[Fearmongering] Stock Market, Shmock Shmarket

I've compiled the following headlines to show how ridiculous an idea it is to forecast recessions and stock market crashes and economic booms. The stock market is really like playing the slots at a casino. It's a gamble. Yet only god knows why we put so much faith in this insanely volatile creature we call the "free market". If anything, this whole "we're plunging into a recession" fear shows how the so-called "invisible hand" suffers from a severe case of arthritis and random muscle spasms.

Also, Check out the video at the following link too... (in which Leo Panitch also confirms this and questions why there is so much fearmongering about the apocalyptic recession):
CLICK HERE

As you can see from the headlines below, the mainstream thought on the economy went from total confidence (including in the sub-prime mortgage sector) to fears of a recession, to massive stock market losses, only to be followed by "remarkable" recoveries, and confidence yet again... it's crazy!

October 4th (2007): No U.S. Recession in the Cards: Forecasters
The United States should avoid a recession and Canada's economy will likely escape without major problems from the sub-prime mortgage storm, two economic forecasters said Thursday.

January 9th (2008): No Recession in Canada, Bank Economists Say
Canada's economic growth will slow down this year, but will avoid a recession, top economists at Canada's biggest banks agreed Wednesday.

January 21st (2008): TSX Joins Global Market Rout: Toronto Market Takes Biggest 1-day Drop in 7 Years
The S&P/TSX composite index plummeted almost 605 points on Monday as it joined a worldwide market sell-off prompted by growing fears of a U.S. recession.

January 22nd (2008): TSX Bounces Back with 509-point gain
The Toronto stock market staged a dramatic rebound Tuesday as an emergency rate cut from the U.S. Federal Reserve and a smaller cut by the Bank of Canada persuaded investors to wade back into the market following a five-day tumble.

January 22nd (2008): Asian Stock Markets Plunge Amid Fears of US Recession
Global stock markets extended their shakeout into a second day Tuesday, plunging amid fears that a possible U.S. recession will cause a worldwide economic slowdown.

January 23rd (2008): US economy in recession: BMO Capital Markets
The US economy is in a recession, BMO Capital Markets said Wednesday as
it lowered its growth forecasts for both the US and Canada.

January 23rd (2008): Soros Says US Recession is Likely
The billionaire investor George Soros has said it will be "very difficult to avoid" recessions in the US and the UK.

January 23rd (2008): Some Sectors, Economists Say Doom and Gloom Exaggerated
The blood is on the floor of the world's stock exchanges and Canadian investors are nervous about the future, but you wouldn't know it from the people who help run Canada's construction industry, one of the healthiest sectors of the economy.

January 24th (2008): Bank Warns of Tougher Times, Cuts Growth Forecast to 1.8% for '08
Canada's economy has hit a wall and is unlikely to recover until the second half of this year due to a global slowdown and a crashing U.S. economy, the Bank of Canada said Thursday.

January 24th (2008): TSX Closes with 250-point Gain; Dow Rises 108
The TSX jumped at the opening of trading Thursday and held those gains through the day as the market built on Wednesday's late-day rally.

January 24th (2008): US Shares Make Stunning Recovery
US shares rebounded on Wednesday on fresh hopes that regulators will steer the US economy out of a recession.

February 13th (2008): U.S. Retail Sales Unexpectedly Rise
U.S. retail sales staged a surprising rebound in January as shoppers ventured back into stores following a dismal December.

[Revisitation] Ideas for Democracy

CLICK HERE to see an interesting idea that a friend of mine forwarded to me.... (the link is at the end of this post too).

The other day we got into a discussion about proportional representation. I was arguing in favour of adopting some kind of proportional representation, which I think is better termed "ideological representation". In the last election in Canada (2006) for example, the Green Party received 4.48% of the popular vote. That's more than 12% of the amount of votes the winning party (the Conservatives) got. And yet, the Green Party did not get any seats because none of their candidates were "first past the post". Given the 308 seats in the House of Commons, the Green Party should have received at least 13 seats (4.48% of the seats!).

Now, I'm not a Green Party supporter and I don't like the way they pretend to be removed from the traditional left-right political-economic spectrum. Nevertheless, I know an unfair situation when I see one, and if 4.48% percent of Canadians want a Green party representative, how can we legitimately call ourselves democratic when we don't even allow ONE Green Party member of parliament?

Another reason why we should find a way to incorporate proportional representation is to confront the conundrum of strategic voting. America is a classic example. How many Americans who support Nader voted for the Democrats strategically - not because they supported Kerry or Gore - but because they just couldn't stand the thought of Bush being their President? In other words, people are voting based on who they DON'T want, not who they DO want. What's democratic about that?

