Steve Lafleur

New Music Video Highligts the Innocent Victims of the Drug War, Which Turns 40 Today

2011-06-17T13:32:00.000-07:00

The US government spent $15 billion dollars on the War on Drugs in 2010 (nearly equivalent to Canada's entire military budget), and almost 35,000 Mexicans have been killed in Drug War related violence during the past 4 years. Here is the video for a new song by my friend Lindy Vopnfjord, which highlights some of the innocent victims of the drug war. Viewer discretion is advised.

Today, I'm coming out as a (constitutional) monarchist

2011-05-19T07:45:00.000-07:00

Here's my latest article from C2C Journal, where I argue that the monarchy plays a small, but crucial part in our system of government that cannot be trusted to an elected office.

Can immigration save Detroit?

2011-05-17T10:57:00.000-07:00

In my latest article at New Geography, I argue that targeted immigration should be used to stem Detroit's demographic and economic decline before it's too late. The only alternative is razing much of the city to the ground, which has already begun. The model for this already exists in a surprising place: Winnipeg.

Click here to read the full article.

My Response to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

2011-05-13T09:41:00.000-07:00

The Edmonton Journal informed me that they have a strict editorial policy about printing responses to responses, which is a fair rule, so I'm posting my response to the FCM president's letter to the editor about my article about infrastructure spending here.

Here it is:

“Gridlock belongs on federal list,” May 6, 2011

I’m glad that the President of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities took my proposal to decentralize infrastructure spending seriously enough to respond. I’m also encouraged by the fact that he did not disagree in principle with the idea. However, I have two issues with his response.

First, he minimized the problem. His claim that half of infrastructure spending comes from municipalities is correct. But the debate over infrastructure spending has always been focused on capital spending, the majority of which comes from senior levels of government. In Alberta, it’s funded entirely by the province. As long as municipalities rely on higher levels of government, they’ll be forced to balance the needs of the city against political needs of senior governments. There’s no better example than Toronto’s Sheppard Subway line—a line from nowhere, to nowhere, and through nowhere. The province financed the tiny stub known as the Sheppard line by canceling the far more practical Eglinton line. Bad planning often makes good politics. Had the decision been left up to Toronto voters alone, this wouldn’t have happened.

Second, he said that if higher levels of government propose to give municipalities taxing power, the municipalities would be happy to sit down with them. The deferential tone is the problem. Unless municipalities are willing to forcefully make the case to the public that decentralization is essential, higher levels of government won’t bother with it. Federal and provincial politicians love controlling the purse strings. Having the ability to funnel money to politically important areas works out well for them. The FCM is a powerful lobby group, so there is no reason why they should hedge their bets by backing band aid solutions. The ball is in the FCMs court.

Air travelers should be weary of the NDP's de-facto airline policies

2011-04-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

With the very real prospect on an NDP lead Federal government, Canadians who have hitherto paid little attention to the details of the party’s economic plans are now scrambling to piece together the NDP’s vision for Canada. Unfortunately, their platform is silent on many important issues. Among these issues are airline regulations, which have been a hobbyhorse for many influential New Democrats over the last few years. Canada’s airline regulations rank among the most backwards in the developed world. If statements from people like Peggy Nash, Olivia Chow, and Jim Maloway are indeed representative of the NDP’s intentions for the airline industry, Canadian travelers may be in for a shakedown under a Jack Layton government.

Three specific policies championed by the aforementioned New Democrats come to mind. First, Peggy Nash, a current CAW employee and President of the New Democratic Party, has advocated for a partial nationalization of the Air Canada, and regulations that would hamstring discount carriers. Her rational is that discount carriers flood the market with supply in order to eat away at Air Canada’s market share. Even if true, it is hard to fathom how this is a bad thing from the perspective of anyone other than a unionized airline employee. Discount carries save consumers a substantial amount of money, especially low income travelers, who might not be able to afford to fly with Air Canada. They also save businesses money, which helps make them more competitive with US companies, who have access to cheaper airfare (this is especially important for small businesses). As it is, we need more competition—foreign or otherwise—not less. Our airline policies shouldn’t be about keeping Air Canada’s unionized employees happy.

The second worrisome policy is contained in Winnipeg MP Jim Maloway’s 2009 private member’s bill, which called for the creation of a “passenger’s bill of rights” for air travellers. This included such gems as compensation of $500 per hour (after the first hour) to customers experiencing flight delays, and up to $1200 for being bumped from a flight. The four largest airlines implemented a watered down version of this bill of rights. While the intention behind this legislation was reasonable, the impact would have been devastating to the airline industry, and bad for consumers. After all, if the cost associated with delays was rendered higher than the expected revenue from many flights, the industry would reduce the number of flights. This could be devastating for companies like Porter and WestJet, where a large percentage of flights are under $500. For instance, a quick search reveals that a flight from Toronto to Chicago on April 30^th (booked April 28^th) would cost $60 plus tax. Porter would gross $4200 on this flight if it is filled to capacity. If this flight were to be delayed by two hours—which often happens due to circumstances beyond the control of airlines—Porter would be fined $35,000. Given that Porter operates on low margins, the loss from this one flight would be well over $30,000. It’s hard to imagine Porter operating in this environment. In other words, no more $60 airfare to Chicago (Air Canada would charge $139).

The last policy that the NDP has to answer for is their opposition to expansion of the Toronto Island airport. While this issue is specific to Toronto, the mentality behind the party’s opposition should worry air travellers throughout the country. This is the beachhead for Porter Airlines, and Olivia Chow is on record as wanting to shut it down. Her opposition stems from the not in my backyard sentiment against the airport from certain local constituents. This lobby was powerful enough to propel former Mayor David Miller to power, so it seems like a wise political move for Chow, whose riding includes the airport. When opposing airport expansion in the House of Commons, she claimed that “operating an airport is contrary to the vision of a clean, green and vibrant waterfront.” It’s hard to imagine how forcing the 700,000 plus passengers travelling through the Island Airport to instead travel all the way to Mississauga to fly via Pearson would mesh with her stated environmental goals. After all, only 7% of passengers, and 11% of employees travelling to Pearson use public transit. One valid concern she raises is that the airport is subsidized to the tune of $6 million annually. This should be addressed by shifting the burden of financing the airport to the airlines. The $45 million Porter spent on their new terminal is a great start. Nevertheless, it seems odd that Chow is so concerned about a $6 million dollar subsidy, but unfazed by the annual $400 million plus operating subsidy to the Toronto Transit Commission.

If the New Democratic Party is serious about governing, they will have to explain their positions on important issues like airline regulations. One of the reasons why the Conservative Party has been able to build a competitive national party is that they dropped many of their most controversial policy ideas when they were within striking distance of power. Will the NDP make the same prudent decision, or will they govern like an opposition party? This is the question that Jack Layton will have to answer in the closing days of the campaign.

My latest column on why the Feds shouldn't pay for infrastructure

2011-04-20T20:56:00.000-07:00

Here is a column I was invited to write for Post Media for their series "The Real Agenda," which highlights issues that are not being focussed on during the Federal election, but should be. I argue that having senior levels of government funding infrastructure projects is bad for everyone, including the recipient municipalities.

US Air Traffic Control System Comes Under Fire, Privatized Canadian System Wins Awards

2011-04-20T12:32:00.000-07:00

In the last few days there has been shocking news about US air traffic controllers sleeping on the job, watching movies at work, and showing up late for work. Today the issue has been exacerbated by a close call experienced by First Lady Michelle Obama.

It may come as a shock to critics on the left that while the US government's government run air traffic control system is violating safety regulations, Canada's privatized system is far more efficient, and safer.

Have a look at these two videos on privatizing air traffic control:

Canadian journalist detained in China, dissident artist nowhere to be found

2011-04-11T10:38:00.000-07:00

While most of you are bogged down in the election campaign, I hope you can take a minute to observe what is happening in China right now. Today, Canadian journalist Bill Schiller was detained and questioned for documenting the oppression of Chinese Christians. Meanwhile, dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who was detained last week, is nowhere to be found. I encourage you to Google his name, since Google will actually permit you to do so in Canada.

While many people will inevitably be disappointed by the outcome of our election, at least we live in a country where we don't face indefinite detainment for expressing political opinions.

My Calgary transportation study, released today

2011-03-30T05:36:00.000-07:00

I've spent a good chunk of the last few months working on a study of Calgary's light rail transit (C-Train) system, which was released today by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I've had a long standing interest in LRT systems, and spent the summer of 2009 working for the Cascade Policy Institute in Oregon, where we compiled massive amounts of data on their world renowned LRT system as part of an ongoing project. The data (including actual field research, which proponents of the system haven't done--they rely on survey data), indicates that ridership is lower, and costs are far higher than proponents believe.

That first hand experience (which included riding the train every day), coupled with the empirical literature from light rail systems across North America, shattered my previous conviction that light rail transit can be an economical method of transit. For the record, I do believe that subways can be profitable in dense urban cores (even the badly managed TTC nearly breaks even), and buses already are profitable in many cases (especially inter-urban bus services, such as Greyhound and Megabus). Many proponents of LRT believe that it is a happy medium between subways and buses. If that were the case, it would be profitable. However, LRT combines the disadvantages of the two: it is slow, inflexible, and expensive. Numerous studies, in particular an authoritative study by the non-partisan United States Government Accountability Office, have demonstrated that on average, buses are a cheaper, faster, and more flexible than LRT for providing mass transit.

While I use many different metrics to demonstrate that the costs and benefits of LRT are wildly exaggerated, my favorite is that Calgary spends both the most on transit and the most on roads per-capita. Given that Calgary's entire land use and transportation framework for the past several decades has been built around the C-Train, it is hard to call it anything but a failure. The City has cracked down on parking so aggressively to encourage people to ride the train that there are only 0.07 parking spaces per employee in the central business district. Because of this, Calgary is tied with New York for the highest parking prices on the continent. But many of those people who would otherwise have parked downtown instead park in the free parking spots provided at C-Train stations. Not only is free parking horribly inefficient, but this also emphasizes one of the major contradictions of the C-Train: it isn't getting people out of their cars, and it isn't helping to curb urban sprawl--two of its primary goals.

Unsurprisingly, those last two findings proved controversial, though not as controversial as my assertion that the C-Train fails to help the urban poor. A columnist for the Calgary Herald wrote an angry response to my Herald article that accompanied the story (though doesn't seem to have read the study). She attempts to refute my arguments about urban sprawl, and the impact of the C-Train on the poor, while dismissing the study as "a cost-benefit analysis guaranteed to resonate with other right wingers who share the mantra of lower taxes above all else, including over the reality of everyday experience." I'm not clear on when cost-benefit analysis became a right wing concept, but I'll let that one go. I will, however, address her two criticisms in short order.

