Last week I was thinking that I might write up a blog post about my experience at the Montreal Marathon. Unlike my prior two marathons, I went into this one feeling pretty confident. Although my training could have been better, there is no question that it was much much better than Niagara Falls (Oct 2010) or Mississauga (May 2011).
I lived in Montreal for 2 years in my early twenties but as a student, I rarely ventured out of the McGill Ghetto. I registered for the Montreal Marathon in part to see parts of the city that I had never seen.
Overall, I decided that I miss Montreal and did not do it justice when i lived there. We started at a park on Ile St Helene. It is a beautiful park. As we walked onto Pont Jacques Cartier, I looked over and saw an amusement park. "What you have an amusement park here?" I said....not quite realizing how silly I sounded.
The race itself had a fairly flat start and finished uphill.....mean and nasty trick by the organizers I'd have to say.
It was very warm and humid but I had a good race. I finished in 3:36 which beat my Mississauga time by 18 minutes. I was very happy with my time but subsequent news has made that seem very insignificant.
At the 41 km mark, I passed a scene where a man was flat on his back and EMS were performing chest compressions. His eyes were open and rolled back. Seeing this sent shivers up my spine. He was clearly in very bad shape.
After the race I found out that this young man (32 years old) had died of a suspected heart attack. The EMS staff who were trying to revive him as I ran by were unsuccessful at getting his heart to start again. He was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after.
I'll be honest.....I was very shaken by this. Despite running a full marathon I did not sleep much that night. Usually running a marathon means I get a good night's sleep. I couldn't get the image of his face out of my head.
This young man has since been identified as Jean-Francis Presseau. My heart goes out to his family and friends.
His results on sports stats show that this was his third half marathon in the last 13 months. His times were impressive. He broke 1:30 in a race this past April.
Those times indicate that he was a very good runner. Most of the people in the marathon clinic i attend would not beat his time.
We still don't know for sure what killed him. The coroner has ordered an autopsy. It may well be that he had an undetected pre-exisitng condition.
I don't know if there are lessons to be drawn from this. For sure, life is too short. One minute you're here and the next......
This won't make me stop running. I don't think that the occasional death during a race should dissuade other people from running. I am more guilty than most of pushing myself to complete exhaustion. Whether that was the cause in this case or not is irrelevant. It's not smart.
Life is a journey TO a destination. For one fellow runner, the journey ended at Pie IX and Rosemount on Sept 25th, 2011. Everyone else....keep running but be careful out there!!
Montreal is a beautiful city and I hope to go back to run again.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Death, Taxes and Stupidity
It's been said that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. With respect to taxes, I'd suggest that stupidity also follows along.
I have watched with great despair as politicians debate tax rates. Nowhere is this discussion more perverse and misguided than in the United States.
Tax the rich because they can afford it....say Democrats.
There is a problem of overspending not undertaxation.....say Republicans.
Both sides are being equally stupid and simplistic but I shall focus on an argument often made by Republicans.
Virtually every Republican with broad name recognition has at some point made the argument that cutting taxes will increase government revenues by stimulating the economy and creating jobs which will lead to higher tax revenue as more people earn taxable income and at higher rates.
When Ronald Reagan made this a part of platform in 1980, a fellow Republican named George H.W. Bush gave it the rather caustic label of "voodoo economics." So which is it? Do lower taxes result in higher tax revenues or do lower taxes result in lower tax revenues?
Well the truth is that both were right which only makes the debates happening now even sillier.
Take an example of a marginal tax rate of 99% which is increased to 100%. This will certainly result in lower tax revenues as people will have zero incentive to work since they will get to keep none of the fruits of their labour. So it is fairly easy to see that a cut in tax rates from 100% to 99% will increase tax revenues. My guess is that a cut from 99% to 98% will have a similar effect.
Is there a point at which cutting taxes results in lower revenues then? Well of course. A cut from 1% to 0% might increase economic activity but it most certainly will result in a reduction in taxes to zero. My educated guess would be that if you halve the marginal tax rate from 2% to 1%...then this will also result in lower tax revenue.
