23 August, 2012

- Carney, a Closet Con? - Tell Me It Isn't So!

Posted: 1:23 PM on August 23, 2012

Free up 'dead money,' Carney exhorts corporate Canada, Aug. 23 2012, G&M
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/free-up-dead-money-carney-exhorts-corporate-canada/article4493091/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=The%20Globe%20and%20Mail&utm_type=text&utm_content=TheGlobeandMail&utm_campaign=97190246

"On the contrary, Bank of Canada research suggests that the dollar’s appreciation accounts for only about 20 per cent of Canada’s export decline."

What is this. Sounds like Carney is applying one of the fundamental proposition's of Con'ism - as long as it sounds plausible.

If scientific researchers (assuming any qualified scientific researchers are left in Canada) came out with results that indicated a particular cause was accountable for 20% of the cases of a particular potentially terminal disease Canadians would likely be up-and-arms about getting rid of it.

If Canada's exports were to increase by 20%, economies like that in Ontario would be hugely positively impacted and unemployment significantly reduced. Talk about a job creator!

The impression is that Carney is being used by Harper to give Harper's policies a stamp of systemic approval.

Or, perhaps in reality Carney is a Closet Con

Corporations should "Free Up Dead Money"

I thought Harper's con for reducing corporate taxes was so that Corporations would invest more in development (in Canada) and thus create jobs.

I also thought the major flaw in this 'con' was that the Corporations would not invest more in development but hold the money and/or distribute it to shareholders and generally merely make the rich richer.

Seems like the numbers are starting to manifest itself, revealing Harper's con, and Harper is trying a pre-emptive strike to defuse the situation.

"Andrew Snelgrove, CFO of Halifax-based investment company Clarke Inc., said many undervalued acquisition targets are available for companies that have cash and are willing to spend it."

How does buying up undervalued businesses help our economy - it only locks in the losses in investment in these undervalued companies and make the acquisitioner bigger.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention: there is a great study just released showing the US falling behind China and India in education and discussing the huge impact on the futures of those countries in being able to compete on the international level.

I can only assume that Canada is similarly situated to the US on this one.

Wow, just think, spending money on child care and development as well as education not only actually reduces crime rates but also makes us more competitive on the International level.

For the cost of one F-35 strike force super-jets (which are designed specifically and really may only be used to anywhere near their capacity in a full pitched war) I wonder what the equivalent is in Canadian children's upbringing and education.

For that matter how many of our children can we help for $30 billion and counting. Perhaps carney can make a comment on this as well.

I also wonder how does all the hard earned Canadian tax dollars being spent on upgrading Canada's military's ability to wage war compare the the profits Canadians get from the sale of Oil and gas. I suspect that Harper is in actuality using these profits to promote his right-wing extremist agenda.

And, what war are we gearing up for anyway.

I also wonder since the high price of gasoline is obviously having a devastating impact on all Westerners and especially Canadians and reducing the price of gas at the pumps would clearly be a huge job creator and export stimulus; and given that Harper considers himself as a Oil Super Power; surely Harper could do something to reduce gas prices. For example, reduce taxes on gasoline like the HST (the increased price of gas is a sneaky de facto tax increase for Harper), instead of a pipeline to BC where the Oil is shipped to the Far East make one to Ontario (or further East) and build refineries to process the oil.

(see my post: 19 May, 2012, Oil Profits Flow Outside Canada; Environmental Costs Stay Inside Canada - It's Just That Simple, Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html)

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html




16 August, 2012

We Are Because We Say We Are (or, We Don't Stop For Nobody)


posted: August 16, 2012 at 11:13 am
http://scienceblog.com/46622/minority-rules-scientists-discover-tipping-point-for-the-spread-of-ideas/comment-page-4/#comment-32671
Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas


My (Lloyd) observations ( empirical ) :
If 10 – 15% of the people are animated to remove a government or ruler their days are numbered.

(see for example:
cicblog.com/comments.html “There is only one source of power – people”, 29 July, 2009)

The findings sited in this study are along the same lines but with important exceptions:

The statement: “when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society”

Is, it is submitted, logically unsupported, since what happens in a society where there are two, or more, groups of 10% each with “unshakable believes” that are diametrically opposed – something that is not inconceivable, especially in communities with large populations, diverse geographically, politically, demographically, etc., for example say we call the groups Republican and Democrat.

It seems to me that there must be something more at work before what they are proposing comes to play. It might be that as they seems to suggest the 10% may be necessary but I am not convinced it is sufficient.

It doesn’t seems to take into account the politico-socio dynamics of a real society.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html