Citation du jour

Bon, étant plutôt occupé par mes examens de mi-session, j'ai quelque peu négligé mes lectures quotidiennes depuis une semaine. Disons donc que c'est la citation de la semaine, un honneur d'autant plus grand pour Nathalie Elgrably de l'IEDM qui en est l'auteure. Sans plus tarder, roulements de tambour... :


Un festival n'est qu'un mode de divertissement parmi d'autres. En l'absence de ce genre d'événement, les gens se divertiraient autrement. Ils iraient peut-être davantage au cinéma ou au restaurant. Ainsi, une dépense de 20 $ génère autant de retombées économiques, qu'elle permette de participer à un festival, de voir un film ou de s'offrir un repas. La nature de la dépense détermine quelles industries sont avantagées, mais elle n'affecte en rien l'ampleur de l'activité économique générée. [...]

Quand l'État subventionne les festivals, il prend l'argent des contribuables et permet à une poignée de fonctionnaires de décider à notre place du genre de loisir à encourager. Et comme si tout ceci était insuffisant, nos élus défendent leurs choix en élevant les retombées économiques au rang de faits incontestables alors que ce sont des calculs absurdes fondés sur un concept canularesque. Quelle tristesse!


Quelle tristesse, en effet.


Restant dans le sujet des retombées économiques, je ne peux que suggérer cet article de Gilles Guénette publié dans le QL l'an dernier qui fait en gros le tour de la question. Bonne lecture.

Insanity

When a legendary explosive metal band plays one of the most crowd-blasting song ever in front of one of the craziest audiences in the world... well, this is bound to come up on Youtube sometime.

Warning : this video can provoke some serious urges of jumping around in one's living room and may cause substantial damage to your carelessly stored CD collection. Watch at your own risks.

Hail the (Free) Trade Minister

David Emerson, the guy who decides what amount of tax you and I have to pay directly and indirectly when purchasing foreign goods, has decided that less was now better than more. You probably won't be surprised when I say that I agree with this idea 120%.

In a speech made in Gatineau yesterday to announce a new trade deal with 4 European countries, Federal Trade Minister Emerson made some interesting comments :

Perhaps [...] those who take an inward, protectionist and parochial approach to globalization [...] [feel] fear - fear of the unknown. Fear Canadians cannot compete. I think they are wrong. Canadians can and must compete with the best in the world.

And not just because our economic interests are at stake. Free and open commerce is also critical to fighting poverty, famine, disease and environmental degradation. That is how prosperity and technology are diffused to where they are needed.

Well, then, why not open the borders to all goods and services, regardless of their origin country? I mean, seriously.

If free and open commerce is critical to so many good things, then shouldn't more freedom of commerce do even more good? " 2+2.

Come on, Dave, a little effort here. 4 countries is a good start. Now let's invite the rest of the gang to the party. They do have a lot of poverty, famine, disease and environmental degradation to fight, after all.

Le mot interdit

Au Québec à tout le moins, le mot privatisation est synonyme de bafouement de nos droits de citoyens, soumission à la tyrannie capitaliste, prise en otage de la population, et autres expressions novlanguaises qui font vendre des journaux.

Un vent de changement soufflrait-il sur la belle province, alors que Claude Garcia, dans un texte d'opinion publié dans la Presse, propose de privatiser Hydro-Québec dans le but d'éliminer la dette?

M. Garcia apporte une argumentation convainquante, même pour le lecteur peu enclin aux idées de libre-marché. Pour résumer ses principaux points :

• La privatisation de l'Hydro entraînerait les prix au niveau du marché, soit environ 4 cents de plus du kw/h que le prix actuellement payé par les Québécois;
• En fonction de ces prix, la capitalisation boursière de la société serait supérieure à la dette du Québec;
• L'élimination de la dette. au net de la perte des revenus d'Hydro-Québec, ferait économiser plus de 5 milliards au gouvernement par an, de quoi permettre une baisse des impôts de 33% (!).