Nevertheless, the idea of Proportional Representation poses logistical problems. It's difficult to find a way, for example, for a proportional (or ideological) vote to account for regional representation, which is important in massive polities like the United States or Canada where undercurrents of separatism are very real. It's also difficult to know what candidates you would be voting for, unless each party had a slate of representatives they would put on the roster.

The Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia tried to get this style of voting put through, and I like it because it brings an element of both ideological representation AND regional representation together. Take a look, and let me know what you think:

http://citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf

[Shaming] The stats are in...

Well, the stats are in folks. A study published by Martin Turcotte at Statistics Canada revealed that, after comparing all major cities in the country, Edmonton has the highest percentage of people who use a car to get around the city. Congratulations, Edmonton. You must be so proud to have this fact distinguish your city.

Read about the study here.

Now, even though I bike everywhere (followed by walking, then public transit as my preferred methods of getting around), I too am one of the Edmontonians who should accept part of the blame. The key thing to note here is the unsustainable layout of our cities. And as a citizen of Edmonton, I have played a role in allowing the growth of urban sprawl backed by an incredibly deficient public transit infrastructure. When are we going to realize that it is just plain stupid to build rows upon rows of suburban houses that are miles away from the city core where most of these homeowners work, let along miles away from the grocery store!?

Zoning laws should incorporate a clause that requires housing developers to PROVE that easy and accessible public transit will be available to connect people's homes to the places they work and shop and entertain themselves.

Instead of double-door garages and driveways marking the front view of new homes, we should be seeing garden plots and transit stops.

Instead of columns of large individualized houses that require tons of energy to heat, we should build low-rise townhouses which make use of communal heating systems as well as photovoltaic and wind power generators to lower power usage from the grid.

With peak oil either just around the corner or even potentially already behind us, the only way to interpret these new stats is this: The Canadian polity, as a whole, is either totally apathetic and ignorant about climate change OR we are totally incapable of transforming our intentions for change into action. Considering the amount of dialogue regarding global warming, I don't think the it is the former. In other words, we need to work on ACTION.

ACTION, ACTION, ACTION! We need to take on the "suck it up" attitude and stop driving. I did it, and I've been surprised at the multitude of factors that have come into play - all of which have me feeling better about my individual impact on the environment. According to Statscan, transportation accounts for 30.1% of our Greenhouse Gas emissions (see the chart below). With this in mind, driving less CAN HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE. So pickup a bike, or take out those old walking shoes, or take a pair of scissors to your driver's license after buying a bus pas... do something to start ACTING on global warming!

[Letter] We need to act NOW

The following is a letter I wrote to the Member of Parliament for my riding in Edmonton.

Dear Mr. Jaffer,

It is with extreme frustration that I write to you today. For years now there has been a global consensus on the crucial need to curb our carbon emissions. Yet today, not only has Canada seemingly DONE NOTHING to confront the issue, but we are actually moving in the wrong direction (at least according to a number of prominent environmental organizations – such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund and the Pembina Institute)!

Hence my dismay this morning when ...[click on link below to expand to full post] I heard on the news that all ten tar sands companies that were recently assessed by the Pembina Institute and the World Wildlife Fund ALL failed miserably in their performance. THEY ALL FAILED, Jaffer! And we both know that it’s not just the companies to blame! Rob Powell of the World Wildlife Fund confirmed this: “The government has taken rather a laissez-faire approach to regulating this industry, relying too heavily on voluntary efforts by the company. And in many cases, the companies haven't chosen to do those things. They haven't established targets for reducing their emissions, for example."

We know that the climate change crisis is one that can’t be left solely to corporations enacting sound environmental practices - the politico-economic structure we have here in Canada has absolutely no incentives for companies to act as stewards of the environment. But not only do we need to create incentives, at this point we will need to FORCE companies and individuals to stop killing our planet. Why should we not consider such devastation as a crime? We need climate change legislation, not just economic incentives.

I know things move slowly in our Canadian parliament - I was originally from Ottawa and I saw the snail pace of politics when I lived there. However, we have no time to waste. As a recent article by Bill McKibben explains, the world reached a level of homeostasis before the industrial revolution with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels sitting at 275 parts per million. For the last few years we thought the upper limit was 450 parts per million before the damage becomes irreversible, but new studies show that 350 parts per million is a limit we would be wise not to surpass. Well, guess what we’re at today Rahim? WE’RE AT 383 PARTS PER MILLION!!! We need to stop now, there’s no time for pussyfooting around here - we seriously need to curb emissions.

We need to stop focusing so much on what China’s emissions are, or what the US has to say. Canada needs to set the global example by curbing our emissions NOW, and if that is to be our goal, we need powerful environmental legislation NOW. Mr. Jaffer, don’t you want Canada to be an example? Aren’t you embarrassed that we were singled out as an international pariah of climate change when we were awarded the Fossil Award by the global community at the UN Climate Summit last November?