The idea that urban transit could worsen sprawl seems odd. The reason why it does so in Calgary is because the C-Train network is built on a hub and spoke model. What this means is that transit is concentrated on going from the outskirts, into the city center. Since LRT is so expensive, and since people need to be 'collected' by buses to get to LRT stations, the city has less resources to provide transit circling the core, or travelling east-west. And if you can't provide good transit for people who aren't living along LRT lines, and don't work along one of the lines, people are just going to keep moving further out (hence the highest road costs in the nation). Here's what Calgary Transit's current planning manager has to say about the C-Train's impact on sprawl:

"In one respect, it should allow Calgary to be a more compact city, but what it's done is it's actually allowed Calgary to continue to develop outward because it was so easy to get to the LRT and then get other places," says Neil McKendrick, Calgary Transit's current planning manager."

While that comment is true for those who can afford to live by LRT stations (or to drive to them), it doesn't apply to the city's poorest. As it happens, LRT lines raise the cost of adjacent housing(though for proximate high end housing it lowers the value--hardly a concern for the poor)--by $1045 for every 100 feet closer to a rail station. This isn't a terribly complicated concept. If you spend a massive amount of money on a form of transit that is considered to luxurious, the price of housing goes up. This is exacerbated by the fact that diverting transit resources to those areas makes transit there comparatively better, making it that much more desirable comparatively for people who intend to use transit at all--even as just an occasional amenity, say for going downtown on weekends. LRT is great for people who can afford to live by the stations, but not so much for anyone else.

Unfortunately, for many, light rail transit has become a sacred cow. But if Calgary is ever going to have adequate rapid transit, the City will need to explore more cost effective options. Buses may not be trendy, but expanding BRT in Calgary would dramatically improve people's mobility at a reasonable cost. Fortunately, the current Mayor has acknowledged that BRT will have to be part of the solution for making Calgary a transit friendly city. He also made the wise decision of de-prioritizing the southeast LRT extension (expected to cost $1.2-$1.8 billion). If the Mayor follows up on his promise to make BRT an integral part of Calgary Transit in the short term, the City will not only have far better transit, but it will have a chance to watch the LRT and BRT operating side by side so that the people can decide for themselves whether the the billion plus required to build the Southeast LRT is worthwhile. My bet is on BRT.

Instead of Earth Hour

2011-03-26T15:06:00.000-07:00

Earth Hour is a great example of millions of how people can spontaneously cooperate to achieve a collective good. Unfortunately, while participants succeed in coaxing others to participate, the collective good they create is a fleeting sense of collective accomplishment. As for achieving the primary goal of the activists--reducing greenhouse gases--it completely misses the point. The most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to increase energy efficiency. Fortunately, nearly everyone has a vested interest in energy efficiency--saving money.

Does turning off the lights for an hour have a lasting impact on energy efficiency? Of course not. The real rational behind Earth Hour is to create support for legislation that they believe will reduce carbon emissions. In other words, Earth Hour is a bottom up attempt to use top down means to solve hundreds of billions of problems--namely the multitude of individual energy inefficient decisions each of us make every day. This approach is bound to fail. Declaring that carbon emissions shall be reduced doesn't have an impact unless individuals and businesses do something to reduce their carbon emissions. Diktats have far less ability to change people's behaviour than economic incentives, absent Draconian measures. In short, the best way to convince people to conserve energy is to show them that it will save them money.

So how could we leverage the co-operation of Earth Hour into an increased awareness of the individual benefits of energy conservation? I would suggest that rather than turning off the lights for an hour, the World Wildlife Foundation (organizers of the event) suggest that everyone make one improvement to their household energy efficiency during Earth Hour. This could range from replacing an old refrigerator (or at least purchasing one online during the hour) to installing an energy efficient light bulb, or installing new weatherstripping on a drafty window. Sure, it doesn't have the visual impact of having large swaths of a city fall into darkness, but it would actually have a bigger long term impact. WWF could feature an energy efficiency calculator on their site, and participants could roughly calculate their energy consumption savings, and send them on to WWF to aggregate. This way participants would still get some of the sense of accomplishment that comes along with cloaking their city in darkness. Given that WWF believes energy efficiency to be the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this would seem like the perfect way for them to get their message across.

So here is the choice: self loathing deprivation, or a celebration of human accomplishment. Given the extremely negative message the first sends to people who aren't hardcore environmentalists--that conservation requires inconvenience and sacrifice--the smart approach would be to send a positive message: energy efficiency saves you money. It lacks the feel good factor of sacrificing for the good of the planet, but at least it could have an actual impact. Like it or not, self interest almost always trumps self sacrifice. The goal should be to harness people's self interest, rather than fighting against it.

Should Toronto Sell the TTC?

2011-02-28T11:16:00.001-08:00

Eleven years ago, a British company bid $500 million to buy the TTC, and promised a 10 year fare freeze. The TTC currently loses $350 million annually. Energy Probe Research Foundation executive director Lawrence Solomon makes the case that the TTC millstone could still be turned into an asset for the city.

Read the full story here.

Toronto Election Highlights Failure of Amalgamation

2010-12-01T09:57:00.000-08:00

Originally featured at New Geography.

In my pre-election piece on the Toronto election, I discussed the city’s lingering malaise. It developed slowly but its roots can be traced to the 1998 amalgamation that swallowed up five suburban municipalities. This led to a six folds expansion of city boundaries and a tripling the population base. This amalgamation was initiated by the province of Ontario as a cost saving measure and faced major local opposition. Citizens and politicians were concerned that the benefits of the alleged efficiency saving would be outweighed by the negative impact of losing local decision making powers. The recent Toronto municipal election bore out this concern.

In the October 25th election, Torontonians were presented with two dramatically different visions. The first vision was presented by former Liberal Ontario cabinet minister George Smitherman. A self-described progressive, Smitherman appealed mainly to voters in the downtown core of Old Toronto. He stood for issues such as improved bicycle lanes, renewal of the downtown waterfront, and improving social housing conditions. The second version was presented by maverick councilor Rob Ford, who represented a ward in the former City of Etobicoke. Ford’s message was simple: it’s time to stop the “gravy train” at City Hall. While he had elaborate platforms on many issues, cutting waste at City Hall was his ubiquitous message.

(continue reading)

Unintended Consequences of Oil Drilling Regulations

2010-11-13T10:03:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to a great article from Shawn Regan at the Property and Environment Research Center on how government regulations are effecting oil exploration. Rather than protecting the environment, it turns out that heavy handed regulations--driven by NIMBYs--are leading us to look for oil in all the wrong places.

The world isn't running out of oil, yet governments have essentially forced oil companies into offshore drilling. The US government has designated 80% of oil rich offshore land, and 60% of equivalent on shore land of limits to drilling. Combine this with a liability cap for oil spills, and offshore drilling all of a sudden makes plenty of sense for drillers. Michael Greenstone of the Brookings Institute summed up the situation pefectly: “The cap effectively subsidizes drilling and substandard safety investments in the very locations where the damages from spills would be greatest.”

Taxpayers Likely to Lose Hundreds of Millions on Olympic Village

2010-10-08T16:18:00.000-07:00

Originally posted at New Geography.

The former Olympic athlete's village in Vancouver is in the news again, but this time no one is celebrating. The billion dollar plus development, originally built to house athletes then converted to a residential housing development, was primarily financed by a loan from the city of Vancouver. Millennium Development Corp., developer of the project, currently owes the city $731 million. Millennium was scheduled to pay back the first $200 million by August 31st, but came up $8 million short. They managed to find another $5 million by September 20th, but they are still $3 million short. On top of this, they have another $75 million due in January. The city is considering legal action against the developer.

This isn't the first we've heard about financial troubles with the project. The city actually took over the loan from Millennium’s initial lender due to cost overruns. The repayment schedule was considered feasible, given the strength of the Vancouver real estate market. Unfortunately for them, sales have been slow. While 223 units sold during the presale, only 36 units have moved since. This leaves more than half of the units. 454, lingering on the market. The city has actually been forced to take over the 252 units of social housing that were required to be built due to the city's inclusionary zoning laws.

(Continue Reading)

Amalgamation, and Election Year Anger in Toronto

2010-09-20T23:33:00.000-07:00

My latest New Geography article. Toronto election year anger is a side effect of amalgamation, rather than a knee jerk reaction against big government.

Despite Toronto’s international reputation for livability, all is not well in the city. Many politicians and pundits blame the outgoing city council, and Mayor David Miller. While they’ve done their share of damage, the city faces deeper, systemic problems. The source of the problem is more fundamental than stifling bureaucracy, or the stranglehold of the public sector unions. These are symptoms of the institutional sclerosis caused by the amalgamation of Toronto and surrounding areas into the new Toronto Megacity...(continue reading)

NDP and Greens Back Fiscal Restraint in Winnipeg, While Tories Back Expensive Toy Trains

2010-09-13T12:25:00.001-07:00

Light rail transit is seen by many progressives as the transportation method of the future. Despite numerous studies that question the alleged social, economic, and environmental benefits of light rail, they continue to advocate for it. Many studies, including an authoritative study by the US Government Accountability Office, have demonstrated that bus rapid transit is a far more efficient than LRT.

While academics and non-partisan advocacy groups continue to document the benefits of BRT, for some reason Conservative municipal politicians are embracing LRT. Calgary City Councilor and Mayoral hopeful Ric McIver and Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brian have been long time LRT backers, and Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz jumped on the bandwagon awhile back.

Shockingly, Katz is now being opposed in his attempt to introduce LRT to Winnipeg by NDP Mayoral candidate Judy Wasylycia-Leis. Even more surprising is that she has garnered an endorsement from Green Party leader Elizabeth May. That's right. The NDP and Greens are supporting efficient transportation policy, while a partisan Tory Mayor (endorsed by at least one Tory MP) is advocating for billions of dollars in capital expenditures. It seems that the Tory strategy of strategic capitulation (read: selling out) is backfiring in Winnipeg. I haven't had a chance to look into the rest of her platform, but I would imagine that I'll wind up supporting her at this point. She may be bad on every other issue, but she probably couldn't spend the savings from scrapping the LRT system if she tried. Besides, it's time for the grassroots to send Tory sellouts like Katz a message: show some fiscal restraint, or your base will stay home--or vote for someone who will. Even if it's a New Democrat.

What Does $600 Million of Provincial Transit Funds Get You?

2010-09-03T12:16:00.000-07:00

The City of Ottawa just received confirmation that the Province will kick in $600 million to fund the city's light rail transit exansion. What will they get out of that? A Twelve kilometer extension. Yes, that's right. For the price of 1000 state of the art hybrid buses, they get a measly 12 kilometers added to the light rail line. Sorry. I lied. They don't even come close to getting it for $600 million. The total price tag is $2.1 billion, and that is before the inevitable cost overruns. In other words, for the price of tripling the number of buses in the OC Transpo's fleet, they're getting a glorified monorail extension.

Vancouver: Planner’s Dream, Middle Class Nightmare

2010-08-20T11:55:00.000-07:00

Original featured at New Geography.

Vancouver is consistently rated among the most desirable places to live in the Economist’s annual ranking of cities. In fact, this year it topped the list. Of course, it also topped another list. Vancouver was ranked as the city with the most unaffordable housing in the English speaking world by Demographia’s annual survey. According to the survey criteria, housing prices in an affordable market should have an “median multiple” of no higher than 3.0 (meaning that median housing price should cost no more than 3 times the median annual gross household income). Vancouver came in at a staggering 9.3. The second most expensive major Canadian city, Toronto, has an index of only 5.2. Even legendarily unaffordable London and New York were significantly lower... (continue reading)

Electric Vehicle Subsidies: Greening the Earth, or Subsidizing the Wealthy?

