Dazed and Confused

While reading Conrad Black's recent National Post article on building monuments, the quote to which he referred from an article in the Globe and Mail " ... the millions of victims of Communism surely pales in comparison to the victims of Capitalism" sprung off the page at me. 

Can someone help me to understand why so many people hate Capitalism? 

After all, Captalism supplies the majority of Canadian jobs and funds all public service jobs; it has created the standard of living that we all cherish today; it generates the tax revenues that fund all public services in the country including our sacrosanct public health care, education and public safety enterprises; it has solved societal and individual problems too numerous to count. 

I think Led Zeppelin's "Dazed and Confused" was written for me in my efforts to understand this misguided and bedevilling hatred.

The benefits of "precarious employment"

The benefits of "precarious employment"

Recently I attended a "town hall" event entitled "Just-In-Time Jobs: Getting by in a world of part-time, contract and precarious work." Matt Galloway of the CBC Morning Show hosted it. This 90-minute event showcased the short term disadvantages and hardships experienced by people who work in non-salaried jobs.

As a professional recruiter, with 34 years of experience in the employment industry, I have personally witnessed several advantages that many workers have enjoyed while developing their skills and work history via this so-called "precarious employment" career path. What are these advantages?

For starters, these workers go where the need is greatest for their accumulated skills, knowledge and experience. This frequently results in higher wages for the worker and greater productivity for the employee - a win-win scenario for everyone, including the economy.

In addition, many of these workers actually prefer temp or term employment for the flexibility it can offer while they use their non-work hours to pursue other personal and/or professional interests.

One often-expressed advantage is that the "gypsy" work style of the career contractor provides opportunities to experience many different work environments. From each job, they learn and take "lessons learned" into future workplaces to their benefit and to the benefit of their employers.

Another claimed advantage is financial. The fact that self-employed contract workers are able to reduce their taxable income by claiming tax-deductible business expenses is a very common reason why many workers choose contract work.

To my way of thinking, however, the single biggest benefit is the least obvious one, but one that I have witnessed hundreds of times throughout my career. It can be summarized in one phrase: "Necessity is the mother of invention." By this, I mean that all successful, "precariously- employed" workers have internalized the critical lesson that their accumulated work history, skill sets, specialized knowledge, professional references, personal productivity and adaptability are all key to remain gainfully employed in our uncertain, modern job markets.

Survival is the #1 need of all human beings. When your financial survival instincts are continually challenged, you will continually seek ways to improve your "working game" in order to compete successfully in our modern, highly competitive job markets. In a nutshell, the best guarantee for job security is marketable skills. It is never advisable to become complacent about professional self-improvement.

Lauren Friese, one of the four CBC “town hall” panellists and  founder of TalentEgg - a national online career resource for students and recent graduates- advises her clients to think of themselves in entrepreneurial terms - to develop a "Me Inc" mindset. Like all successful entrepreneurs, these young workers are encouraged to continually re-evaluate their one-person business models in order to make the calculated and market-informed adjustments necessary to carve out their own personal road to success. Great advice!

 The timing of the CBC "town hall" event was interesting because many striking teaching assistants from York University and the University of Toronto were in attendance. Since I have been employed for 28 years without a salary- relying 100% on sales commissions- my view of their demands for more job security was quite foreign to me. Negotiating job security is unrealistic in this day and age for anyone other than possibly those employed in the public service where they enjoy the unique privileges of labour legislation that enables them to employ the bullying and force-based "negotiation" tactics of collective bargaining. I found myself wondering what makes any of them so "special" that they should be entitled to these legal privileges. Why should they have the power to coerce job security advantages for themselves when these no longer exist for the majority of the other taxpayers who are employed in the private sector?

It's unfortunate that the organizers of this CBC town hall event didn't choose to highlight any of the benefits of "precarious employment" as described above. Human capital is a terrible thing to waste in a world in which change is the only constant, and the ability to successfully adapt to change is the best strategy for long-term success.

