskatchewan, especially with respect to taxes. But these provinces do not spend less per capita than Manitoba. They earn more than we do from their natural resource royalties: in 2008, 33% of Saskatchewan’s and 24% of Alberta’s revenues came from royalties. High royalties equals lower taxes, not less spending.
Manitoba may not have lucked out as much on the natural resource lottery, but that’s what makes our performance all the more impressive. Manitoba’s average rate of GDP growth for the past 3 years was 2.67%; Canada’s was 1.85%. Manitoba has weathered the recession better than the rest of Canada. In 2009, Manitoba was showing positive growth at 0.05%, while Canada’s economy shrank by nearly 2.5%. Our unemployment rate remains amongst the best in the country at 5.4%, average wages are increasing, our population is growing and our gini coefficient – a measure of equality – is better than Canada’s overall.
Finally, do the commentators speak with one voice? Yes they do, and that voice is male, conservative and pro-business. Too bad we couldn’t have heard from others outside the realm of conventional wisdom.
Lynne Fernandez is a political economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Mb.
April 15, 2011
re: how non-contributory democracy led to the credit crisis in a nutshell
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay £1. The sixth would pay £3. The seventh would pay £7. The eighth would pay £12. The ninth would pay £18. And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
....
But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10!”
....
So, the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. Funnily enough, the next month the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came to pay for their drinks, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half the bill.
That’s how non-contributory democracy led to the credit crisis in a nutshell.
Where to begin with this, uh, metaphor? Firstly, paying taxes is not voluntary. The 10th man cannot simply up and leave, or decide not to pay his portion. If he were a corporation he could try to do offshore banking, but that's getting harder and harder. Chances are his customers would find out and stop buying his products. Which leads me into the next point -
The 10th man is likely rich because of the other men - he possibly owns shares in the bar or something like that. If in fact he did up and leave, and stopped buying the rest of the men drinks, they would probably drink somewhere cheaper, perhaps with strippers. Maybe somewhere they could wash dishes in return for beer. They don't need him. In fact - I'd suggest that the rich need the poor, more than the other way around (where would I be with my mortgages without my tenants? Without me - they would simply be somewhere else. Without them - I'd be bankrupt)
And finally the credit crisis was in fact created by a disproportionate amount of power being given to those who were in charge of credit, insurance, banking, etc. ie those who are classified as wealthy. They played with an extremely complex system, invented even more complicated transactions that allowed them to create more middlemen in an industry that really did not need them, in order to siphon off more money, faster than ever. Of course they didn't know that it would cause issues, unless of course they read economic history books, and the reasons there were restrictions on things like insurance in the banking industry. But weather or not they knew is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is that they were given the power to make these changes because of their influence and money. Now that they've screwed up, they blame welfare cases? If welfare cases had not been allowed to vote - the credit crises would never have happened? Using the same article and reasoning I could conclude that one must take a test that covered logic, history, economics and mathematics in order to vote; and it would still be as wrong a conclusion.
We need to separate the position between power and money, more, not combine them closer together. The rise of lobbies, special interest groups and the simple rising costs of running for office I think are the real problems that need to be addressed. There was such a time as when politicians were not career politicians, but they were men with jobs, who put their jobs in hold for 5 or so years while they did 'public service'. No longer is this the case, as under the guise of creating fairness, we have created rules that restrict how campaign funds are raised, at the same time as making campaigns cost millions of dollars. The effect of this has created an environment where one must seek assistance from lobbies, special interest groups, and corporations in order to have a chance at winning. Once you've won though, it's time to pay up. Now I know that it would be difficult to change this, but there must be a way to reduce the cost of running a campaign, and reduce the need to rely on groups of people inside power structures (who are insane by their very nature) and instead rely on individuals of like minds, who agree with platforms rather than sound bites.