The above example would lead to a conclusion that somewhere below 100% there is a level at which raising taxes results in lesser tax revenue and somewhere above 1%, there is a level at which cutting taxes would result in lesser tax revenue. So somewhere between 0 and 100% is a tax rate below which cutting taxes will result in lower revenues and above which raising the rate leads to lower revenue.
So basically anywhere other than the optimal point would result in lower tax revenues. Now I don't know where that optimal level is and it might not even be the same level from one year to the next. However, I do know that the highest rate in US history was 94%. (Does that seem awfully close to 100%?) When Reagan came into office, the rate was 70%. Currently it stands at 33%.
It is most irritating when I hear politicians talking about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. Listening to some Republicans you would think that Moses came down from the Sinai with a commandment that says "Thou shalt cut taxes....always and forever more."
Paying taxes is not like famine and pestilence where the ideal number is always lower...but you wouldn't know that from listening to some Republicans.
As my simple example shows, there would be a point at which lower tax rates would result in lower tax revenue. This should serve as a caution to Democrats as well. Raising taxes on the wealthy should not be done for reasons of class warfare or resentment. The goal should be to raise money for government operation and in doing so, they should be mindful of not creating a disincentive to earn more income.
When someone says "raise taxes on the wealthy", i often ask to what level should it be raised? Usually there is no answer because it really wasn't thought through beyond "they're rich so they should pay more." When someone says "cut taxes because it will stimulate the economy and lead to more revenues", i will ask to what level it should be cut.
Both sides simply want "more" or 'less" without asking themselves what the "RIGHT" level of taxes should be. My guess is that the United States is pretty much at a point where cutting taxes will lead to lesser revenues not more. My guess is that an increase to the marginal tax rate would lead to greater government revenues. I think it's probably 10% higher before it becomes a cause of lower revenues.
I don't know what the right number is but I do know that I don't ever hear politicians speaking of the 'right' level of taxes.
I have watched with great despair as politicians debate tax rates. Nowhere is this discussion more perverse and misguided than in the United States.
Tax the rich because they can afford it....say Democrats.
There is a problem of overspending not undertaxation.....say Republicans.
Both sides are being equally stupid and simplistic but I shall focus on an argument often made by Republicans.
Virtually every Republican with broad name recognition has at some point made the argument that cutting taxes will increase government revenues by stimulating the economy and creating jobs which will lead to higher tax revenue as more people earn taxable income and at higher rates.
When Ronald Reagan made this a part of platform in 1980, a fellow Republican named George H.W. Bush gave it the rather caustic label of "voodoo economics." So which is it? Do lower taxes result in higher tax revenues or do lower taxes result in lower tax revenues?
Well the truth is that both were right which only makes the debates happening now even sillier.
Take an example of a marginal tax rate of 99% which is increased to 100%. This will certainly result in lower tax revenues as people will have zero incentive to work since they will get to keep none of the fruits of their labour. So it is fairly easy to see that a cut in tax rates from 100% to 99% will increase tax revenues. My guess is that a cut from 99% to 98% will have a similar effect.
Is there a point at which cutting taxes results in lower revenues then? Well of course. A cut from 1% to 0% might increase economic activity but it most certainly will result in a reduction in taxes to zero. My educated guess would be that if you halve the marginal tax rate from 2% to 1%...then this will also result in lower tax revenue.
The above example would lead to a conclusion that somewhere below 100% there is a level at which raising taxes results in lesser tax revenue and somewhere above 1%, there is a level at which cutting taxes would result in lesser tax revenue. So somewhere between 0 and 100% is a tax rate below which cutting taxes will result in lower revenues and above which raising the rate leads to lower revenue.
So basically anywhere other than the optimal point would result in lower tax revenues. Now I don't know where that optimal level is and it might not even be the same level from one year to the next. However, I do know that the highest rate in US history was 94%. (Does that seem awfully close to 100%?) When Reagan came into office, the rate was 70%. Currently it stands at 33%.
It is most irritating when I hear politicians talking about stimulating the economy by cutting taxes. Listening to some Republicans you would think that Moses came down from the Sinai with a commandment that says "Thou shalt cut taxes....always and forever more."
