Today Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto would not get a permanent injunction blocking the city's enforcement of bylaws relating to the use of the park.
I read the actual judgment. Here is a link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/73349925/Batty-v-City-Toronto-Application-Final-Nov-21-11
The reporters who cover this will necessarily be more succinct than Justice Brown's 54 page ruling, however they have oversimplified to the point where they miss some very important points.
Justice Brown ruled that Occupy Toronto was in fact engaging in protected expression. He also spoke well of the issues they raised. Environmentalism, aboriginal rights and inequality are valid and important issues regardless of disagreement over particular views on policy fixes.
He also found that there were others who had Charter rights that should be protected. His ruling was an attempt to balance the competing rights.
This was a case about charter rights. The written laws are quite clear and OccupyTo was in violation of City bylaws. Their only hope lay in convincing a judge that their Charter rights supersede the local bylaws.
In my opinion, the people at St James park made some tactical errors that were fatal to their chances in court.
First they did not "practice what they preach." Justice Brown noted that for all of their talk about decision by consensus and horizontal democracy, they did not seek the consensus or input of local residents. Rather than practice inclusion, they excluded the concerns of area residents. He further said that they were simply not "good neighbours."
Second, their application asked for an "indefinite" injunction against enforcement of city bylaws. His Charter analysis made repeated use of words like "reasonable". Charter rights are clearly not absolute and restrictions must be proportionate and reasonable. By asking for a ruling that would allow them to stay in St James 'forever', they asked that their Charter rights be given a status that is absolute in a way that few things are.
Third, the affidavits filed by area residents allege that there have been several cases of intimidation, harassment and even assault committed against residents. The intimidation is something I've heard about from some friends who live in the area, but it has not been well reported in the media. No cross examinations were conducted as this was just a motion. If the allegations are true, then the Charter rights of others were being directly, and negatively, affected by Occupy's presence in St James Park.
Justice Brown's most scathing comments were not his own but a quote from an area resident's email which read (in part):
"I also believe the use of the park is as much their right, as it is mine. However, it is notappropriate for them to use the park in a manner that prevents me from using the park comfortably. Especially now where it appears to be more about testing how long theycan stay, rather than having a specific purpose. One of the issues they were protestingwas their perception of corporate greed; that corporations only care about their success,and have no concern for the well-being or lives of others. It seems Occupy Toronto hastaken this mentality. They appear to believe their residence is most important, and therights of everyone else to use the park do not matter"
This is the crux of the problem preventing Occupy's message from taking hold and spreading amongst more than a few die hards. I've seen many comments online from people who support Occupy but make the point that they would have greater support amongst their fellow citizens if they did a few things differently. Adopting some of the same tactics and mindset of the stereotypical 1% is clearly not helpful as they look hypocritical.
The issues raised by Occupy are real and valid. They require serious consideration. It is my hope that such a serious discussion will happen once the focus is no longer about Occupy's presence in St James Park. The people of the OccupyTo movement should move on and focus their message. They should then find another way to spread their message once they have moved on.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Support the Troops?
Another Remembrance day has come and gone. A few more veterans have passed on and, unfortunately, more young soldiers now carry the tag of "veteran."
It is well known that Remembrance day is not a celebration of war but a day to pay tribute to those who fell in war. It is a day to honor their sacrifice and be thankful for what we have. Of course such sentiments should not be limited to one day out of the whole year and it is a sad fact that society has often fallen short of that, not so lofty, standard.
The Vietnam war coincided with the "make love not war" generation and as such there were some natural conflicts. It was a shameful episode in American history when returning veterans were greeted with jeers and called baby killers. Many young men who served their country honorably did not get the parade that they deserved because society was so very divided on their mission...which they did not choose.
With the passage of time, perceptions changed. John McCain and John Kerry each ran for President and each was given respect for their service. Their tales of service were tales of honor and heroism not shame. Hollywood got into the act. I remember at the end of Rambo, Sly Stallone's character was asked by Colonel Trautman what he wanted. John Rambo declared "I want what they (rescued MIA's) want. I want to be loved by my country as much I love it."
With this cultural shift it has become fashionable to say that one supports the troops. However this innocuous sounding phrase has been twisted at times.