Le principal obstacle de ce plan est que pour les 40% et plus de Québécois qui ne paient aucun impôt parce que trop pauvres, une hausse du tarif d'électricité à court terme ne servira qu'à les appauvrir. Essayez-donc de leur dire qu'ils s'enrichiront au fil des années grâce à une économie plus productive dans un environnement moins taxé.

La décision de privatiser Hydro-Québec, tout comme toute autre société d'État, en serait sans aucun doute une excellente à moyen et à long terme. Des services de meilleure qualité, la fin du gaspillage, une vraie compétition avec les autres sources d'énergie comme le gaz naturel, une véritable innovation ne seraient que quelques-uns des nombreux avantages d'un tel geste.

Bravo M. Garcia pour avoir eu le courage d'exprimer une opinion presque hérétique dans cette société québécoise. Si d'autres font de même, peut-être un jour un gouvernement audacieux prendra-t-il le risque de prononcer le mot interdit et de laisser le marché faire son travail.

One year!

Well, I'm extremely proud to say that I've been a low-carber for one year today. Thank you, thank you.

In this time period, I've lost 40 pounds, 4 inches of waist-line, and a 22 year old curse of chubbiness. Breaking this curse is by far my greatest accomplishment. Losing the weight was easy. Just stick to the plan and stay motivated by the moving scale.

Staying at my new ideal weight is the real deal, as the early excitement has waned and temptations to sway from healthy eating are numerous. But so far I'm hanging in there, helped by the variety and rich taste of natural, healthy, low-carb food.

Cheers to the next year, which will, I'm sure, be as rewarding and pleasurable as the last one has been.

Thoughts on Virginia Tragedy

Not mine though, but Pierre Lemieux's, can be found here. This great article summarizes the issue quite well, and brings a refreshing point of view on the misplaced gun control debate. Extract :

In Blacksburg today, the tragic spectacle of tens, if not hundreds, of heavily armed policemen, with at least one armoured vehicle, all powerless to prevent a single gunman from killing and maiming more than 30 people reminds us of a dire fact: it is impossible to be totally protected against madmen, except by turning society into a convent or a jail.


One question needs to be asked, though. What if a student or a professor had been armed today at Virginia Tech? This possibility was very remote since guns are illegal on the Virginia Tech campus, and non-criminals usually try not to become criminals. At Dawson, what if the security guard who, we are told, helped some students flee and was not far from the killer had been armed? In all these tragic events, how many students wished, before dying, that they had a gun?


Those who call for increased gun controls should ask themselves whether their motives are rational or emotional. If they're rational, then the answer is simple : just think about it real hard for a couple of hours and you should deliver yourself from these fallacies.

If it's emotional (and I suspect it is for the vast majority), then simply read over again, and again, the last sentence from the previous extract. I'll restate it here, just in case :

In all these tragic events, how many students wished, before dying, that they had a gun?

I think this says it all.

Alberta in serious need of socialism

This is the province's new Premier, Ed Stelmach's, opinion.

There is a price to prosperity, a substantial price, as you will see, Stelmach said in a speech...

Stelmach said the province is dealing with double-digit growth hikes virtually across the board, leading to job and housing shortages and concerns about quality of life.

We need stable funding for municipalities, for capital projects, and we need to provide for the maintenance of public infrastructure," he said

He noted the province has committed $400 million for water and sewage treatment and affordable housing in Fort McMurray, the centre of Alberta's thundering oilsands economy


Here we go again with the unsustainable growth nonsense. The 2 main reasons why growth may be unsustainable are :
1. a bubble created mainly by inflation and;
2. not letting the market adjust on its own to changing economic conditions.

Clearly, Alberta's growth is more genuine than a mere paper bubble. What's threatening its development are the rigidity of the public infrastructures and of regulation. Even this second point about too much regulation is conceded by the Premier :

A deal will mean less red tape for Alberta business, and faster entry for the workers we need.

Stelmach said they continue to press for recognition of overseas credentials to fill job vacancies.


Why then can't he recognize the first point about rigid infrastructures that do not respond to price incentives? Why is his miracle solution to reduce Alberta's formidable economic growth to the detriment of everybody?

The solution to socialism is simply not more socialism. Sorry Eddy.