For the sake of the greater good, and for creating a fair and level employment playing field for all citizens isn’t it time to eliminate the regulations that allow labour unions to distort this nation's workplaces? These regulations only serve to shelter the hundreds of thousands of public sector, unionized workers from becoming the best working professionals that they can be. Surely, by freeing our public service employees to experience the same competitive, "precarious employment" job market forces, the beneficial “Me Inc” self-reliant attitude will stoke the productive energies of all of our citizens equally. The ultimate benefits undoubtedly will be greater long term success and a higher standard of living for everyone.

Publicly paid Socialist criticizes RRSP and TFSA accounts

Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist employed by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, dissed the idea of increasing limits for TFSA and RRSP accounts during her appearance as a "business commentator" on CBC Radio's number one morning show, Metro Morning, which reaches a million listeners in the Greater Toronto Area. She claims that these programs are under-utilized in Canada while forgetting that these same programs are essential to many Canadians working with in private sector who do not enjoy the state-funded pension plans of public servants like her.

As a politically active Libertarian who is forced to pay taxes to maintain the viability of the CBC - a state-owned and operated propaganda engine which perennially sides with advocates like Ms. Yalnizyan for Big Government and Big Labour interests - I would like to propose that all citizens, and especially our  Citizen Entrepreneurs, be given the right to withdraw their tax support for the CBC. Its bad enough that we are forced to pay for this idealogical blunderbuss, but  it vexes me that the good work done by active Libertarians everywhere to deliver the message that  "less government means more individual freedoms for ALL citizens equally) is virtually blasted to smithereens by the CBC buckshot of anti-freedom messages paid for by state taxation. Please remember that Libertarian political parties and their messaging efforts receive no state funding, unlike the CBC.

Armine may have earned an M.A. in Industrial Relations from University of Toronto, a bilingual B.A. in economics from Glendon College, York University, and spent a year of economics at Université de Bordeaux, France... But this only goes to support my claim that her academic training was provided by pro-Big Government and Pro-Big Labor , state-funded institutions of "higher learning" funded entirely by the tax payer without choice. Armine's Life Lens looks nothing like my own, nor that of the millions of citizens who do not enjoy a paycheck and pension plans that are funded by coerced taxation.

To me, the face and voice of Ms. Yalnizyan is my personal poster child for the anti-freedom, anti-business thinking that muddles the minds of our richly-entitled government bureaucrats. I regularly call the Morning Show host Matt Galloway to complain about her Marxist views and hope to have her removed from the show, or at least introduced not as a "business commentator" but as a "Marxist" or "Socialist" commentator. I invite you all to do the same.

Gene Balfour

Thornhill 

I have run on 3 occasions s the Ontario Libertarian Candidate for Thornhill and plan my first run for the Libertarian party of Canada later this year

On selfishness

From: Gene

Subject: On selfishness 

Date: April 16, 2014 8:28:46 AM EDT

To: "Letters (National Post)"

Cc: Allen Small

Patrick MacKinnon states in Letters today under  Moving Thoughts that "Capitalism with its varying degrees of success exists because evolution has enabled the selfish to survive with prosperity for some but not for all." 

Ayn Rand wrote "The Virtue of Selfishness" in 1964 to explain that selfishness is an indispensable human trait that guides everyone quest for survival. Unfortunately, 'selfish' is all too often used in a pejorative way as Mr. MacKinnon has done here. There are many reasons for capitalism's success, and if the positive terms 'personal initiative', 'industriousness' and 'creativity' were associated with the term 'selfish',  then 'capitalism' would be seen in the positive context that it deserves.  

In Mr. MacKinnon's statement, however, the term 'selfish' could legitimately be used disparagingly to the human actions that are associated with many political organizations, such as public service labour unions, who truly act to bully the public at large so as to favour only those who are members of their union.

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill

The economically unsound "living wage" policy of the NDP

On reading "New Report" by Grace Macaluso on April 10, 2014, in the Windsor Star, it revealed that Canada was excluded from the $17.6 billion in the global automotive assembly investments made last year.

This fact comes as no surprise to me. I have been working with a Canadian consulting company that offers business transformation consulting services to automotive manufacturers in North and South America, and I have been aware of the gradual movement of automotive manufacturing operations from Ontario and the rest of Canada to more investment-friendly jurisdictions. 

Yesterday, I spent a very enjoyable three hours riding bicycles with a longtime friend who happens to live in the High Park region of Toronto which has a population that is responds well to the labor policies of left-wing parties such as the Ontario Liberals and NDP. The NDP, in particular, believes that every citizen is entitled to a "living wage". 