I recently posted a message on the "Occupy Toronto" site reminding them that Remembrance Day was coming up and that it would be appropriate to mark the event. Several people responded positively.....others did not.
Others stated that while they "support the troops", the real support lies in opposing all wars.(many of the comments were far less benign and generous)
This made me wonder what "support the troops" really meant. Does it mean to blindly support and agree with any military deployment? Of course not. Amongst family and friends I've made the point that the most supportive thing anyone can do is to be honest. ie. tell me when you think i'm wrong.
So what is the intention behind supporting the troops and why do they need support?
Well to answer the second question first, soldiers need support because they need to believe in a higher cause. They need to believe it because no rational person would choose to put their life on the line otherwise. They need that support because they live in fear. Part of the training soldiers undergo involves what to do if one is captured. They must face death, severe injury and even the possiblity of being tortured in enemy hands. Soldiers should know that they are on a mission from orders given by the government of the people and that they are behind them and their mission 100%. In other words, they need to know that society "has their back."
The intention behind supporting the troops should be to reassure them and to make them feel good about their mission (which they did not choose). Too often, it appears that "I support the troops" is used to pat oneself on the back before expressing a view that is anything other than supportive. In such cases, one speaks the words but actually, the intention is to support one's own viewpoint. This is twisted.
So here is my suggestion: If you support the troops and want to say "I got your back" then say so. If you really dislike the military and any foreign intervention, then say what you mean without saying that you support the troops.
Supporting the troops should be about them....not you!
It is well known that Remembrance day is not a celebration of war but a day to pay tribute to those who fell in war. It is a day to honor their sacrifice and be thankful for what we have. Of course such sentiments should not be limited to one day out of the whole year and it is a sad fact that society has often fallen short of that, not so lofty, standard.
The Vietnam war coincided with the "make love not war" generation and as such there were some natural conflicts. It was a shameful episode in American history when returning veterans were greeted with jeers and called baby killers. Many young men who served their country honorably did not get the parade that they deserved because society was so very divided on their mission...which they did not choose.
With the passage of time, perceptions changed. John McCain and John Kerry each ran for President and each was given respect for their service. Their tales of service were tales of honor and heroism not shame. Hollywood got into the act. I remember at the end of Rambo, Sly Stallone's character was asked by Colonel Trautman what he wanted. John Rambo declared "I want what they (rescued MIA's) want. I want to be loved by my country as much I love it."
With this cultural shift it has become fashionable to say that one supports the troops. However this innocuous sounding phrase has been twisted at times.
I recently posted a message on the "Occupy Toronto" site reminding them that Remembrance Day was coming up and that it would be appropriate to mark the event. Several people responded positively.....others did not.
Others stated that while they "support the troops", the real support lies in opposing all wars.(many of the comments were far less benign and generous)
This made me wonder what "support the troops" really meant. Does it mean to blindly support and agree with any military deployment? Of course not. Amongst family and friends I've made the point that the most supportive thing anyone can do is to be honest. ie. tell me when you think i'm wrong.
So what is the intention behind supporting the troops and why do they need support?
Well to answer the second question first, soldiers need support because they need to believe in a higher cause. They need to believe it because no rational person would choose to put their life on the line otherwise. They need that support because they live in fear. Part of the training soldiers undergo involves what to do if one is captured. They must face death, severe injury and even the possiblity of being tortured in enemy hands. Soldiers should know that they are on a mission from orders given by the government of the people and that they are behind them and their mission 100%. In other words, they need to know that society "has their back."
The intention behind supporting the troops should be to reassure them and to make them feel good about their mission (which they did not choose). Too often, it appears that "I support the troops" is used to pat oneself on the back before expressing a view that is anything other than supportive. In such cases, one speaks the words but actually, the intention is to support one's own viewpoint. This is twisted.
So here is my suggestion: If you support the troops and want to say "I got your back" then say so. If you really dislike the military and any foreign intervention, then say what you mean without saying that you support the troops.
Supporting the troops should be about them....not you!
Friday, November 4, 2011
Markets vs People
One of the dividing lines between Conservative thoughts and Liberal thoughts can be seen in their attitudes towards markets and people.