2010-08-09T13:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a great article from Slate Magazine on the futility of subsidizing electric vehicle technology. While EVs may one day be viable, subsidies for EVs are little more than kickbacks to those who are actually wealthy enough to afford them. I wonder if the author read the report I published for the Cascade Policy Institute last summer?

Is Homeownership Overrated?

2010-08-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

Originally featured at New Geography.

Home ownership has been considered an integral part of the American Dream for as long as anyone can remember. Now it has come under scrutiny, notably in a June Wall Street Journal piece by Richard Florida, which claims that that home ownership reduces employment opportunities for young adults, since it limits their mobility. To support ownership, others — particularly Wendell Cox — have argued that home ownership levels do not correlate with the economic productivity of cities...(continue reading)

Libertarian Centrism

2010-07-31T07:37:00.000-07:00

Libertarianism has an ambiguous place within American federal politics. Since libertarianism became popular in the 1960's, libertarians seem to have defaulted towards reluctantly supporting the Republican Party. This loose alliance reached a peak during the Reagan years, as well as during the Republican revolution in the early 90s. While most libertarians continued to vote Republican through the last decade, many libertarian public figures disavowed the party during the Bush Administration. This has lead to many debates among libertarian intellectuals about how best to work within the political system to advance individual liberty. Should libertarians continue to support Republicans, or move over to the Democratic column. I will argue that neither is appropriate. The only way for libertarians to influence American politics at the national level is to remain an independent swing vote. The flip side of this is that they need to be willing to back moderate proposals from either party that will serve to advance freedom. In other words, libertarians need to claim the center.

*Before proceeding, I should point out that this argument is exclusively referring to American federal politics. Libertarians still do have something to be gained from a loose alliance with conservatives in Canada, since Canadian conservatives are nowhere near as socially conservative than their American equivalents, and tend to be far more reasonable on civil liberties issues. It also doesn't necessarily apply to State governments, since the issue set is different than at the federal level.*

A recent debate in Reason Magazine between Brink Lindsey from the Cato Institute, Jonah Goldberg of National Review, and Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works has been the subject of a flurry of discussion recently. The genesis of this debate can be traced back a few years to an article Lindsey wrote in The New Republic in 2006. His claim was that Libertarians had nothing to gain from their 'fusion' with conservatives, and should instead focus on co-operating with liberals. While he didn't expect to convert liberals en masse, he hoped to work with liberals to use market mechanisms to achieve progressive goals. He referred to this philosophy as 'liberaltarianism'. Goldberg was one of his most prominent opponents from the beginning. Goldberg wished him luck, but doubted that liberals would have any interest in using market mechanisms to achieve progressive goals.

In the Reason debate, Lindsey unambiguously disavowed any kind of alliance with the left. He recognized that "for now and the foreseeable future, the left is no more viable a home for libertarians than is the right." The left is inflexible on economic issues, as the right is on social issues. Rather than fusing with the left or the right, Lindsey advocates working with the left on social issues, and the right on economic issues. Rather than throwing money at the Republican or Democratic Party, he believes believes that libertarians should fund individual candidates who are committed to both individual and economic freedom, rather than funding candidates based on their economic views and just hoping they won't trample over civil liberties.

While Lindsey's position hasn't been fully fleshed out yet, I find it persuasive. One need only look at the survey data on Tea Party activists that Lindsay provides:

"Tea Partiers hold distinctly unlibertarian views on a wide variety of issues. According to the Times poll, 82 percent think illegal immigration is a very serious problem, and supporters of decreasing legal immigration outnumber those who want to liberalize immigration by 42 to 14 percent. Only 16 percent favor gay marriage (compared to 39 percent of the country at large), and 40 percent call for no legal recognition of same-sex unions. Meanwhile, 77 percent support either banning abortions outright or making them more difficult to obtain. "

The standard libertarian position on immigration, marriage, and abortion is laissez-faire. Furthermore, most libertarians feel strongly about at least one of those three issues. This should give libertarians pause before supporting any party who will pander to the Tea Party. I am much more opposed to mass deportations than I am to tax increases, so there is no way that I can align myself with the Tea Party. It is also worth noting that there are a non-trivial number of activist libertarians who attend Tea Parties. Remove them from the above numbers, and I suspect the numbers get far worse.

The biggest problems with working with Republicans that Lindsey pointed out are that they tend to rely on two impulses: anti-intellectual populism, and/or dogmatic religiosity. This is precisely the opposite of the libertarian ideal. Of course, the far left is no better. There is no way to reason with people steeped in anti-corporate conspiracy theories, and revolutionary sentiments. Rational, secular discourse is required for a thriving liberal democracy.

There is one major problem with breaking away from conservatives: fundraising. Libertarian think tanks have been fairly close with conservatives, and by explicitly moving away would jeopardize at least some fundraising capacity. However, I don't see any need for think tanks to change their policy focus, or their outreach efforts. Most think tanks have very limited political advocacy efforts anyways. What's more important is how libertarian donors and activists act.

The fundamental rule for activism and political donations for libertarians should be to always work towards divided government. Neither party can be trusted with the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. In terms of specific candidates, I would recommend a two track approach. Obviously, actual libertarians like Jeff Flake and Scott Garrett deserve our support. More importantly, libertarians should work with moderates in both parties. There are several reasons for this. First, they are typically more thoughtful than the average member. This means that they are more open to shifting policy positions. Second, they compose large blocks of semi-independent swing votes. Third, they tend to have very high national profiles. One way to achieve this would be to start a liberaltarian version of Freedom Works. I'm not sure how feasible this idea is, but it would be an excellent way to provide the fundraising and volunteer muscle that would be required to show these candidates that there is something in it for them if they adopt slightly more libertarian policies. This sounds crass, but it's the game that conservatives and liberals play.

When thinking about how to influence politics, libertarians often refer to the Overton Window (not the unrelated Glenn Beck book). The Overton Window theory dictates that there is a middle ground of policy positions that are politically palatable. If legislators move too far to the right, or the left, they risk alienating the average voter. The key for libertarians is to try to move the window of public policy options into a more libertarian direction. The strategy for advocacy groups (not necessarily think tanks) has been to try to move towards more economic freedom without much regard for social freedom. This has prevented libertarians from gaining as much traction as we could with young people. Since younger people are more preoccupied with social issues than economic issues, they naturally gravitate towards the left. That is a major missed opportunity for us.

In my opinion, the most effective libertarian advocacy organization is the Institute for Humane Studies. I use the word advocacy loosely, since they are actually an educational organization. That distinction is exactly why they are effective. While Freedom Works is out recruiting older conservatives and libertarians to Tea Parties, IHS is inviting high school and college students to educational seminars. The mistake that advocacy groups make is to focus on herding existing sympathisers. Instead of doing this, the IHS is helping to build the activist base. Far from brainwashing students, they encourage them to debate classical liberal philosophy. Above all, they encourage disagreement, and scepticism. Since any student who is motivated enough to spend a week at a seminar is likely more inquisitive than the average student, IHS is confident that their participants are able to make up their own minds about whether or not they agree with libertarian principles. This approach is all the more important since most intellectually interested young people identify with modern liberalism. For every one that embraces libertarianism, there is one less radical activist. More importantly, each one of these new recruits will no doubt discuss these ideas with their friends in their own language. Yelling out anti-government slogans doesn't appeal to young activists. Rational discussion sometimes does.

In short, we have nothing to gain from pandering to the right. They are reactionarily anti-government anyways. They won't vote any different on any substantive policy, no matter what libertarians say. The Tea Parties won't go away just because libertarian activists stop showing up. The key is to work with moderates, to show them how more economic freedom will help to achieve the policy outcomes they desire. Distancing ourselves from the Tea Party is crucial if we intend to do this. This doesn't mean libertarians shouldn't work with conservatives on certain issues. It means that we should focus equally on working with liberals on important issues like immigration, and drug war reform as well. We need to be a swing vote, rather than a faction.

My Latest Post at New Geography: Revisiting Toronto’s G20 Costs

2010-07-15T17:00:00.000-07:00

Originally posted at New Geography, and picked up by the National Post.

In the lead up to the G20 conference, the security costs were projected to approach a billion dollars. As high as this number sounds, sources are now speculating that the total bill could be closer to $2 billion. Shocking as that number is, the costs incurred by local businesses may have exceeded that total.

In addition to the physical damage to the hundreds of shops that were smashed in, there were major productivity losses during, and in the week before the conference. The most visible opportunity cost was the sharp decline in retail sales...(continue reading)

My Reason Magazine Article About EPA Regs and Craft Beer

2010-07-07T09:25:00.001-07:00

Here's an article I had published in the July edition of Reason Magazine. I examine the unintended consequences of federal EPA water regulations on the craft brewing industry in Oregon. Is it worth spending $400 million to save zero lives, and potentially decimate a $2.3 billion dollar industry? You decide.

p.s. I'm not sure if I'm proud or ashamed of my bio in the contributors section, but everyone seems to like it more than the article.

Toronto G20 Conference: A View From The Wreckage

2010-06-27T18:29:00.001-07:00

Here are my observations from this year's G20 conference in Toronto. I have inserted as little political commentary as possible, opting instead to share my personal experience.

June 25th, 2010

10:51 PM

I arrive in Toronto to a surprisingly vacant parking lot on the Esplanade, in the heart of Toronto's bustling financial district.

10:56 PM

Quietest Friday night I've ever seen in Toronto. Barely a soul out in the usually packed financial district.

2:12 AM

On the way back to my lodgings, I pass by the French delegation's bus. The hotel workers had been on strike for the previous few days. The hotel company is owned by a French company, so they decided to go on strike while the French delegation was there as a bargaining tactic. The picketers left hours before my arrival.

2:14 AM

The Esplanade is conspicuously devoid of returning bar goers.

June 26th, 2010

10:39 AM

I arrived a few minutes after a scheduled keynote speaker at Allen Gardens that I heard about on Twitter. The tent town built by protesters has already been broken up, and its occupants dispersed.

10:40 AM

The speaker went on anyways, with a small crowd. I was told there would be a 1:00 PM rally at the Provincial Legislature, Queen's Park.

10:56 AM

In the meantime, I headed to Bay Street, the heart of Canada's financial district. I figured if there were pre-rally disruptions, they would be here.

11:04 AM

All's quiet at Queen's Park. I decided to walk down to the security barrier surrounding the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where the summit was being held.

11:11 AM

The Art Gallery of Ontario was one of the many high profile venues that closed for the conference. Mirvish cancelled all of their shows, including the high profile Rock of Ages musical. The Blue Jays were also forced to move 3 home games to Philadelphia.

11:18 AM

University Avenue. One of Toronto's busiest streets. Empty.

11:29 AM

Arrival at the Security barrier. A few officers hanging around, but surprisingly quiet.