Mr. Jaffer, I know that on a personal level, you are a genuinely good, thoughtful and caring person. I know this because I have met you and I used to work for your wonderful family at the Artisan Bakery. I know that if it was up to you, and you had a snap-of-the-finger solution available, you wouldn’t even think twice about it. I also know it’s not easy to be a politician in this era – especially due to the climate change issue. But won’t you admit, once you step back and look at the big picture objectively, that we’re failing miserably when it comes to climate change? If you could take a minute to imagine you were just an everyday citizen like me who had to rate our federal government’s actions on global warming – wouldn’t you also be extremely frustrated and angry that it appears that absolutely nothing concrete has been done, and that the rest of the world thinks we're setting back progress?

Well, luckily you are in a special position: you are in a position of power, and you have some sway – at least much more than the rest of us! But with that power comes responsibility, as you know. And so it is with this in mind that I ask you, I plead you, PLEASE- let’s get going here! We need to act now!

Sincerely,
One of your constituents

[Comparison] POLItics or AESTHEtics?

With the US Presidential Candidate Race in full swing, some of us are finding the nature of American campaign politics to be a little too aesthetic - lacking any discussion about principles. Instead of talking about Obama or Clinton's actual platforms all we hear on the news is that Clinton garnered support after a public crying incident and Obama has the backing of talk show host Oprah Winfrey. Needless to say, something is seriously wrong with this picture (incidentally, the picture here is Mitt Romney getting is hourly dose of makeup).

In depicting the demise of American democracy over the last forty years, Lewis H. Lapham had this to say (in the January 2008 issue of Harper's):

"Forty years ago, in the midst of the democratic uproar otherwise known as the 1960s, it was still possible to think that political theory had something to do with the practice of government, that the country's elected representatives were somehow responsive to the voice of the sovereign people... Political debate took the form of argument instead of being staged as high school spelling bees; haircuts weren't yet rated as significant campaign issues; the cost of running for Congress was equal to the cost of buying the medallion for a New York taxi-cab."

Oh how times have changed...

When I was asked which candidate I would support, I drew a blank, first of all because I doubt I'd support any of them, but secondly because I realized I didn't know a heck of a whole lot about each candidate's platforms. It also turns out that it is difficult to find a website out there that offers a clear comparison of all the candidates and what kinds of legislation they might enact if they were elected. So, I decided to make my own little chart (it will be in a constant state of repair and construction, but I don't intend to remove it). It's a google doc, and I think you can access it here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=p3Ji6hQkWanGVqiH2q_sgHg&hl=en

[Advice] Using Stelmach's Domain Wisely

This morning one of the main news stories in Alberta was regarding a recent cease and desist notice from cowboy, I mean... Premier Ed Stelmach's lawyers to a UofA student Dave Cournoyer, for having purchased the web domain edstelmach.ca. Dave was using the link initially to forward to his blog site (http://daveberta.blogspot.com/). The lawyers threatened to sue Dave and wanted the $20/month that he had made through adverts on the site. Read the CBC news story here. Needless to say there are hundreds of comments on the issue through Dave's blog and through the media. The following is my advice to Dave:

Just in case you haven't gotten enough useless advice that you've already considered, here's mine (sorry):

1) KEEP THE DOMAIN. I doubt they'll sue you. The cease and desist letter is an old lawyer's trick, and they particularly like using it on people they think are vulnerable and will cave in (like debt ridden university students). Even if they did sue (which they won't) there has got to be a dozen lawyers out there who would help you for free or for a very minimal fee, as well as various interest groups who would cover your legal costs - not to mention the sheer damage it would cause to Stelmach's reputation for suing a university student (which also is an incentive for them not to sue).

2) CHANGE UP THE edstelmach.ca SITE A BIT. You're just not using ...[click on link below to expand to full post] the domain very creatively (forwarding to Wikipedia - that's just boring). I say ditch the ads (so they can't accuse you of profiting with his name), and why not construct a site that is actually about Stelmach and his government's (socially inept) policies. By doing this you'd have a much better chance of arguing that you are using the domain name in line with CIRA's regulations... Just make sure you don't use the site to defame his personality, use it instead to engage us in an informed and factual dialogue about our Premier and his party. The TRUE FACTS speak for themselves: The Tories are just not good for this province, nor the country, nor our planet.

3) Try to look at the big picture here and be honest to yourself: This issue may have made the news this morning, but politically speaking it is totally irrelevant and has the effect of sidetracking our attention from this province's serious political and economic issues - such as the overwhelming problem of homelessness and unaffordable housing, the massive environmental damage being caused by irresponsible oil and gas exploitation and the overuse of coal power, the creeping privatization of our public sphere and the denigration of our democratic institutions (as noted in the example of the AEUB's spying on citizens & your case too I guess). It is my opinion that these latter issues (among others) are those that should be addressed and discussed on edstelmach.ca