I've heard it described as Conservatives think that markets are good and people are bad. Liberals think that people are good and markets are bad.
This rather succinct description is disturbingly accurate. If you were to put that caption underneath a broadcast of a politician's speech it would be so obvious.
The so-called "cultural conservatives" are a good example of the former. They will espouse a philosophy that calls for deregulation or the more evocative "cutting the red tape." At the same time they will pound away at moral decay and family breakdown. They will lecture ordinary people that they are not living their lives right. They believe that free markets are inherently good and any restrictions on the operations of a free market are inherently bad. On the other hand, people are inherently bad and must be admonished. These "conservatives" favour small government in fiscal matters but big government (with lots of laws and prohibitions) in personal matters.
The liberals will talk about "putting people first" and will strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate moral values. They want the government out of the bedrooms of the nation as they typically believe in unfettered personal freedom. At the same time they will lecture the corporations and markets for behaving badly. They favour small, limited government in personal matters but an expansive government that taxes, regulates and enforces good behaviour on the part of markets.
They are both wrong. They are wrong because they forget one important fact: The markets are an extension of human behaviour. Markets often behave irrationally because it is the reaction of people behind the market. When "markets" panic, it is in fact "people" who are panicking. The only expression of panic or optimism that markets have is the investment or withdrawal of money. This money belongs to people....in many cases, ordinary, middle income people who collectively pool their money into mutual funds or pension funds.
As a trader who deals with markets, I have had many occasions to discuss markets with others. The term "market" has become so abstract that people often think of it as some mystical force that doesn't follow norms of behaviour.
A market is simply a place where like minded people can meet to buy/sell something. It can fruits, textiles or financial instruments. In all cases, a market is a place where someone tries to sell something a higher price while someone else tries to buy it at a lower price.
Recently the Greek sovereign debt crisis has spawned numerous headlines that declare that "market" does/doesn't like a proposal and reacts negatively. In truth, it is really people who are reacting and not some abstract living entity called the market.
Both conservatives and liberals are ultimately wrong about "markets vs people.' Both human behaviour and market behaviour should be subject to some regulation and neither should be seen as inherently good or bad. It can never be either since it is composed of many people. People are inherently good but there are some definite bad apples. The same could be aid about markets
I've heard it described as Conservatives think that markets are good and people are bad. Liberals think that people are good and markets are bad.
This rather succinct description is disturbingly accurate. If you were to put that caption underneath a broadcast of a politician's speech it would be so obvious.
The so-called "cultural conservatives" are a good example of the former. They will espouse a philosophy that calls for deregulation or the more evocative "cutting the red tape." At the same time they will pound away at moral decay and family breakdown. They will lecture ordinary people that they are not living their lives right. They believe that free markets are inherently good and any restrictions on the operations of a free market are inherently bad. On the other hand, people are inherently bad and must be admonished. These "conservatives" favour small government in fiscal matters but big government (with lots of laws and prohibitions) in personal matters.
The liberals will talk about "putting people first" and will strenuously oppose any attempt to legislate moral values. They want the government out of the bedrooms of the nation as they typically believe in unfettered personal freedom. At the same time they will lecture the corporations and markets for behaving badly. They favour small, limited government in personal matters but an expansive government that taxes, regulates and enforces good behaviour on the part of markets.
They are both wrong. They are wrong because they forget one important fact: The markets are an extension of human behaviour. Markets often behave irrationally because it is the reaction of people behind the market. When "markets" panic, it is in fact "people" who are panicking. The only expression of panic or optimism that markets have is the investment or withdrawal of money. This money belongs to people....in many cases, ordinary, middle income people who collectively pool their money into mutual funds or pension funds.
As a trader who deals with markets, I have had many occasions to discuss markets with others. The term "market" has become so abstract that people often think of it as some mystical force that doesn't follow norms of behaviour.
A market is simply a place where like minded people can meet to buy/sell something. It can fruits, textiles or financial instruments. In all cases, a market is a place where someone tries to sell something a higher price while someone else tries to buy it at a lower price.
Recently the Greek sovereign debt crisis has spawned numerous headlines that declare that "market" does/doesn't like a proposal and reacts negatively. In truth, it is really people who are reacting and not some abstract living entity called the market.