11:30 AM

The police decided to use tightly meshed chain link fences to make climbing the barriers extremely difficult. I used a Canadian bill for scale, which may be slightly deceptive to Americans (since our bills are slightly shorter, and wider). It still appeared to be somewhat climbable, but I didn't dare test my theory.

11:36 AM

I caught the subway at Osgoode station to head back to Queen's Park. It was quieter than it usually is at 1 AM on a Sunday.

11:55 AM

A scene from the University of Toronto, which was also closed for the conference.

12:06 PM

The people in orange hats are the legal representation for the protesters. They're prepping for a long day.

12:10 PM

Queen's Park begins to fill up with all of the usual suspects. Union activists, environmentalists, and anti-war protesters seemed to be the bulk of the crowd.

12:30 PM

Things seemed quiet, so we decided to go for lunch. When I saw Greepeace approaching, I knew it wouldn't be quiet much longer...

12:34 PM

...and then I saw people in their midst who appeared to be Black Bloc anarchists. They are notorious for their role in the Seattle WTO protests of 1999, where they caused major property destruction. Given that they show up to protests specifically to attack corporate buildings, I had to stay close by.

12:43 PM

Things got pretty busy at Queen's Park. Despite the rain, an estimate put the crowd at 5000.

12:48 PM

A crowd protesting the Ethiopian genocide filled the streets of Queen's Park. I told my photographer not to worry about them. They had nothing to gain from being violent. Spoiler: I was right.

1:00 PM

The Queen's Park subway station. Moments after this photo, I was told that this stop, among others was closed. First sign that the police were prepared to funnel the crowd down University Avenue, to avoid anyone getting to Bay Street. Given the number of anti-bank banners, this was probably wise.

1:14 AM

A frustrated streetcar driver looks on as protesters and police shut down University Avenue. Combined with the subway closure, passengers has little option but to wait for the march to end. I have no idea when this streetcar was actually up and running again.

1:41 PM

The demonstrators have now officially shut down University Avenue. Frustrated motorists driving south on University are stuck for minutes on end, trying to plow through the crowd.

1:56 PM

The crowd continues south on University. They are flanked on either side by police. I instructed my photographer to stay as far north as the police. The last thing I wanted was to get caught with police and protesters on either side. I wanted to maintain an exit strategy.

2:26 PM

After a long march south, the protesters are all funnelled to the east side of the street. This bolstered my theory that the police were trying to contain the protests between Queen's Park and the barrier. A classic pincer formation.

2:37 PM

My first sighting of riot police.

2:45 PM

I was proven wrong. Rather than contain the crowds (which would lead to immediate confrontation), the police formed a human funnel to shunt the protesters west on Queen Street. They were betting that dispersing protesters towards bohemian West Queen West would give them fewer targets. Given that they decided to use dispersment, rather than containment as their strategy, this was not unreasonable.

2:47 PM

The view from Queen West. Seems remarkably quiet. Few protesters left in sight.

2:55 PM

A little bit of hipster irony. This was going to be my caption photo had there been no destruction. Clever stunt, I must say.

I chatted with some riot police to see if anything had happened. No reports of violence. I decided that nothing was going to happen just yet. I began heading east to meet a friend at a pub. As I reached University, I noticed the police were once again blockading. I was talking to bicycle police, and pointed out that that the riot police one street south were putting on gas masks. They looked back, looked west down Queen, and noticed that the protesters were marching back East. There appeared to be police officers fighting with protesters, so the police told us to head north immediately, or we would be collateral damage. He wasn't being threatening; just acknowledging a reality.

At this point, we left. As we walked north, we bumped into someone who had come from further west on Queen West. He informed us that rioters were breaking every window in sight. We then turned east to try to get far enough away from the protests to head back south to where we were staying. The protests seemed to follow us in lockstep each time we went South. It turns out that many of the protesters who were funelled west simply headed south, and turned back east to avoid the police. Hence the riot police with gas masks a block south.

3:48 PM

We eventually ended up walking south on Church. As we crossed King Street, we saw a cloud of smoke. It appeared too dark to be tear gas.

3:48 PM

It turns out the smoke was coming from a burning car in the middle of the road. We later found out it was a police car set on fire by protesters with Molotov cocktails (one of at least 3). We decided it was time to get out of downtown.

I met my friend at the pub (C'est What?), and told him there was a car on fire down the street, and protesters were rapidly moving our way, leaving behind a swath of destruction. We headed a block north of Yonge and College to another bar.

After ordering a drink at Bar Volo, the owner walked up to our table, and told us to move away from the window. There were people breaking windows of shops just south on Yonge, and he didn't want his customers to get hurt. We hopped in a cab, and fled to north.

We spent the next few hours at Rebel House. Ironically, this was the launching point for one of Canada's biggest political clashes, the Upper Canada Rebellion. The irony was unintentional.

11:46 PM

We returned downtown around 11pm to have a quick drink at Duggan's, a local microbrewery. Upon leaving, downtown was once again eerily quiet. Some business owners had the foresight to board up in anticipation of the riots.

11:52 PM

We were greated by hundreds of riot police outside of our lodgings. We litterally had to be escorted accross the street. There didn't appear to be anything amiss.

12:42 AM

From the roof, we were able to discover what the police were up to: resting.

12:45 AM

More riot police arrived. They appeared to be regrouping in prepartion for more protests. The next day, we found out that hundreds of people were arrested just outside. There also appears to have been a journalist abused and detained in this flurry of arrests. I suspect we'll hear much more about this.

June 27th, 2010

1:56 PM

I decided to drive around the Queen West/Bay Street areas to survey the damage. This Bank of Montreal was one of many banks that was attacked.

2:09 PM

After being questioned by police, we resumed photographing. Given that I was driving around taking photos, this was unsurprising.

The CIBC accross the street from Bank of Montreal was another of the Banks smashed in. It surprised me how quick the vandalized establishments were boarded up. No remaining shattered glass visible from the road.

2:11 PM

The Gap was one of the predictable targets for protesters. There were dozens of less prominent shops that were also vandalized.

2:12 PM

Starbucks. The absolute favorite target of anti-corporate vandals.

2:13 PM

The vandals also targetted the CTV news building, as well as several media vehicles. Their commitment to free speech seemed questionable by this point.

2:13 PM

A window at police headquarters broken during the riots.

2:14 PM

Yet another CIBC location with broken windows.

2:15 PM

I continued along Queen Street, passing by the Four Seasons Centre, home of the Canadian Opera Company. My favorite building in the city. As I crossed the intersection, I heard a loud rumble. Yet another protest march coming down Queen Street, following a police car. I quickly pulled a U-turn, and headed north on University. I kept going, and exited the city.

There are plenty of lessons that one might learn from this experience. This was my second G20, after last year's meeting in Pittsburgh. This was far more chaotic, possibly even worse than the Seattle riots in '99. The lesson that I want to impart is simple: major political meetings should never be held in large cities. They are a magnet for violent protesters, and endanger local residents. The destruction, and the billion dollar security tab will hopefully make politicians think twice about foisting these events upon major cities. Like I said before the meeting, it should have stayed in Huntsville, a small tourist town outside of the city where it was initially supposed to take place. This is my personal opinion. You decide.

My Review of The Great Reset by Richard Florida in C2C Journal

2010-06-21T21:17:00.000-07:00

Here is my review of urban guru Richard Florida's latest book The Great Reset in C2C Journal.

Do Not Watch Splice Under Any Circumstances

2010-06-10T15:35:00.001-07:00

★ ☆ ☆ ☆

**Spoiler Alert**

Ordinarily, I do my best to avoid spoilers. However, I think it would be a disservice in this case. Simply put, Splice is the most disgusting movie I have ever seen. It is the only movie that has ever made me feel physically ill. Inter-species sex? Really? I can't imagine why anyone would want to see that. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if there were redeeming qualities in the movie. There weren't. Sadly, the critics loved it. It was widely considered an intelligent exploration of the moral dimension of genetic engineering, and a parable for the difficulties of parenting. What rubbish. It had all the moral complexity that you would expect from a dinner table political discussion.

Splice is about a genetic experiment, which leads to the creation of a human/animal hybrid. The experiment began as an attempt to create a new medicinal compound, quickly spun out of control. In short, it is a diatribe against genetic engineering. While I'm sympathetic to this position, I was disappointed by the simplistic approach director Vincenzo Natali took to the issue. He aimed for a purely visceral reaction, which is exactly what he got. However, I'm not sure it actually caused anyone to think any deeper about the issue.

For a movie that has been praised for it's treatment of complex moral issues, the dialogue was surprisingly amateurish. The rushed conversations were filled with talking points, and flippant reversals. It felt like a made for tv movie, with slightly better special effects. While Adrian Brody wasn't terrible, Sarah Polley put in a performance unworthy of a b-movie. Instead of the suspense that it aimed to create, the film elicited little more than unintentional giggles, and a good deal of disgust from the audience. Guillermo del Toro should be embarrassed to have lent his name to such an amateurish production.

It seems that the entire purpose of Splice was to 'push the envelope.' Given that critics seem to mistake edginess for thoughtfulness, this was probably a good marketing ploy. Ironically, I wouldn't be surprised if this tactic was self defeating. After all, this project received $2.5 million from TeleFilm Canada, a Canadian Government funded cultural agency. Given the number of people who left the theatre in disgust, I wouldn't be surprised if there were calls to review Canadian film subsidies. Though I'm against most forms of censorship, it's hard to blame people for not wanting to fund films that they find incredibly offensive. If there is a market for inter-species sex scenes, film companies should be able to raise the money themselves. Somehow, I doubt that this market exists.

My Article on The G-20 Summit at Newgeography.com

2010-06-07T05:27:00.000-07:00

Check out my article on the costs of the upcoming G-20 Conference in New Geography, the premier online journal of urban issues.

Toronto's G-20 Conference: Financial Boon or Boondoggle?

2010-05-25T22:27:00.001-07:00

Ever since the ill fated 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, there has been some debate over the merits of hosting meetings of international organizations in major cities. While some argue that there are economic spin offs from the tourism generated by these conferences, others argue that the security costs far outweigh the benefits. In the lead up to the G-20 meeting in Toronto, there has been a flurry of controversy over the price tag for conference security. The combined security tab for the G-8 and G-20 could end up as high as $900 million dollars. Unfortunately, there has been little discussion about whether the economic spin offs could justify this cost. It seems unlikely, but it would be unfair to jump to any conclusions without looking at the facts.

The tourism industry does have the potential to reap some gains from the G20. The best case scenario for the industry would see 50,000 rooms booked for the conference. Unsurprisingly, Greater Toronto Hotel Association Terry Mundell is excited. "It's a good news story for us," he claims. If we assume (optimistically) that each room goes for $300/night, the hotel industry could make $30 million out of the deal. On top of this, people will obviously be spending money while they're in town. Let's assume that these 50 thousand people consume 4 meals/day at $100/person. This would be a cool $40 million for the restaurant industry. Maybe these folks will have a few drinks. Let's budget in $100/night. After all, these are affluent folks. That's $10 million for the bars. Maybe a few souvenirs to bring back for the kids? Let's say another $10 million. And what if they need some Tylenol? Toothbrushes? Toss in another $10 million. We're up to about $100 million in direct economic benefits. But wait, people need to get to Toronto, and to get around the city. We'll be generous and throw in $100 million for airfare. Add to that $100/day in cabs, and we have another $10 million. This brings the grand total to $210 million. Far from negligible. Unfortunately, that's about double the official estimate of $100 million. Like I said, this is a best case scenario.