Paying taxes is not like famine and pestilence where the ideal number is always lower...but you wouldn't know that from listening to some Republicans.
As my simple example shows, there would be a point at which lower tax rates would result in lower tax revenue. This should serve as a caution to Democrats as well. Raising taxes on the wealthy should not be done for reasons of class warfare or resentment. The goal should be to raise money for government operation and in doing so, they should be mindful of not creating a disincentive to earn more income.
When someone says "raise taxes on the wealthy", i often ask to what level should it be raised? Usually there is no answer because it really wasn't thought through beyond "they're rich so they should pay more." When someone says "cut taxes because it will stimulate the economy and lead to more revenues", i will ask to what level it should be cut.
Both sides simply want "more" or 'less" without asking themselves what the "RIGHT" level of taxes should be. My guess is that the United States is pretty much at a point where cutting taxes will lead to lesser revenues not more. My guess is that an increase to the marginal tax rate would lead to greater government revenues. I think it's probably 10% higher before it becomes a cause of lower revenues.
I don't know what the right number is but I do know that I don't ever hear politicians speaking of the 'right' level of taxes.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Marathon Inspiration 1984
By the time of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, I had entered my teens. I had grown to love sports and had begun learning important life lessons through sporting competitions.
I had watched the "Miracle on Ice" of 1980 when a team of Collegiate American Hockey players defeated the heavily favoured Soviet Big Red Machine. As a hockey fan I was thrilled to see my New York Islanders emerge as 4 time Stanley Cup Champions after so many years on the periphery. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were going mano a mano in what was a team sport.
The lessons learned were that David can slay Goliath, teamwork can pay off and sometimes a white guy can win the NBA Championship...LOL!
Into this mix the cold war era Summer Olympics came along. For the first time, women were competing for a Gold medal in the marathon. I watched on TV, captivated, as Joan Benoit (USA) broke away from the pack and widened her lead right into the finish. She ran the final lap in the LA Coliseum without any of her competitors in sight. She crossed the finish line to the cheers of the partisan American crowd and the networks were happy.
However the truly inspiring moment was yet to come. Way back from Joan Benoit was Gabrielle Anderson of Switzerland. She had been overcome by heat and when she entered the stadium she was not a picture of grace. She looked terrible to say the least.
But she was still moving (barely). She waved away medical personnel lest she be disqualified. She stumbled around and couldn't move in a straight line and her body was leaning awkwardly the whole way.
BUT SHE DIDN'T QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watching Gabrielle Anderson collapsing over the finish line in 37th place made quite an impression on this 14 year old boy.
Now through the magic of youtube I was able to view her finish again 27 years later and it still gave me the chills.
Joan Benoit won the Gold Medal that day. It's a common saying in sports that "nobody ever remembers who came second." True enough! For me the most memorable person at the first women's Olympic Marathon in 1984 finished 37th.
The language of the commentary is not important. If you watch the video....well judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZFNiuuApFU&feature=related
I had watched the "Miracle on Ice" of 1980 when a team of Collegiate American Hockey players defeated the heavily favoured Soviet Big Red Machine. As a hockey fan I was thrilled to see my New York Islanders emerge as 4 time Stanley Cup Champions after so many years on the periphery. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were going mano a mano in what was a team sport.
The lessons learned were that David can slay Goliath, teamwork can pay off and sometimes a white guy can win the NBA Championship...LOL!
Into this mix the cold war era Summer Olympics came along. For the first time, women were competing for a Gold medal in the marathon. I watched on TV, captivated, as Joan Benoit (USA) broke away from the pack and widened her lead right into the finish. She ran the final lap in the LA Coliseum without any of her competitors in sight. She crossed the finish line to the cheers of the partisan American crowd and the networks were happy.
However the truly inspiring moment was yet to come. Way back from Joan Benoit was Gabrielle Anderson of Switzerland. She had been overcome by heat and when she entered the stadium she was not a picture of grace. She looked terrible to say the least.