My friend claims to have completed a university level course in Economics in the 1970s. However, in espousing and supporting the "living wage" doctrine, he reveals how little he understands about Economics in the current business climate that has embraced international trade on a scale never seen before in world history. Investment capital is highly mobile and seeks the best opportunities for its owners, and rightly so. Where capital goes, so do jobs.

While having lunch, I asked my friend to tell me why he thinks we are losing manufacturing jobs in Ontario. He told me that he thought it was political. I then asked him to consider what criteria he may consider if he were an executive of an Ontario-based automobile manufacturing operation that was struggling to control costs so as to maintain profitability in a highly competitive market. My friend did not understand my question. I then asked him to name some of the top costs associated with manufacturing operations and asked him what he may do to reduce these costs. 

When organized labor costs were aired, he did not consider it advisable, or even feasible, too reduce these costs on the basis that it would be unfair to the workers who need to maintain a living wage. When energy costs were considered, he was aware that these had been climbing steadily, but were under political control and, consequently, were unlikely to be reduced. Finally, my friend had not considered the cost to comply with government regulations which often incurs large costs that are difficult to quantify.

I explained to my friend that the one thing that all three of these cost areas had in common was that the government had a high degree of influence on them, and without government involvement, these costs may not represent the competitive threats that they do today. Ironically, in the attempt of politicians to protect our interests, they unwittingly have destroyed the interests of many workers who once were employed in a once thriving and profitable Ontario manufacturing sector.

The "living wage" argument is an interesting one because few people analyze the unintended consequences of this policy. My friend argues the NDP claim that it was the labor union movement in Canada that was responsible for the creation of Canada's middle-class in the 1950s through 1970s. There may be some shred of truth in this claim, but it is not the entire story. However, it sells well to those who are currently in the middle class and who aspire to achieving middle-class economic status in the future. 

My friend also claims that, by eroding the "living wage", citizens will not earn enough to drive the economy through consumer purchases;  there will be more economic unrest amongst the population which will lead to increases in civil unrest and criminal behavior ; and there will be increased demand on our government welfare expenditures resulting from higher levels of unemployment and/or underemployment. There may also be some truth to these claims, but these scenarios are not the only possible outcomes.

Going back to our earlier hypothetical scenario of placing my friend in the role of manufacturing executive, we revisited the discussion of what he might do to fine tune the business model of his manufacturing operation in order to remain competitively viable. We both agreed that a profitable business was better then no business at all for all parties - the government will continue to collect taxes from the workers and from the business; the workers can collect wages instead of collecting unemployment insurance payments from government welfare rolls; local business enterprises which serve the company and which provide food, clothing, transportation, entertainment and other services to the workers would also benefit; and the customers of the business would continue to receive the products and services they have come to know and appreciate.

However, global trading is the reality today in every country of the world. Each country has inherent trading advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, countries that possess the climate and soil to grow bananas will do so to their competitive advantage in the world market; however, they will not mine oil if it is not one of its inherent advantages. This capitalization on natural advantages is how competitive world trade works -  it is the process by which business winners take hold and thrive and where business losers shed their less productive use of capital and labour resources in every country. Ultimately, unfettered markets will allocate resources in ways that best serve the citizens through the competitive forces within every society.

In such an economic climate, it is difficult to maintain a strict "living wage" policy because factors of production must be dynamic and adjustable to meet ever-changing market realities. To make firm policies that restrict or prevent the needed adjustments that shape viable business models is to use government regulations to inevitably condemn private business enterprises to the dustbins of history. 

Government mandarins do not experientially appreciate and understand the forces of competition in free markets  because their livelihoods are not dependent on profit or loss. For this reason, they are the least qualified members of society to issue policies that handcuff businesses. The best role for politicians and governments in the economy is to get out of the way of businesses, with the sole exception of protecting the property rights, including personal safety, of every citizen without bias.