On the cost side of the ledger, it is important to note that the costs will be divided between the G-8 Conference in Huntsville, and the G-20 in Toronto. Let be extremely generous and assume it is an even split. Of the $833 million already announced, we'll say $400 million is going to the Toronto conference. This still leaves us with a shortfall of $190 million. Remember, this is an extremely optimistic scenario.

Here's the bad news: even under the optimistic scenario, we still haven't factored in opportunity costs. So far it has been confirmed that three Blue Jays games will be moved to Philadelphia, and the University of Toronto will shut down during the conference. In anticipation of former Jays star pitcher Roy Halliday's first return to Toronto, the team had budgeted for 90,000 fans to attend. At an average revenue of $39/fan, that's a loss of $3.5 million dollars. It's hard to say how many fans would have come into the city from out of town, but it wouldn't be at all unrealistic to say that the city is going to lose at very least another $3.5 million in spin offs.

Even without any similar cancellations, Seattle business managed to lose at least $10 million in revenue as a result of the WTO meeting in 1999 (not to mention the $2 million in property damage). Furthermore, if the G-20 wasn't going to be in Toronto, we don't know how many hotel rooms would have been rented out for other events, or whether the conference goers will crowd out other patrons from restaurants. This is the difficulty with these types of estimates. They take into account the benefits that we see, but not the unseen opportunity costs. It's hard to count a family that decided not to go on vacation, or someone who didn't bother going to the restaurant because it's too busy.

One might argue that the short term costs will be mitigated by long term benefits. After all, some people might like the city so much that they'll want to visit again. Perhaps some number of people will even want to move to the city. I had a similar experience during the G-20 in Pittsburgh last year (though haven't followed through). If we look at it this way, any shortfall could be seen as a tourism advertising expense. Will this pay off in the long run. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell.

So let's assume that the shortfall for the conference is $200 million dollars. That seems pretty reasonable at this point. Let's further assume that there will be a non-trivial long term tourism benefit to the city. In fact, let's assume they make it all back. I still don't buy into the idea of holding major international political conferences in major cities.

My biggest objection is the inconvenience to citizens of the city, which will likely include many people being caught up in violent protests, and police retaliation. No one should have to get tear gassed in the name of boosting tourism. I was there in Pittsburgh when stores were being smashed in, and the police were gassing protesters. Given that I was wise enough to stay away from the protests, I didn't personally witness the chaos. Having said that, there is plenty of footage showing the violent clashes between protesters and police. After Seattle, London, Pittsburgh, and many other cities where these conferences have ended violently, politicians should have learned their lesson. Forget tourism dollars. These conferences are about solving major economic problems. The G-8 meeting is being held in tiny Huntsville, where the G-20 originally was supposed to be held. That's how it should be. It's easier to import police to a small town than to evacuate the downtown of a major city. Hopefully it doesn't take another Seattle to impart this lesson to governments. It probably will.

Foursquare: The Next Airmiles?

2010-05-25T14:51:00.000-07:00

I've had a few people ask me lately why I use Foursquare. Superficially, it seems like nothing more than a gift to stalkers all over the world. Users don't receive any direct monetary benefit, and it is impractical as a tool to coordinate social events. When I joined up, I had the exact same question: what is the benefit? The answer lays not so much in what you get from it now, but in the potential it has to function as a conduit for rewards programs.

Foursquare is pretty simple. It is a location based social application. You download it on your smartphone, and the GPS enables you to find the venue you're at, and 'check in.' There are a number of badges that you can earn, and if you've checked in more than anyone else, you become the 'mayor' of the place. This is the most that you will get out of Foursquare itself, but increasingly, venues are partnering with Foursquare to introduce their own rewards.

Though few establishments have began to utilize Foursquare as a marketing tool, there are some significant early adopters. The most notable of which is Starbucks. Starbucks has introduced a rewards program whereby the mayor of each location is entitled to a $1 discount of frappuccinos. That may not seem like much, but it is a start. Now that a major player like Starbucks has entered the fray, there is a good chance that competitors will feel the need to compete with similar rewards programs. McDonald's is actively developing a similar program in collaboration with Facebook.

There are two major hurdles to the spread of such reward programs. The first is that the market for location based social apps is still wide open. Competitors Google Latitude and Gowalla could well end up becoming the dominant technology. The second is a little trickier. Not enough people use any location based social app. Until they become widely used, there will be little incentive for venues to introduce rewards.

In the end, consumers will decide which platform wins out. Maybe location based social apps will die out altogether. It's difficult to forecast which technologies will be adopted by consumers. Only the market can determine this. Regardless of whether Foursquare thrives, the potential for location based social apps is immense. Immediate discounts, combined with social recognition could make location based apps more appealing than Airmiles for some people. I'd bet on it.

Cracking Down On Unpaid Internships | Why Not Just Ban College?

2010-05-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

The US Department of Labor is cracking down on unpaid internships. The rational is that internships have become exploitative, leading to little or no benefit to interns. The D.O.L has listed 6 criteria under which unpaid internships can be offered:

The internship is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment – even though it includes operations of the employer’s facilities.

The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern.

The intern doesn’t displace regular employees – he or she works under their supervision.

The employer receives no immediate advantage from the intern.

The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the end of the internship.

Both the employer and the intern understand that the intern isn’t entitled to wages.

The most important caveats are the third and fourth. Given the rhetoric around the issue, it is clear that the biggest concern the D.O.L has is that internships are replacing paid entry level positions. While I understand the concern about not replacing paid employees, preventing the employer from receiving any "immediate advantage" is ludicrous. After all, no employer would take on an intern if they didn't feel they'd receive some immediate advantage.

While I've never been an *unpaid* intern, I have had two different internships. In my last internship program, I worked alongside two unpaid interns. To say that they didn't provide any advantage to our employers would be insulting. They were often required to wake up at 5am to do field research, and earned the organization plenty of positive media attention. By this criteria, our employer should be in serious trouble.

Aside from the contribution that they made, these internships certainly paid off. I haven't seen one of them in a few months, but the other is now a full time employee with the organization. She will tell you that her internship was more valuable than anything she ever learned in school. I would agree entirely. Though I've never been an unpaid intern, I have done plenty of volunteer work. I certainly gained more marketable skills from my internships and volunteer experience than from school (and I've got a Masters degree).

If the Department of Labor is serious about cracking down on unpaid internships, maybe they should look at banning post secondary education. After all, students PAY to go to school, with no guarantee of a job after graduation. The work is often more arduous than an internship, and is far more time consuming. Four years of paying to go to school is fare more of a financial hit to students than a 3 month unpaid internship. You could argue that students go to school voluntarily, and that they have reason to believe that it will benefit them in the long run. Then again, the same argument applies to unpaid internships.

It seems that the argument against unpaid internships is based more on a class warfare mentality than actual concern for individual interns. I know some interns from this summer who are still looking for work (unsurprising, given the economy), but I know many who have moved on to rewarding jobs. I certainly don't know of any who are worse off now than they were before. If the Department of Labor is opposed to individuals increasing their long term prospects, than they might as well just ban college.

Vancouver, the Most Liveable City on Earth?

2010-02-18T20:55:00.000-08:00

I've always been sceptical of global livability rankings. They always seem to be based on the quality of life of wealthy executives, rather than average denizens. Needless to say, when the Economist ranked Vancouver as the most livable city on earth, I took it with a grain of salt. Wendell Cox at New Geography has confirmed my suspicion. Using the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, Cox confirmed that housing in Vancouver is the least affordable major city in the English speaking world.

According to the survey criteria, housing prices in an affordable market should have an index of no higher than 3.0 (meaning that average housing should cost no more than 3 times the average annual gross household income). Vancouver came in at a staggering 9.3. The second most expensive major Canadian city, Toronto, has an index of only 5.2.

There are some obvious reasons why Vancouver is such an expensive city. It's proximity to world class skiing facilities, and it's temperate climate are certainly factors. More significant is it's natural shortage of land. There simply isn't much room to grow. However, David Seymour from the Frontier Center for Public Policy argued that there is still plenty of land left, but onerous land use regulations are preventing it from being developed. I have little specific knowledge of Vancouver's land use policies, but I do know that there is a strong (and obvious) correlation between restrictive land use policies, and high housing costs.

Though I will not offer a solution to this problem, I post this merely to remind people that survey's such as the Economist's Global Liveability Report should be approached critically, and with a good deal of scepticism.

Avatar: A Critical Assessment

2009-12-21T08:35:00.000-08:00

As you may have noticed, I did not include a rating for Avatar. This is not because I have no opinion about the film, or that it has no aesthetic value. The reason that I did not rate the film is that I could not in good conscious give a single star to the most offensive movie of the decade.

Going into Avatar, I knew almost nothing about the plot. I had heard that it was an anti-war allegory about the invasion of Iraq. While this didn't bother me (in no small part since I did not support the invasion of Iraq), I expected a heavy handed political message. Unsurprisingly, we find out early in the movie that a corporation, which most certainly represents the American military industrial complex, has invaded a foreign planet in order to obtain unobtainium, a precious metal. At this point I half expected a flashing disclaimer on the screen reminding us that "It's a metaphor." So that was it, I thought. An allegory about the Iraq war. Nothing remarkable. However, it soon became obvious that the allegory was not simply about the Iraq War.

The colonized Na'vi are clearly patterned after indigenous North Americans. Had this been a movie about some of the atrocities that occurred during the colonization of North America, I could have sympathised. What makes Avatar truly insidious is it's ahistorical nature. Rather than portraying a specific instance in a Western society had wronged an indigenous population, the film created an embodiment of every Western stereotype imaginable. The futuristic corporation was a staffed by soldiers that represented the American military industrial complex, who were engaging in colonialism to exploit resources with the zeal of SS operatives. There is not one human character that elicits the least bit of sympathy without entirely rejecting Western civilization. By creating a melange of all these stereotypes, the film erased the notion of Western moral progress. Unlike Dances With Wolves, which focuses on a particular historical event, Avatar creates the impression that colonialism is endemic to Western culture. It paints Western cultures as universally rapacious, insensitive, and dependant on soul destroying technology.

The irony, of course, is that the movie was released by 20th Century Fox, and consumed between $300-500 million dollars, spent mostly on the most lavish display of technological prowess in the history of Western cinema. Using this technology, the film glorifies pseudoscience and a rejection of materialism. Many critics who dislike the message of the film were willing to overlook this since they see Avatar as an important advance in motion picture technology. In this respect, the critics are correct. But surely these same critics should be alarmed that a film that contains a full scale rejection of Western civilization could be so universally praised. Perhaps what insulates Avatar from criticism is that it is not offensive to any specific group. Many critics were offended by the Passion, since it was considered offensive to Jewish people. Of course, it is easy for critics to stand up for marginalized groups. It seems that they are willing to put up with all manners of intolerance, but only when equally applied. Only universal Western self-loathing will do.