Both conservatives and liberals are ultimately wrong about "markets vs people.' Both human behaviour and market behaviour should be subject to some regulation and neither should be seen as inherently good or bad. It can never be either since it is composed of many people. People are inherently good but there are some definite bad apples. The same could be aid about markets
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Greek Tragedy....again
The overnight news is that Greece will put the EU rescue package to a referendum.
Up until this latest rescue package, all prior efforts can best be described as:
"Hey Greece is in trouble, they have borrowed too much and they are having trouble borrowing more. Let's ride to the rescue by co-signing some loans for them."
Imagine the surprised looks on central bankers faces when they realized that more debt did not help a country with too much debt.
The latest rescue package seemed to finally grasp the point that if too much debt is the problem, then more debt is not a solution. It imposed a 50% 'voluntary' haircut on some investors of bonds. The haircut would have reduced Greece's debt but it was bizarre and selective in it's application. Some holders of Greek debt would be kept whole while others would take the "voluntary" haircut which would not be considered a default event for some inexplicable reason.
I think that the referendum will see the rescue package voted down. Right now the markets are falling due to the increased uncertainty. When the Greeks reject this plan, a formal default will be triggered and holders of Greek bonds will take much bigger haircuts.
Greece will hit rock bottom and have great difficulty borrowing money in the bond market, however this is a necessary step to beginning a recovery.
Stay tuned folks...this drama is far from over.
Up until this latest rescue package, all prior efforts can best be described as:
"Hey Greece is in trouble, they have borrowed too much and they are having trouble borrowing more. Let's ride to the rescue by co-signing some loans for them."
Imagine the surprised looks on central bankers faces when they realized that more debt did not help a country with too much debt.
The latest rescue package seemed to finally grasp the point that if too much debt is the problem, then more debt is not a solution. It imposed a 50% 'voluntary' haircut on some investors of bonds. The haircut would have reduced Greece's debt but it was bizarre and selective in it's application. Some holders of Greek debt would be kept whole while others would take the "voluntary" haircut which would not be considered a default event for some inexplicable reason.
I think that the referendum will see the rescue package voted down. Right now the markets are falling due to the increased uncertainty. When the Greeks reject this plan, a formal default will be triggered and holders of Greek bonds will take much bigger haircuts.
Greece will hit rock bottom and have great difficulty borrowing money in the bond market, however this is a necessary step to beginning a recovery.
Stay tuned folks...this drama is far from over.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Occupy Toronto (and Wall Street)
The past several weeks have seen the phenomenon of people "occupying" Wall Street and then similar protests emerged in other places including Toronto. They call themselves the 99% who do not own a massively disproportionate share of society's wealth. Their complaints are many and proposed solutions varied. But they have a point even if they lack focus.
Comparisons to the Arab Spring are inappropriate. They do live in a democratic society and the power of the ballot box is what the Arab protesters were demanding. The 99% in the USA and Canada have the power of the ballot which most of humanity does not. However that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their frustrations nor do over the top comparisons make their sentiment irrelevant.
I'm going to focus on one concrete example of why they have a point. They generally say that the deck is stacked and the game is essentially unfair. One example sticks out like a sore thumb and that example is the firm known as Goldman Sachs.
Have a look at this impressive list of Goldman alumni.
http://www.trendsresearch.com/reports/goldman-inter.pdf
The number of Goldman alums who populated senior positions in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations is striking. Whether it be a Democrat or Republican in the White House, it seems that Goldman Sachs has a seat at the table.
It is more disturbing when one considers the bizarre decisions related to bailouts. Many in the financial community were scratching their heads when Bear Stearns (small) was bailed out while Lehman (medium) was not and AIG (large) was. It happened in that sequence and one wonders why little Bear and large AIG were too important to fail while Lehman (medium) was not. Could it be that Lehman was a competitor of Goldman while AIG was a huge customer of Goldman??
Most have forgotten now but years earlier, another financial crisis was looming as a massive hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management collapsed. Their massive trading book threatened the financial system as an unwind of large positions would cause big market distortions. The federal reserve worked behind the scenes to avoid such a scenario. It was detailed in a book called "When Genius Failed" by Roger Lowenstein.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160621/
(I highly recommend this book as it was very good at explaining complex financial transactions in a way that most people could understand it.)