But she was still moving (barely). She waved away medical personnel lest she be disqualified. She stumbled around and couldn't move in a straight line and her body was leaning awkwardly the whole way.
BUT SHE DIDN'T QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watching Gabrielle Anderson collapsing over the finish line in 37th place made quite an impression on this 14 year old boy.
Now through the magic of youtube I was able to view her finish again 27 years later and it still gave me the chills.
Joan Benoit won the Gold Medal that day. It's a common saying in sports that "nobody ever remembers who came second." True enough! For me the most memorable person at the first women's Olympic Marathon in 1984 finished 37th.
The language of the commentary is not important. If you watch the video....well judge for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZFNiuuApFU&feature=related
Monday, September 12, 2011
An Orange Tide for Ontario??T
hThe Ontario election campaign has barely begun but we have already seen the two frontrunners get bogged down in a bizarre issue.
Liberal Premier McGuinty has promised a tax credit to companies that hire foreign trained professionals. Conservative leader Hudak has labelled it affirmative action for "foreigners". Not true replies McGuinty, it is meant for Canadian citizens who were foreign trained but have been in Canada for less than 5 years. Hudak has been accused of being divisive.
I find this whole issue and the reactions rather bizarre. I don't like affirmative action as a matter of principle but I'm not sure this qualifies as affirmative action. That being said, labeling Canadian citizens "foreigners" is completely offensive. Am I Canadian because I've been a citizen for longer than 5 years or am I still somewhat of a foreigner? I've always thought that when one becomes a Canadian citizen, you are Canadian from that day forward. That being said, if this is such a great idea, why did Dalton McGuinty wait until an election campaign 8 years after he took office to present this great idea??? He could have presented it and implemented it at any time during the past 8 years.
This whole debate makes both of them look silly. It's possible that the voters of Ontario will decide that both of them are right....about the other and vote for neither.
This silliness has created an opportunity for Andrea Horwath to woo disaffected voters. It has been decades since Ontario's disastrous experience with an NDP government. Former NDP Premier Bob Rae is now the leader of the Federal Liberal Party and the face of the NDP is now Jack Layton. In other words, the NDP brand in Ontario has been completely washed clean of the Rae years by Jack Layton's success and Rae's defection to the Liberals.
It is very early and the leaders debates have yet to happen. If Andrea Horwath can introduce herself to the voters and show that she is ready for prime time, she could pull off an upset. The ground is fertile, can she step up and seize the opportunity?
Liberal Premier McGuinty has promised a tax credit to companies that hire foreign trained professionals. Conservative leader Hudak has labelled it affirmative action for "foreigners". Not true replies McGuinty, it is meant for Canadian citizens who were foreign trained but have been in Canada for less than 5 years. Hudak has been accused of being divisive.
I find this whole issue and the reactions rather bizarre. I don't like affirmative action as a matter of principle but I'm not sure this qualifies as affirmative action. That being said, labeling Canadian citizens "foreigners" is completely offensive. Am I Canadian because I've been a citizen for longer than 5 years or am I still somewhat of a foreigner? I've always thought that when one becomes a Canadian citizen, you are Canadian from that day forward. That being said, if this is such a great idea, why did Dalton McGuinty wait until an election campaign 8 years after he took office to present this great idea??? He could have presented it and implemented it at any time during the past 8 years.
This whole debate makes both of them look silly. It's possible that the voters of Ontario will decide that both of them are right....about the other and vote for neither.
This silliness has created an opportunity for Andrea Horwath to woo disaffected voters. It has been decades since Ontario's disastrous experience with an NDP government. Former NDP Premier Bob Rae is now the leader of the Federal Liberal Party and the face of the NDP is now Jack Layton. In other words, the NDP brand in Ontario has been completely washed clean of the Rae years by Jack Layton's success and Rae's defection to the Liberals.
It is very early and the leaders debates have yet to happen. If Andrea Horwath can introduce herself to the voters and show that she is ready for prime time, she could pull off an upset. The ground is fertile, can she step up and seize the opportunity?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
President Obama's Jobs Plan
With the United States mired in an economic slump and fears growing of a double dip recession, President Obama did what he does best.....he gave a speech.