*This was orignially posted on my film blog, which can be found here.

The Eglington LRT Dillema: Expropriations, or Major Cost Overruns (Or Both)

2009-12-18T22:02:00.000-08:00

The Ambitious Transit City Plan that Metrolinx has designed for the GTA is now getting beyond big picture planning, and into the actual nuts and bolts. To this point, there have been few real costs estimates for the project. Perhaps worse is that no one seemed to alert the public to the possibility of eminent domain use in order to expropriate inconveniently placed homes and businesses. At a recent community meeting, York South Weston Councillor Frances Nunziata revealed that 100 properties would be directly affected by the Eglington light rail line. In order to avoid expropriation, some residents are calling on the government to build the relevant sections of the line underground. Before rushing into a project of this magnitude, someone should have a look at the numbers. Here are some quick facts:

The proposed line is 33 kilometers long (just over 20 miles). The cheapest light rail line built in the last decade cost $31.1 million USD/mile ($33 million Canadian). This was a short rail line along an interstate in Charlotte, North Carolina. Obviously, construction costs will be much higher in Toronto, even if it is entirely above ground. A more likely comparison is the Pittsburgh North Shore extension, a portion of which is underground. That project came in at $243.7 million US ($260 Canadian) per mile. That would bring the cost of the Eglington line to $5.33 billion Canadian Dollars. I should stress that these numbers are taken directly from a pro-light rail organization's website, so it is unlikely that the numbers are exaggerated. The project is projected to cost $4.6 billion dollars. If they increase the proportion of the line that runs underground, my $5.3 billion dollar estimate could look conservative. This also fails to take into account the fact that the average North American light rail line has run 35.8% over budget.

To reiterate: the city plans to spend at least $4.6 billion dollars to replace the current bus routes on Eglington. That is enough to purchase 10,000 of the most expensive transit buses ever constructed (hybrid, of course). This will have little effect on congestion. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in Portland, the poster child for light rail, the massive investments in light rail only took 1300 cars off of the road during rush hour. That amounts to $225 USD per car every day. At that cost, it would actually be more cost efficient for the provincial government to pay corporations to incentivize telecommuting. $5.3 billion dollars could convince a lot of people not to drive through rush hour traffic. I'm not suggesting the government actually spend this money, but at least it would actually reduce congestion.

One more thing I neglected to mention: the Eglington line only accounts for 33 of the 125 kilometers of rail the city plans to build. Don't be surprised if the total budget for the initiative approaches $20 billion.

The 40th Anniversary of the Altamont Tragedy

2009-12-06T18:44:00.000-08:00

The sixties were a tumultuous political era, wrought with intergenerational conflicts, and major civil strife. This fact has been obfuscated by the romanticization of several major events in the decade. The most obvious examples were a pair of music festivals, the Monterey Pop Festival, and Woodstock. The Monterey Festival was a fairly small event in 1967, with a peak attendance of around 10,000. Though it does not have the iconic status of Woodstock, it was the first major rock festival, and was seen as one of the catalysing events of the 'Summer of Love. The festival was considered an unmitigated success.

Unlike the Monterey Festival, Woodstock was far from an organizational success. Several major problems, such as a late change of venue, and the loss of several key acts, threatened to undermine the event's success. Moreover, despite the fact that the concert was supposed to be a profit making enterprise, it was overwhelmed by over 100,000 ticketless fans. The total attendance was around 300,000, despite the fact that the municipality had been informed to expect no more than 50,000. This prompted the local township to declare a state of emergency. Despite the potential chaos, there were only two fatalities at the event. One was from a heroin overdose, and the other a tractor accident. Though the event was marred by horrible traffic and sanitation problems, it was considered successful.

Though the 40th anniversary of Woodstock was met with fanfare earlier this year, the anniversary of it's much neglected cousin, Altamont, has been relatively muted. The infamous Altamont free concert was billed as the West Coast version of Woodstock. The only major difference was that it was going to be free of charge. Like Woodstock, there was a late change of venue, and the peak attendance was estimated at around 300,000. While Woodstock has become a symbol for love and peace, Altamont has become a symbol for the opposite. The festival was headlined by the Rolling Stones, who made the unfortunate decision to ask the Hell's Angels to provide security for the event. For those who were unfamiliar with Hunter Thompson's expose of the Angels, this may not have seemed like such a bad decision. In hindsight, it was.

The concert was punctuated by random acts of violence throughout the day. The two most notable being the beating of a fan by Hell's Angels, curiously armed with pool cues, and the lead singer of Jefferson Airplane receiving a knockout blow to the head. Despite the carnage, the Stones took the stage. By the time the Stones began their third song, Sympathy for the Devil, fights began to erupt. The documentary Gimme Shelter, which followed the entire concert, captured the entire scuffle. Mick Jagger attempted to calm down the crowd, joking how every time they played the ominous song, weird things happened. As they continued, so did the scuffle. At this point, the crowd was beyond control. In the documentary, the camera man is standing behind Jagger, who is flanked by Angels, as the crowd gradually enveloped the stage. This chaotic scene culminated in the death of 18 year old Meredith Hunter, who was stabbed to death by the Hell's Angels after drawing a firearm. It is for this moment that Altamont will forever be remembered.

Though it is conventional wisdom that the chaos at Altamont was entirely the fault of the Hell's Angels, this is a poor interpretation of what happened. Altamont was a tragic experiment in anarchy. Though the Angels aggravated the crowd, they had no real choice. Unlike Woodstock, which did have a significant police presence, Altamont did not. Though most of the victimless crimes were not punished at Woodstock, there were still authority figures to prevent the chaos from erupting. Without that legitimate authority, Altamont was doomed from the start. Even if they had employed a security force other than the Hell's Angels, the situation would still have been unmanageable. With no ability to detain rowdy fans, they were put in a situation where they were often engaging in self defense, rather than policing. This is the lesson that we should all take away from Altamont. Flower children or not, in the absence of a legitimate authority, there is little to prevent minor conflicts from escalating into tragedy. Altamont is to anarchism what the fall of the Soviet Union is to socialism. Though it is not definitive proof that anarchy would be chaotic, it does not bode well. Perhaps in the future, someone will reinterpret these events and prove me wrong. I sincerely doubt this will happen.

Toronto Congestion Costs $3.3 Billion Annually: OECD

2009-11-18T20:13:00.000-08:00

A recent report by the OECD found that congestion in Toronto costs $3.3 billion dollars in lost productivity every year. This problem is not unique to Toronto. The Texas Transportation Institute found that congestion costs each American commuter $750 in lost productivity and wasted fuel per year, and added nearly the equivalent of a full week of sitting in traffic every year. While the OECD recommends increased public transit funding as one part of the solution, they are also recommending the two main policy measures that free market economists tend to encourage for reducing congestion: tolling, and congestion pricing.

Toll roads are obviously familiar to Torontonians, as the city is home to one of the most successful toll roads on earth. The sale of Highway 407 generated $3.1 billion dollars for the Ontario government, and has saved taxpayers over $2 billion dollars in operating costs since 1999. Moreover, the private sectors has shelled out over $1 billion in lane extensions, lane expansions, and interchanges.

While the 407 is widely regarded as a financial success, it is easy to overlook the positive impact it has had both on reducing commute times, and on reducing carbon emissions. An independant study in York region found that using the 407 saves the average commuter 33 minutes for a 42 kilometer commute. Furthermore, the average 407 commuter emits 5 tons of c02 per year, compared with 9 tons for the average Highway 7 commuter.

Toronto has not yet attempted congestion pricing on city streets, though there are plenty of jurisdictions that the city can learn from. The most famous example is in London, where congestion pricing was introduced to downtown in February of 2003. Congestion has since decreased by 30%, and c02 emissions have decreased by 20%.

Tolling and congestion pricing are issues that could create consensus between fiscal conservatives, conservationists, and commuters. Surprisingly, and to his credit, David Miller seems to support toll roads, though Metrolinx (the regional transit agency) appears to be standing in the way of any potential expansion of toll roads. If an openly socialist mayor is willing to support toll roads, there is no reason why fiscal conservatives should demand anything less from whomever they support in the 2010 municipal election.

Pirate Radio and Censorship

2009-11-17T19:55:00.001-08:00

Richard Curtis is an average screenwriter. In many respects, Curtis represents everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Know for such deeply mediocre films as Brigit Jones Diary, and Love Actually, it is no wonder film critics were ready to pan Pirate Radio. As a film critic, I will acknowledge that Pirate Radio was no masterpiece. Chris Knight of the National Post derided the plot as "33% teen-virgin comedy, 33% '60s greatest hits and 33% Screw The Man!" This is a fairly accurate assessment. Moreover, the characters were little more than a motley collection of cliched stereotypes of the 60s. Pirate Radio is pretty average from a cinematic point of view.

While I do not typically endorse generic Hollywood movies, I actually feel compelled to do so in this case. The value of the film lays not in it's style (or lack thereof), but in it's substance. Though the story is far from true, it serves as a timely reminder of just how tumultuous the struggle for free speech has been. While the British government didn't actually ban rock music, it certainly was not beyond the realm of possibility. Recall that in 1965 the BBC refused to play the song My Generation by The Who. They went on to ban many Beatles songs in the next few years.

Though we have come a long way from banning the Beatles, music censorship is far from dead. As recently as 1990, twenty-one U.S. states introduced bills that prohibit the sale of records containing "lyrics that are violent, sexually explicit or perverse". Following the Columbine shootings in 1999, several Marilyn Manson concerts were cancelled, since he was seen as an influence on the perpetrators. Censorship is a constant threat to the music industry.

What makes Pirate Radio more important than other anti-censorship movies is that Curtis seems to acknowledge the pervasiveness of the censorship threat. It is pretty standard for such films to adopt a very triumphantalist spirit, assuming that the battle has been won. In short, they are period pieces. Pirate Radio eshewed this tendency, and consciously created a bridge to modern music with it's touching montage to the last 40 years of rock music at the end (no, this does not count as a spoiler). The stock villain of the film reminds us that if the government doesn't like something, they can make it illegal. This is as true today as it was in 1966.

While the film eshewed shades of grey in favour of the conventional good vs. evil motif, it was entirely justifiable. Every now and than it is healthy to reflect on just how fragile individual liberty is. Governments have no incentive to guard individual liberty. It is only through vigilance that we are able to guard our freedoms from over zealous legislators. It is refreshing to see a movie that unabashedly reminds us of this.

Taxis as Public Transit?

2009-11-16T20:02:00.000-08:00

Bentonville, Arkansas, home of Walmart, has come up with an innovative strategy to solve mobility problems for low income citizens. As a town of less than 34,000, it would make little sense to invest heavily in public transit infrastructure. Instead, State Senator Kim Hendren successfully lobbied to reinstate a program that subsidizes taxi cabs. The program provides 25 $2 coupons to low income individuals to lower the cost of taxi rides. The program costs a mere $25,000. This is the kind of innovative program that small municipal governments should experiment with, rather than automatically opting for expensive conventional public transit options.