As I tried to explain this to my friend, he was unable to "hear it" because he has been so deeply influenced by the NDP rhetoric that is ubiquitous within his community. This fact saddens me because, while a highly intelligent person in other areas of his life, he has swallowed the NDP message hook, line and sinker without applying any critical economic thinking.  It is the same story with the majority of our citizens who have been employed in the public sector and sheltered from any firsthand experience of working in a business that must be profitable in order to survive. The same can be said of regular readers of the Toronto Star, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, and other socialist leaning media purveyors who have also dispensed a form of thinking that completely ignores the immutable laws of pricing theory, supply and demand economics, and property rights.

I have been asked many times why I continue to run as a Libertarian candidate in the Ontario provincial elections. The answer is simple. I have spent over seven years reading and studying economics, and had seen through the lies and abuses of our political leaders and are government operations. 

Knowledge is a powerful thing, but it is also a two edge sword. One edge cuts cleanly through the dense undergrowth of government policy and taxation objectives, and leads one with a clear understanding of the immorality of government at its core. The other edge creates pain and frustration in possessing this knowledge and it is this pain and frustration that motivates me to do whatever I can to protect my family and my love ones from these abuses. For this reason, I see my political role as one of educator and messenger. I seek any citizen who is receptive to protecting their families and loved ones as I do. My friend is not receptive to this message, at least not at this stage in his life, but others are, and it is my task to find them and to help them understand.

I pledge to carry on this thankless mission for long as I can. 

Dalton McGuinty committed the Bernie Madoff folly

While reading "When Kathleen sued Tim" in the National Post today (April 7, 2014), it re-opened a festering sore in me that is linked to the gas plant scandal and inflamed my simmering anger at Premier McGuinty for his self-serving political actions preceding the 2011 election, and for the subsequent (alleged) email coverup operation.

This entire episode in Ontario's political history tells a compelling story of a profound beach of trust by Mr. McGuinty. As Ontario's elected Premier and Chief Protector of the interests of the people who elected him ( I was not one of them), he was entrusted to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on "investments" to  benefit us rather than his political goals.

Given that the gas plant decision has cost us $1.3 Billion, I consider this breach of trust to be par with to that of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated on many investors who entrusted Bernie Madoff to look out for their financial interests and who has since been tried for fraud and convicted to serve several lifetimes in prison. 

It is my hope that Kathleen's legal charge against Tim will spin off a larger legal investigation aimed at Dalton McGuinty, and his team of ((allegedly) guilty cohorts, that will result in a similar legal consequences. Maybe only  then will my festering sore heal over and I may begin feel some peace of mind when justice has been done. 

A conviction of Mr. McGuinty along with serious jail time, would  also send a message to all politicians everywhere that their actions and misdeeds will be legally held to the same standards and consequences as private citizens like Bernie Madoff when it comes to abusing the trust of citizens on such a grand scale.  

May the face of Dalton McGuinty become forever associated with Bernie Madoff's - both in reminder that no one is above the law, regardless of the wealth and reputation that they command. 

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill

Let's privatize climate change funding

Reading "Let's talk about climate change" this morning ( April 11, 2014) in the LETTERS page of the National Post which reveals that 26 university professors were recently disappointed when their offer of research services to the NEB were rejected, I was pleased by the NEB's decision to protect our tax dollars. 

Let's face it, the good professors were applying for paid employment which is funded by us. Their applications were self-serving and based on their professional support of the reports published by the IPPC alleging man's CO2 production as threatening future global Armageddon. 

I, like many other taxpayers, view the IPPC as a political organization with a predominantly political agenda rather than a credible scientific organization that presents un-spun, unvarnished scientific facts concerning man's role in climate change. For this reason, as a taxpayer, I am pleased that the NEB has denied  employment to these professors on my nickel. 

However, I am led to believe that that are still many people who believe the IPPC reports which means that there is likely a paying market  for research services in this domain.  I am proposing, therefore,  that these 26 professors take the entrepreneurial route and  form a private-sector (aka for-profit, or not-for-profit)  research consortium which will raise its funding from donations (subscriptions) from true IPPC believers. 

After all, if churches can thrive on donations from religious believers, why can this not also be true for this proposed consortium - one that will exist to serve the interests of the communities of IPPC true believers? 

This "put your money where your mouth is" proposal will get non-believers off the tax hook and enable true believers to tithe to their hearts content. Win-win!

Gene Balfour 

Thornhill, ON