Let's grit our teeth and stay tuned

The 2009 Canadian budget probably makes many of us cringe and cry foul. I am no economist, but red ink is red for a reason, and deficits are a Tory's worst nightmare. Stephen Taylor, however, puts the issue into perspective far better than I ever could.

At gunpoint one can choose a honorable death while making a brave last stance or try to save one's own neck. Having missed a great majority opportunity in October, the Tories would have probably been destroyed at the polls had they delivered a designed-to-irritate budget. A paradigm shift occurred in the Cabinet (at long last, in my opinion), abandoning childish poking at the opposition and embracing a more mature form of legislative action.

Looking through some provisions of the Budget I noted, naively maybe, a definite conservative streak. The support for the forestry sector, for instance, is heavily focused on innovation rather than just temporary support. FPInnovations is no union-dominated morass seeking a bailout. Homeowner incentives are geared towards consumption (spend and thou shalt receive).

I have a qualm regarding social housing investment. Surely once completed it will allow the low income earners and pensioners to reduce their rent costs. However it may also create ghettos, with the risks associated with social housing estates in the long run for the community. I would have preferred support for people to maintain their current status as tenants, with allowances for moving to less expensive properties. However removing tenants from the rent market may spell disaster for estate companies and buy-to-rent landlords, who will find themselves with no rent income and a depreciated house. Social housing estate-induced community deterioration could be avoided with eventual ownership prospects, so occupants will be encouraged to maintain a neat, safe and attractive environment. If you're going to own it, you'll want it kept nicely.

Ultimately, it is a gritted-teeth Budget. We have not succumbed to the hand-out mentality of the Liberals and expect more from the money we pour into the economy than mere continuation of the status-quo. We are sending out a message that reads "if you wanted to invest or buy, the time is now". Admittedly, we couldn't do more.

This is a Budget which has Canada's present and future at heart, and a good campaign Budget too. Should the Liberals decide to vote it down they will have to bear the ire of voters who would have taken advantage of the stimulus provisions. And there's definitely more of those than coalition fans. One never knows, Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper may yet turn out to have delivered a political masterpiece and a great economic experiment.

Luca's one step closer to being a permanent resident

The recent penury of activity is over. While some have bar exams, birthdays and throne speeches today, I had a Quebec Selection interview this morning. After a pleasant hour I emerged with a CSQ, which means I can apply for Permanent Residence.

A very pleasant interviewer, a very relaxed setting, a very happy Luca at the end of it.

A little digression on Putinland

Canadian cincinnatus rightly points out how unwitting pawns can buy into Kremlin propaganda and be duped into believing that Russia is the greatest world superpower. However, Cincinnatus falls into the opposite trap: buying into uninformed Western media reporting.

Cincinnatus contends that the Moscow apartment bombings that spurred the latest Chechen war were orchestrated by the Putin government. I don't believe they were. Considering how idiotic the russian administration is, such a ploy would have come to light and would have been botched up no doubt. Russian apartment buildings are a joke to get into, and explosives are easy to find if you know where to look. My odds that it was the government are at least 5:1.

Moreover, Cincinnatus rightly remarks that Putin won re-election twice in at times very murky circumstances. I am no fan of Mr P's, but I do see a general discontent among the population toward the alternative parties of power and the alternative candidates. Many of them lack credibility (kas'yanov, the oligarch's buddy?). Thus Putin is often the sole choice people have, lest their country be entrusted to someone without a power base (who will therefore seek it with the oligarchs, we've seen how this worked in the 90's) or someone completely deranged. Odds of Putin cheating are 3:1 in my books.

Next, Cincinnatus contends that Russia invaded Georgia on purpose and had the operation planned. The latter is true. The former is bullshit. The pot has been boiling for years and the Russians definitely had a plan to kick Georgian butt. Since the southern President has a tendency to bark at his neighbor while hiding beyond a fictitious veil of Western solidarity, it is no surprise that the offended party has a reserve plan to bust him. Moreover, Russians have a very powerful intelligence service. They knew what Georgia was doing, and therefore were ready to respond. Easy.

The whole area of the former Soviet Union has to be construed as a governmental IQ black hole. Assume that each and every government in the region is stupid. What would a stupid government do? Many crises explained, not least the latest gas standoff which was used as a trading horse between the warring orange factions.

Cincinnatus further states that Putin ordered the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. I doubt it. Firstly, the guy had no real sensitive secret to hold. At most he was a good conspiracy theorist. Secondly, he kept sketchy company, including convicted and wanted terrorist Ahmed Zakayev, who is KNOWN to have organised deadly attacks. Thirdly, if Putin and the FSB wanted to assassinate Litvinenko, a gun shot in a dark alley would have been the chosen method. Any chemical is easy to come about in Russia provided you look hard enough. I wouldn't have risked such negative publicity for such a pawn. Poisoning Berezovsky, on the other hand, would have been a clear FSB job mandated from high above.

Don't get me wrong. I too believe Putin is a thug, that he is incompetent with the economy and very murky in his dealings. However I refuse to believe that someone would risk so much for so little, whether the so little is humiliating Georgia or poisoning Litvinenko. But again, stupid is as stupid does. One never knows.

Thank God for research - Duh!

Privatization kills, or so say UK academics who published an article in the Lancet. Examining the death rate in countries undergoing sweeping economic reform, they noticed that periods of privatization apparently coincided with an increase in the death rate among the population.

Now, when jobs that provide pay and healthcare vanish it is all too obvious that unemployment will rise, the quality of healthcare will deteriorate and th morbidity may increase. With less tax income, doctors in a public health system will be paid less and resort to taking bribes for faster treatment, or leave the profession altogether. Unemployed people may take to the bottle or illegal means of procurement. Diets veer toward the unhealthy side (as the paper rightly points out).

However it is an unsanctioned reasoning leap to suggest that economic reform leads to death. It is contrary to any academic standard, and flies in the face of the old axiom that correlation does not imply causation.

Questions for the scientists:

1) Should countries therefore not undertake economic reforms and go under?
2) Should economic development (e.g. building factories) be shunned in favour of less-risky forms of economy such as call-centres and basic agriculture?
3) How large was the spike in mortality, if any, in Britain during the Thatcher years? I bet my testicles it was not large, if there was any at all.

Bad privatization causes havoc. Bad science kills. Bad policy can cause huge damages. The moral of the story is that when you screw things up the population loses out. We certainly didn't need a team of academics telling us the bleeding obvious and getting the wrong end of the stick in the process.

DUH!