Do Edmontonians Support Light Rail Transit?

2009-11-12T12:58:00.000-08:00

Light rail transit is becoming an increasingly popular transportation option for mid sized North American cities. There are currently more than 30 North American cities that have LRTs, and that number could easily double within the next decade. Many experts have expressed concerns over the cost and efficacy of light rail trains, though new lines have typically met very little public resistance. At the moment, the only city where opposition seems to be forming is Edmonton. A public meeting on Monday regarding a proposed light rail extension was dominated by anti-light rail sentiment. It is estimated that 47 of the 69 registered speakers at the meeting oppose the extension. One of the speakers had collected 1300 signatures on a petition against the $2 billion dollar proposal. Though it is difficult to gauge public opinion based on a single public meeting, this is the first good news for opponents of light rail in quite some time.

Toronto Sprawls: A History

2009-10-28T16:12:00.000-07:00

Opposition to urban sprawl has traditionally been associated with the political left, and is often ridiculed by conservatives. There are several mundane demographic reasons for this. First of all, conservativism is much more prominent in rural areas. Second, conservatives tend to be older, and have more children than liberals. These people often move to the suburbs because they view them as good places to raise their families. Additionally, there are certainly some conservatives who prefer to occupy a more 'traditional' North American milieu, and therefore do not hold cities in high esteem.

Despite the fact that most of the opposition to urban sprawl is from the left, there have been a number of authors in the last half of the decade who have made fiscally conservative arguments against urban sprawl. Lawrence Solomon, founder of the Energy Probe Research Foundation, is one such critic. In his recent book Toronto Sprawls, Solomon argued that the primary cause of urban sprawl in Toronto has not been laissez-faire urban planning, but that sprawl has actively been encouraged by government programs. A prime example of this was the Veterans Land Act, which was consciously designed to ensure that troops returning from the war would settle outside of major cities. This helped fuel a massive expansion of Suburban Toronto, which grew by 94% between 1945-1953. During the same period, the city of Toronto shrank by 2%. This resettling effort lead to massive budgetary shortfalls in suburban municipalities. At the time, the city of Toronto was providing services efficiently, while the private Toronto Transit Commission was a profitable enterprise. The Yonge subway line from Union to Eglington was a model of efficiency. By 1954, the lousy quality of suburban services, and their financial unsustainability lead to the creation of Metropolitan Toronto. This was, in effect a partial amalgamation. The city of Toronto has been a financial basketcase ever since.

In addition to the fact that the suburbs are perceived as an attractive place to raise children, Soloman argues that the driving force behind suburbanization has been a more general moralistic crusade. Moral reformers in the post-war era were concerned that urbanization would lead to moral chaos. They noted that the largest demographic moving into cities were single women, who would no doubt fall prey to promiscuity and shirk their traditional gender roles. Additionally, they were concerned that urbanization would bolster the communist movement, since cities facilitate large gatherings.

While conscious efforts to prevent urban sprawl are typically inadvisable, fiscal conservatives need to weigh the costs and benefits of encouraging urban sprawl. Sprawl comes with large infrastructure costs, and renders mass transportation and other municipal services horribly inefficient. Unless suburbanites are willing to pay the full cost of sprawl, say through tolls and increased utility fees, Toronto will continue to be a fiscal train wreck.

Ottawa Light Rail Now Estimated at $6.6 Billion

2009-10-24T16:22:00.000-07:00

The Ottawa Citizen reported yesterday that the cost of the new light rail train system in the Nation's Capitol will reach a staggering cost of $6.6 billion dollars. The original estimate of $5 billion has been eclipsed in part thanks to a decision to include a tunnel through downtown, and part due to a 50% increase in the estimated cost of one particular line. The city is counting on $3.2 billion dollars of Federal and Provincial money for this project, and plan to incur a billion dollar debt. The project is slated to take two decades to complete.

While the $6.6 billion dollar estimate is troubling, it will only get worse. According to an exhaustive report from Bent Flyvbjerg at the Department of Development and Planning at Aalborg University in Denmark, the average LRT project in North America incurs a cost overrun of 35.8%. Note that this figure refers to the cost from the moment that the project breaks ground. In other words, the city should expect the project to run closer to $9 billion dollars. That is, unless it is one of the 25% of projects with a cost overrun of 60% or more.

Where The Wild Things Are: Appropriate for Children?

2009-10-21T11:16:00.000-07:00

“Tell [children] anything you want, as long as it’s true.”

-Maurice Sendak

Where The Wild Things Are was one of the most anticipated children's movies of the last few years--or was it? The film adaptation of the 1963 classic picture book by Maurice Sendak features a stellar cast, and was directed by one of the most accomplished young directors in Hollywood. The film topped the box office on it's opening weekend, bringing in $32.5 million dollars. While the impressive box office numbers demonstrate that it was obviously a highly anticipated film, they also demonstrate that it was not a particularly anticipated children's movie. On opening weekend, parents with children accounted for only 27% of tickets sold. This likely puts the number of children viewers at somewhere between 10-15%. Given that the film was based on a beloved picture book, these numbers seem curious.

There are many potential reasons why the viewership numbers amongst children was so low. The most obvious reason is that it is not a convention children's movie. The film was directed by Spike Jonze, who is know primarily for his masterful collaborations with experimental screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. No one who has seen Being John Malkovich, or Adaptation would have expected anything conventional from him. Jonze himself noted that the movie was meant primarily to be a film about childhood, rather than a conventional children's movie. Combine this with the fact that the popularity of the book likely peaked decades ago, and you have some very plausible reasons why the film was so popular among adults relative to children.

While the first explanation likely explains some of the discrepancy, there is another major reason why many parents shied away from the film. Despite the fact that the book is recommended for children between the ages of 4-8, the MPAA decided to slap the film with a PG rating. They cited adult language, and adult situations to justify the rating. I do not recall any inappropriate language, though one blogger pointed out that the word 'hell' was used twice, and the word 'damn' was used at least once. I have no idea what the MPAA thinks constitutes an adult situation in the film. Perhaps the implication that the child's mother is divorced, or the fact that he talks back to his mother? There may have been some other detail I missed, but these minor details should not be enough to punish the film with a PG rating. The same type of problem emerged in the publishing of the book. The publishers insisted that Sendak replace the word 'hot' with 'warm' when describing the child's dinner. In the end, sanity prevailed, and Sendak's original wording was maintained. Sendak even had a hard time getting librarians to stock the book, since many deemed it inappropriate for children

In addition to the MPAA issue, the movie also suffered from the musings of the author of the book. Maurice Sendak, who worked closely with Spike Jones and David Eggers on the screenplay, has been outspoken on the issue of whether the film would be appropriate for children. In a Newsweek interview, Sendak was asked what he would tell parents who were concerned that the movie would be too frightening for their children. His response was that he would tell them to go to hell. Needless to say, the media jumped all over that quote. To be fair, it was a rude response. Given that he's been plagued by well intentioned sensors for his whole career, it is hard to blame him for his curtness.

Though the MPAA and Maurice Sendak both likely damaged the prospects of the film, the film fell prey to a much more troubling problem. As Sendak was trying to get across in the Newsweek interview, many parents coddle their children far too much. He pointed out that he "saw the most horrendous movies that were unfit for child's eyes. So what? I managed to survive." He added that "grown-ups are afraid for children. It's not children who are afraid." This seems to be the crux of the problem. Many parents have viewed horrible things in their lifetimes, and they want to prevent the same from happening to their children. The trouble is that shielding children entirely from the realities of life leaves them unprepared for when life gets difficult. This attitude may well be partially responsible for the high self reported rates of depression amongst young people.

Contrary to several anti-intellectual reviewers, Where The Wild Things Are is not "movie made by, and for, members of a generation who feel it's unfair to have to grow up." The film is at once a reflection on the joys and sorrows of childhood, and an appropriate modern fairy tale. It is ironic that most people alive today grew up in generations where children's stories consisted of dark cautionary tales, such as Little Red Riding Hood and Rumpelstiltskin. They seemed to turn out alright. Rather than painting an unnecessarily bleak picture of life, the film had several important messages. One such theme is the danger of hierarchies. The Utopian world that Max tries to create inevitably crumbles. He can't keep the sadness out. In an interview with PBS, Sendak said that children "have to know it's possible things are bad, but they are surrounded by people who love them and will protect them." If that's not a child appropriate theme, I don't know what is.

A Nobel Idea

2009-10-10T14:19:00.000-07:00

The announcement that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize came as a shock to everyone--or nearly everyone. The only person who seems to have had any inkling that he was a contender was a world renowned sports handicapper who claimed he was a "reasonable long shot at 14-1." The decision was controversial, to say the least. Most pundits seem to feel that the award was premature, pointing out that he has been in office for less than a year. In fact, the nominations for the prize closed 12 days after he was sworn in as President. Even the President didn't seem to feel he deserved the prize. In his own words, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize."

The cynical view is that Obama was awarded the prize simply for not being George W. Bush. There is certainly reason to believe this, especially given that Al Gore has also recently won the prize. A more likely view--the view propounded by defenders of the decision--is that the award was meant as collateral. In short, the award was given to the President to remind him of his promises, and to encourage him to see them through. This seems to me to be the correct reasoning. After all, his campaign was largely fought on issues such as ending the Iraq War, and closing Guantanamo Bay. Neither has been accomplished. In fact, rather than bringing troops home, the President is sending more troops to Afghanistan. While I am not judging any of these decisions, it does seem to me that liberal internationalists have reasons to be anxious. Hence the Nobel.

While the goal of reducing international conflict is noble, the Nobel Peace Prize was not meant to be bequeathed for good intentions. Neither was it meant to be awarded as a token of encouragement. The award was intended for those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." While the literal words of Alfred Nobel seem to suggest that the prize would be reserved for political contributions, some of the recent prize winners have shown that fraternity between nations can be promoted in very indirect ways. The best example of this was the 2006 prize, which was awarded to economist Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank. Mr.Yunus founded the bank in 1983 in Bangladesh. He founded the bank on the principles that "that attacking poverty is essential to peace, and that private enterprise is essential to attacking poverty." The bank makes tiny loans, as low as $20, to people who would otherwise have difficultly obtaining loans. Most of it's customers have been destitute women. To date, the bank has lent out nearly $6 billion dollars. While the issue of poverty in Bangladesh has not yet been solved, the Grameen Bank has made a significant contribution.

While the Grameen Bank is a major innovation, there are some limitations. The Bank relies on major contributions from a variety of foundations and major contributors. Though these sources of funding are extremely important, the bank is missing out on a potentially massive source of funding: the average citizen. Recognizing this limitation, Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley founded kiva.org, a website that allows for individuals to make interest free loans to third world entrepreneurs. Kiva has received endorsements from such diverse sources as Zambian Economist Dambisa Moyo, Oprah Winfrey, and Bill Clinton. Clinton also wrote about kiva.org in his recent book Giving. To date, over $95 million dollars have been lent out by more than a half a million people. The repayment rate is an impressive 98.42%.