During negotiations to save LTCM, Lowenstein recounts the behaviour of Goldman employees. As a prospective bidder, they were allowed access to a data room of LTCM's secret trading positions. After viewing the data they went back to their desks and began trading against LTCM's positions. ie, if LTCM was short 30 year bonds and long 29.5 year bonds, Goldman would buy the 29.5 and sell the 30's. This has the effect of increasing LTCM's losses and putting Goldman in a position to benefit from the resulting fire sale.
Nowadays, actions like these are considered "Market abuse" by regulators and would subject the firm to sanctions.
Ronald Reagan once said "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." I wonder if a firm like Goldman is so well connected that the feeling that the deck is stacked (as espoused by the 99% protestors) does not have some validity?
The example of Goldman Sachs is an American one and we Canadians love to be smug about how we are so much better than the Americans: "Hey we have universal health care." "Hey we didn't have a sub prime crisis."
Will we be so smug in saying "Hey the Governor of the Bank of Canada used to work at Goldman Sachs"???
Comparisons to the Arab Spring are inappropriate. They do live in a democratic society and the power of the ballot box is what the Arab protesters were demanding. The 99% in the USA and Canada have the power of the ballot which most of humanity does not. However that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to express their frustrations nor do over the top comparisons make their sentiment irrelevant.
I'm going to focus on one concrete example of why they have a point. They generally say that the deck is stacked and the game is essentially unfair. One example sticks out like a sore thumb and that example is the firm known as Goldman Sachs.
Have a look at this impressive list of Goldman alumni.
http://www.trendsresearch.com/reports/goldman-inter.pdf
The number of Goldman alums who populated senior positions in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations is striking. Whether it be a Democrat or Republican in the White House, it seems that Goldman Sachs has a seat at the table.
It is more disturbing when one considers the bizarre decisions related to bailouts. Many in the financial community were scratching their heads when Bear Stearns (small) was bailed out while Lehman (medium) was not and AIG (large) was. It happened in that sequence and one wonders why little Bear and large AIG were too important to fail while Lehman (medium) was not. Could it be that Lehman was a competitor of Goldman while AIG was a huge customer of Goldman??
Most have forgotten now but years earlier, another financial crisis was looming as a massive hedge fund called Long Term Capital Management collapsed. Their massive trading book threatened the financial system as an unwind of large positions would cause big market distortions. The federal reserve worked behind the scenes to avoid such a scenario. It was detailed in a book called "When Genius Failed" by Roger Lowenstein.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_9_32/ai_65160621/
(I highly recommend this book as it was very good at explaining complex financial transactions in a way that most people could understand it.)
During negotiations to save LTCM, Lowenstein recounts the behaviour of Goldman employees. As a prospective bidder, they were allowed access to a data room of LTCM's secret trading positions. After viewing the data they went back to their desks and began trading against LTCM's positions. ie, if LTCM was short 30 year bonds and long 29.5 year bonds, Goldman would buy the 29.5 and sell the 30's. This has the effect of increasing LTCM's losses and putting Goldman in a position to benefit from the resulting fire sale.
Nowadays, actions like these are considered "Market abuse" by regulators and would subject the firm to sanctions.
Ronald Reagan once said "Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." I wonder if a firm like Goldman is so well connected that the feeling that the deck is stacked (as espoused by the 99% protestors) does not have some validity?
The example of Goldman Sachs is an American one and we Canadians love to be smug about how we are so much better than the Americans: "Hey we have universal health care." "Hey we didn't have a sub prime crisis."
Will we be so smug in saying "Hey the Governor of the Bank of Canada used to work at Goldman Sachs"???
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs
I run the risk of getting some hatemail for this post but I want to state at the start that I am not running down Steve Jobs. He was clearly at the forefront of creating some great consumer products and it is very sad that he has passed.
This post is not about Steve Jobs but rather the bizarre celebrity obsessed culture that magnifies the importance of famous people. Steve Jobs is really secondary to my point.
The newspaper headlines say that he was a "visionary" and that he "changed the world."
I'm not sure how to define a "visionary" but did he really change the world? I own several ipods and I have an Iphone 4. I'm happy to have these because I get to listen to music, watch videos and play Angry Birds.