Obama's skills as an orator are well known. I don't think the Oval Office has had a better orator post Reagan. However, his plan is doomed to fail.
I have heard that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. So what is the Obama jobs plan? Well it's a $447 billion dollar package of tax cuts and public works spending....to be paid for later. Excuse me but haven't we seen this before? What does anyone think that a half trillion dollar program of spending will do for the economy what three years of trillion dollar deficits did not?
Bill Gross (of PIMCO) speaking on CNN stated flat out that it will not work because the unemployment problem in the United States is a result of structural changes resulting from technological change and the migration of jobs to cheap labour countries like China. A modest lowering of payroll taxes will not suddenly cause businesses to start hiring. Bill Gross is right.
However let me take a step back and address a more fundamental assumption that everyone seems to be labouring under. How exactly did it become a fundamental underlying assumption that the economy will continuously grow at rates that will lead to ever greater prosperity? Everything I've read in my studies of economics says that boom and bust are part of something called the business cycle. Recessions are as much a part of growth as death is to life.
Recessions aren't all bad. During boom times, people drive more, eat more, waste more and save less. Why wouldn't they? Greater future prosperity makes thrifty ways seem pointless. The environment suffers and the garbage dumps fill up while waistlines expand. During recessions, businesses become more efficient, energy costs are costs that need to be cut, lights are turned off more and carbon emissions go down.
Stimulus spending will not work now because it simply attempts to fast forward future consumer demand to the present. This works temporarily but there is a limit. The downgrading of US Treasury debt to less than triple A tells us that this point is near. That point was reached after a decade of deficit financed prosperity under George W Bush. That is certainly not Obama's fault but it does mean that the stimulus gun has no more bullets that are effective. Besides, bringing forward future growth to today inevitably means a hangover of low growth.
It is now time for society to readjust their expectations, live with lower growth and wait until the gloom passes. It may take years or even a decade or two....that is simply a reflection of how long and prosperous the boom was. It's time to recover from the hangover and there is no quick way to do it.
Obama's skills as an orator are well known. I don't think the Oval Office has had a better orator post Reagan. However, his plan is doomed to fail.
I have heard that one definition of insanity is repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result. So what is the Obama jobs plan? Well it's a $447 billion dollar package of tax cuts and public works spending....to be paid for later. Excuse me but haven't we seen this before? What does anyone think that a half trillion dollar program of spending will do for the economy what three years of trillion dollar deficits did not?
Bill Gross (of PIMCO) speaking on CNN stated flat out that it will not work because the unemployment problem in the United States is a result of structural changes resulting from technological change and the migration of jobs to cheap labour countries like China. A modest lowering of payroll taxes will not suddenly cause businesses to start hiring. Bill Gross is right.
However let me take a step back and address a more fundamental assumption that everyone seems to be labouring under. How exactly did it become a fundamental underlying assumption that the economy will continuously grow at rates that will lead to ever greater prosperity? Everything I've read in my studies of economics says that boom and bust are part of something called the business cycle. Recessions are as much a part of growth as death is to life.
Recessions aren't all bad. During boom times, people drive more, eat more, waste more and save less. Why wouldn't they? Greater future prosperity makes thrifty ways seem pointless. The environment suffers and the garbage dumps fill up while waistlines expand. During recessions, businesses become more efficient, energy costs are costs that need to be cut, lights are turned off more and carbon emissions go down.
Stimulus spending will not work now because it simply attempts to fast forward future consumer demand to the present. This works temporarily but there is a limit. The downgrading of US Treasury debt to less than triple A tells us that this point is near. That point was reached after a decade of deficit financed prosperity under George W Bush. That is certainly not Obama's fault but it does mean that the stimulus gun has no more bullets that are effective. Besides, bringing forward future growth to today inevitably means a hangover of low growth.
It is now time for society to readjust their expectations, live with lower growth and wait until the gloom passes. It may take years or even a decade or two....that is simply a reflection of how long and prosperous the boom was. It's time to recover from the hangover and there is no quick way to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