Many people are skeptical of making donations to alleviate third world poverty. The third world seems to be a sinkhole where money either disappears, or is stolen. This type of skepticism is likely what lead New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to follow up on a loan that he made to a baker in Afghanistan. Kristof was able to track down the man, and had the opportunity to sample the bread that his loan helped to bake. The loan consisted of $425 from seven different families and individuals from across America. By spending less than 10 minutes on the website, and donating as little as $25, these seven donors were able to help lift an aged baker out of poverty. If that doesn't count as encouraging fraternity between nations, I don't know does. It is for this reason that I believe Matt Flannery and Jessica Jackley deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

On a personal note, I have been lending through kiva.org ever since I heard about the site 2 years ago. Every single loan I have made has been repaid promptly, and in full. I encourage everyone to go to kiva.org to make a loan. As little as $25 can help to lift a struggling entrepreneur out of poverty. It will also make you feel good knowing that you've helped to make a difference.

Government Tourism Advertising Campaigns and New Media

2009-10-08T19:52:00.000-07:00

There are few better examples of zero sum games than can be found in the field of government tourism advertising. When multiple jurisdictions spend money to promote tourism, they do not increase the total number of tourists. That is pure common sense. People only have so much vacation time. This is not to say that there is no justification whatsoever to have a modest tourism department to give potential tourists basic information that may be helpful. Beyond that, it just gets silly. No matter how many ads the province of Saskatchewan places on the Toronto subway, or how often I see a commercial that begs me to come to Newfoundland, I will not be any more likely to visit either (though I may have done so anyways.) The wasted effort wouldn't bother me so much if these forms of advertising weren't so expensive. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador spends $12 million dollars annually to attract tourists. That's $24 dollars for every man, woman, and child in the province. Even if it was possible to measure the effect this money has, I doubt it would justify the cost.

Though I object to large scale tourism advertising, I have to say that I have been impressed by the efforts of one jurisdiction to use new media to promote tourism. The State of Pennsylvania has a beautiful, interactive website that focuses on displaying the natural beauty of rural Pennsylvania. It has everything from detailed road trip suggestions, to an online booking service for bed and breakfasts, cabins, and campgrounds. What's more is that the road trip suggestions actually seem really cool. The last time I was in Erie I was literally counting the minutes until my connection came. Now I actually want to go to back so I can stop at Russ' Dinor (sic)! The website probably won't bring in thousands of tourists, but it also doesn't cost $12 million per year.

As impressive as the website is in general, there was one thing that really stood out: a low budget show about a man with two first names. This weekend I was sitting around with a few friends when two of them made a joke about the man with two names. My blank stare must have convinced them to put it on. That, or the fact that they were laughing hysterically at the apparent inside joke. Peter Arthur Stories (PA Stories, get it?) is among the best G rated comedies I've ever seen. The show is much like the popular Flight of the Concords, though the episodes last less than 10 minutes each, and there are only 4 episodes thus far. Though I won't divulge plot details, it involves a young man who decides to take a road trip through the Pennsylvania countryside. Hilarity ensues. The show uses amateur Pennsylvania actors, and operates on a fairly low budget. The Peter Arthur campaign came with a bill of $1.3 million dollars. While that is a large sum, the bulk of the costs came from conventional media advertising, including a 30 second spot during American Idol, and a giveaway of 12 all inclusive Pennsylvania vacations. Given that a 30 second spot during American Idol runs around $750 thousand dollars, that doesn't leave much for the show and vacation packages. Had they relied solely on viral marketing, the price tag would have been substantially lower.

As in the case of the high budget advertising discussed earlier, this probably won't do much to increase tourism--but it might. Given the dearth of references to it on the internet, it doesn't seem that many people have seen the show yet. However, if it gains even a modest viewership, it would be safe to assume that some people would be interested in visiting some of the sights where memorable moments occur. Frankly, I never would have gone to rural Pennsylvania until I saw this. Now that it's an inside joke with my friends, there is no question that I will be heading to some of the random destinations in the show (and dragging at least one enthusiast with me). Rather than throwing money at major tourism programs, governments should learn to harness the power of new media. With a small, creative staff, and a modest budget, there is no reason why governments can't equal the modest success of large scale tourism campaigns for a fraction of the price. And while they're at it, maybe they can give us a few more laughs.

Greening The Government Fleet?

2009-10-06T19:48:00.000-07:00

The Toronto Star ran an article last Friday in which they criticized the Canadian government for failing to comply with the Alternative Fuels Act of 1995. The bill requires that the 75% of the government vehicle fleet must operate on alternative fuels when it is "cost-effective and operationally feasible." Though they point out that these conditions have not existed since the legislation was passed, they are particularly critical of the current Conservative government for not having invested more in compliance. Between 2008-2009, the government purchased 1898 alternative fuel vehicles, which accounts for 41% their fleet acquisitions for the period. The most popular alternative fuel used is E10, a gasoline-ethanol blend, which accounts for 8% of fuel consumed by government vehicles.

The authors offer a strong criticism of E10 fuel. Though it has been supported by many environmentalists, it can cost up to $2/liter (over $7.50/gallon), and the fuel economy is noticeably worse. Add to this the fact that vehicles burning E10 are no better in emissions tests, and there is absolutely no justification for the government to purchase these vehicles.

Though the article was critical of flex fuel vehicles, it was much more sympathetic to gas/electric hybrids. While hybrids are extremely popular with eco-conscious drivers, the benefits are far less than advertised. In fact, Wired Magazine pointed out that Consumer Report estimated the fuel efficiency of the Honda Civic Hybrid at 26 MPG. Not only is the 14 miles per gallon less than reported by the US Department of Energy, but it is exactly the same fuel efficiency rating as the regular Honda Civic. On top of this, the premium for the hybrid model is more than $10,000. If the government fleet met the 75% quota by purchasing hybrids, the total price premium would be $238 million dollars. Before advocating such policies, environmentalists should weigh the costs and benefits. Purchasing hybrids is far from a cost-effective method of potentially reducing emissions.

Electric Vehicles, Tax Credits, and Subsidies

2009-10-02T17:09:00.000-07:00

Over the summer I wrote a paper in which I examined the efficacy of subsidies and tax credits to electric vehicles. I must admit that I am actually quite bullish on the prospects of EVs. Tesla Motors has made tremendous strides towards making EVs economical, though battery manufacturers still have a long way to go before EVs can get the distance per charge that will be required for them to render the internal combustion engine obsolete.

Despite my optimism surrounding the technology, I am extremely skeptical of government subsidies. One only needs to think back to the hydrogen vehicle craze of the early part of the decade to see how bad governments are at picking winning technologies. After $1.2 billion dollars of subsidies, hydrogen vehicles have fallen by the wayside. Even if electric batteries are the fuel of the future, direct subsidies will not necessarily help their development. Subsidizing one battery company would impede the ability of other companies to compete. There is no reason to think that the Federal government will just happen to choose the right model.

To put this in perspective, think back to when the internal combustion engine was first invented. Of the thousands of entrepreneurs in the market, hindsight tells us that Henry Ford had the best business model. Now, imagine that another company had received federal grants to commercialize their own automobile. Would automotive technology be where it is today? There is no way of telling. For all we know, none of us would know the name Henry Ford, and all of his innovations would have fallen by the wayside. It is only by allowing competition in the marketplace of ideas that we discover the best technologies. If electric vehicles are to become the dominant technology, as I believe they will, it will be made so by entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats.

Who Cares About Portland?

2009-10-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

One thing that readers are bound to notice is that I have an unusually keen interest in the city of Portland. Aside from being the micro brewery capital of the world, Portland is also regarded as the public transit Mecca of America. No North American city has experimented as extensively as Portland with various forms of transit. Portland has an extensive fleet of buses, light rail trains, and streetcars. In addition to this, Portland has also constructed an aerial tram, which descends on a system of cables from the main campus of the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) main campus, to the south waterfront campus. This provides an excellent example of the mentality shared by modern urban planners.

The initial cost estimate for the 1 km tram was $15.5 million dollars. This estimate turned out to be unrealistic, and the cost ballooned to $57 million dollars. The operating cost estimate of $915,000 per year was also far off the mark, as the actual cost is $1.7 million dollars. Any impartial auditor would call this a massive failure. This is especially true when considering that there was already a 3.1 km bus route between the two campuses. Given that the capital cost of a bus is less than 1/100th of the cost of the tram, one would expect urban planners to conclude that the tram was an abysmal failure. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

William Fulton, primary author of the California Planning and Development report curiously labelled the tram a success. Despite the costs, he claims that the tram is responsible for keeping the largest employer, OHSU, in town. Fulton believes that "sometimes you just have to build stuff and see what happens." This is the kind of reckless urban planning that has lead to a decay of most American cities. The idea that money is never an obstacle has lead to a situation where no matter how much money municipalities receive, they are in a state of perpetual budget crisis. Portland, more than any other American city, exhibits this ethos. This is why Portland is important. Despite their reckless transportation policies, Portland has become the model that cities across North America (including Toronto) are attempting to emulate. Your city planners care about Portland, and so should you.

Reflections on the G-20 Conference

2009-09-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

I decided to go to Pittsburgh this week with a group of free marketers to protest against the protectionist measures that the Obama Administration has recently enacted. My ulterior motive was to check out the city of Pittsburgh, which has probably been the most successful rustbelt city since the decline of manufacturing in America.

The first thing I noticed when I arrived in town on Tuesday was that most of the downtown was going to be shut down for the conference as a security precaution. At first blush, this seems rather extreme. After all, in post 9-11 America, there is legitimate concern over many of the security measures that have been enacted. However, while no one likes to see legions of riot police in their cities, conferences like this attract thousands of protesters, some of which engage in violence and vandalism. This leaves the authorities caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they can sit by passively and allow the protesters to take over the city. Given the demeanor of some of the protesters, such as one anarchist who attempted to spit at me because of my sign (though she missed), this seems untenable. On the other hand, the police can do as they did, and lock down the city. This is also unfortunate, especially when they are forced to gas protesters. When the police are forced to resort to crowd control tactics in an urban setting, there are bound to be innocent bystanders affected.

The problem isn't necessarily that the police are given too much power in these situations, but rather that they shouldn't allow these situations to develop in the first place. There is no good reason why conferences like the G-20 should be held in major cities. Global trade meetings invariably bring out militant protesters. The only way to mitigate the effects of the necessary security precautions is to hold these meetings in remote location, as is typically done for G-8 meetings. Not only would that reduce the possibility of violent confrontations, but it would also prevent local businesses from being forced to shut down, or even potentially fall prey to vandalism. This was the case with the Rite Aid down the street from my hotel. I visited it on Wednesday night, and it was subsequently smashed in by protesters on Thursday.

The unfortunate reality is politicians are not much concerned with the tangible and intangible costs of hosting such meetings. After all, the federal government is on the hook for security costs at the G-20. Meanwhile, local politicians get to feel good about showing the world just how lovely their city is. Luckily for the residents of Pittsburgh, the inconveniences they suffered pale in comparison to the anarchy that prevailed in Seattle during the WTO conference in 1999. While governments can't prevent unruly protesters, the least they could do is to refrain from luring them to major cities.