I've often thought a novel solution to this might be to disallow television and radio based campaigns. They are part of the mechanism that creates the large cost to those campaigns, and also gives the main stream media a lot of control over the results. If people were forced to actually go to fundraisers, and events to meet their politicians, and conversely politicians were forced to meet more people in person because otherwise no one would know who they were, then it may level the playing field more. Also, not allowing these messages to be passed over MSM would force people to leverage their social networks (the real ones) in order to obtain information. The neat thing about people's social networks is that they act like an information filter. The people that one actually listens to and trust, are the ones that they would get their information from. These people would likely pass on information that was relevant to them based on their belief system. Groups of people would stop being influenced by a central power, and be more influenced by their peers.
MTS 4G Network APN
For those of you who may wipe your android phones, or develop on them, you may find that at some point you've forgotten to save your APN information. You can either call MTS to get this, or search Google, and find it here:
Name: MTS
APN: sp.mts
Proxy: Not Set
Port: Not Set
Username: Not Set
Password: Not Set
Server: Not Set
MMSC: http://mmsc2.mts.net/
MMS proxy: 209.4.229.90
MMS port: 9401
MCC: 302
MNC: 660
Authentication type: Not Set
APN Type: Not Set
Good luck. There was another one, but they didn't enter it properly, I will follow up with them and edit this post when I have it.
(edit) here's the second one:
Name: MTS
APN: wap.mts
Proxy: Not Set
Port: Not Set
Username: Not Set
Password: Not Set
Server: Not Set
MMSC: http://mmsc2.mts.net/
MMS proxy: 209.4.229.90
MMS port: 9401
MCC: 302
MNC: 660
Authentication type: Not Set
APN Type: Not Set
We need MORE immigration!
We depend on immigration for our economic growth.
Much of the development and prosperity that cities experience can be linked to the amount of new people that are either born, or move there. In Manitoba, immigration makes up for about 70% of our growth, while deaths account for 65% of our births (Stats Can).
The amount of immigrants who come here to live with their families and work, pay taxes, etc, is very important to ensure we always have positive growth. "In the long-term, the economic growth depends on the extent to which productive capacity (including physical capital, human capital, and economic institutions) is able to grow" (William G Gale). Immigration of skilled labour helps with each these, migrants are usually skilled and add to our ability to produce (Migration between Countries).
The Conservatives this year made a plan that would limit that growth from immigration in such a way that it would effectively stifle the Manitoba economy, perhaps even back to where we were over a decade ago. The larger city centers won't feel that nearly as bad as we will here, as they have positive growth from local migration.
If you plan to stay in Winnipeg for any amount of time, I'd recommend voting for someone who has a chance to defeat the Conservatives, and looks positively on immigration. Who that is will highly depend on your local choices...
Be an Indian Giver this season
The text below is from an inspirational speech I recently gave at Toastmasters. It was intended to be only 2 minutes long, however I went over just by a bit. I think it's important to share this with you, feel free to pass it on.
I went to see a great speaker this week. His name was Shy Kurtz. I won't get into the premise of his speech, but some of the background he gave reminded me of a very important concept, which we often forget in today's busy, consumer world.
He started talking about the term 'Indian Giver', where it came from, and why in fact when it was intended as a insult, it rather should have been a compliment.
The term came from a misunderstanding, through a difference of cultures. In the Native American culture, a gift has a life of it's own. When you give a gift, you are creating something that will live on forever. Why? Because it is expected that when one receives a gift, that it is not kept - the gift must be passed on. Not necessarily the same physical object, it's more metaphysical than that - the gift itself must be passed on, and that is how it stays alive! Imagine, every time you start a gift chain, it could be passed all around the world, through thousands of people, only to come back to you!
The term Indian Giver appears to have come about when the Native Americans realized that their new neighbors did not subscribe to that way of thinking. It seems that some took offense to that, and took their gifts back, not wanting them to die.
And that is where the term Indian giver came from. A clash of cultures.
This holiday season, let’s all keep the gifts alive, and bring a little more light into the world!