So I imagined a world without Apple products. Hmm...i would still listen to music. I had a cell phone before Apple started producing them and probably would have one now. I'm not sure about Angry Birds...maybe, maybe not. But how would the world be different?
Racism would still plague too many societies. Economic downturns will hurt many vulnerable people. Israel and the Palestinians would probably still be at odds.
My Iphone is "cool" and I was very happy when i got it and started playing with it. I have yet to get an Ipad but it looks pretty "cool" too. I suppose Apple products have made many people feel special and "cool"....at least until everyone has one.
But that brings me to my next point. How many people have Apple products? I don't know the actual numbers...but I am willing to guess that a fraction of 1% of humanity owns any Apple products. It is probably the wealthiest fraction of 1% of humanity as well. However that fraction feels "cool" when they listen to their Ipod or talk on their Iphone or watch a movie on their Ipad. Is watching the Matrix on an Ipad is much much better than on a Hi Def TV?
This news coverage reminded me of a time in 1997. Diana Spencer (the former Princess of Wales) had died in a car accident. Tributes flowed and a mountain of flowers appeared at various spots around the world. A famous person had died in a car accident and people who had never met her (but had seen her on TV) cried as if a family member had passed.
As we watched the coverage on a trading floor TV, a senior trader I was working with declared "this is a disgrace, if mother Theresa had died there wouldn't be so much coverage." Suddenly the cosmos decided it was time to give people a clue. Seconds after he said that, the news text below the live coverage of Diana's wedding said "Breaking news, Mother Theresa has died."
A few days later, the networks scrambled to ensure that Mother Theresa's death received as much coverage as Diana's.
It is sad that Steve Jobs died. It was sad that a runner at the Montreal Marathon died two weeks ago. One was more famous but neither changed the world.
Fame does not make one human tragedy more tragic....despite the way the news media reacts.
This post is not about Steve Jobs but rather the bizarre celebrity obsessed culture that magnifies the importance of famous people. Steve Jobs is really secondary to my point.
The newspaper headlines say that he was a "visionary" and that he "changed the world."
I'm not sure how to define a "visionary" but did he really change the world? I own several ipods and I have an Iphone 4. I'm happy to have these because I get to listen to music, watch videos and play Angry Birds.
So I imagined a world without Apple products. Hmm...i would still listen to music. I had a cell phone before Apple started producing them and probably would have one now. I'm not sure about Angry Birds...maybe, maybe not. But how would the world be different?
Racism would still plague too many societies. Economic downturns will hurt many vulnerable people. Israel and the Palestinians would probably still be at odds.
My Iphone is "cool" and I was very happy when i got it and started playing with it. I have yet to get an Ipad but it looks pretty "cool" too. I suppose Apple products have made many people feel special and "cool"....at least until everyone has one.
But that brings me to my next point. How many people have Apple products? I don't know the actual numbers...but I am willing to guess that a fraction of 1% of humanity owns any Apple products. It is probably the wealthiest fraction of 1% of humanity as well. However that fraction feels "cool" when they listen to their Ipod or talk on their Iphone or watch a movie on their Ipad. Is watching the Matrix on an Ipad is much much better than on a Hi Def TV?
This news coverage reminded me of a time in 1997. Diana Spencer (the former Princess of Wales) had died in a car accident. Tributes flowed and a mountain of flowers appeared at various spots around the world. A famous person had died in a car accident and people who had never met her (but had seen her on TV) cried as if a family member had passed.
As we watched the coverage on a trading floor TV, a senior trader I was working with declared "this is a disgrace, if mother Theresa had died there wouldn't be so much coverage." Suddenly the cosmos decided it was time to give people a clue. Seconds after he said that, the news text below the live coverage of Diana's wedding said "Breaking news, Mother Theresa has died."
A few days later, the networks scrambled to ensure that Mother Theresa's death received as much coverage as Diana's.
It is sad that Steve Jobs died. It was sad that a runner at the Montreal Marathon died two weeks ago. One was more famous but neither changed the world.
Fame does not make one human tragedy more tragic....despite the way the news media reacts.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Montreal Marathon Memories
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.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
