In the news this weekend was a story about RBC hiring a firm to provide IT workers. It doesn't sound like the kind of breaking news that would have the Bank at the centre of a controversy; till you get the details. The temporary foreign workers are here to be trained by the existing crew; who's jobs they will then assume, till the bulk of the work is finally transitioned over seas.
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program-TFWP was established to provide assistance to businesses facing labour shortages, due to skills or bodies. It seems reasonable to allow businesses to bring in workers if the lack-there-of would result in the shutting of their doors. Some have voiced concern over abuses that may arise dues to this program and older ones dealing with care givers and the agricultural sectors.
RBC has found there way into this morass. What the Bank is doing is outsourcing a piece of their business; nothing unusual about that. The problem is that you aren't allowed to bring in foreign workers to displace Canadian ones. Had RBC just outsourced the department I can't imagine it would have raised an eyebrow. The idea of training the workers imported to take your job is something all together different and subsequently very news worthy.
RBC troubles are the latest incidence of companies testing the boundaries of the TFWP. In BC a mining company applied for and was given the right to bring in Coal miners from China. They argued and had supporting evidence that they couldn't find workers or skills in Canada to construct and operate their mine. This assertion has been opposed by Unions concerned with the importation of Labour. Additional documents suggest that the the Chinese workers maybe be here for up to 14 years. Nothing temporary about that. There does appear to be labour shortages in BC but from the looks of it there is no plan to remedy that situation. It is appears easier to to hire foreign workers than to recruit and/or train Canadian ones.
One of the advantages is in wages; the Federal government has granted businesses the right to pay 15% less to TFW. Other abuses unintended but real are unsafe working conditions wages withheld or refused, threats of deportation. The kind of things you might expect where vulnerable people are involved.
No business wants to pay more than they have too. TFWP is like outsourcing only in reverse. Gone are the days when if you can't find a skilled worker you train one yourself; If you can't find someone to do the job you increase the pay till you do.
And it is all about cost. When a business talks of competitiveness they no longer mean innovation, quality or customer service; they mean cost, and only cost. Where once the desire to reduce costs led to the transfer of manufacturing and other jobs to Low Wage regions; temporary worker programs have led to the importation of low wage workers for that employment that couldn't easily be exported. It is argued that TFWP has an effect of lowering working standards in Canada and I think it is a point that has weight.
Non Western economies didn't lose their manufacturing to a Developing world that did it better, they lost out to Countries that could do it cheaper. Now for those we have arranged to recreate Low Wage enclaves in Canada.
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Monday, April 8, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
On Flaherty, Interest Rates and the Free Market
On Tuesday the Finance Minister Mike Flaherty Called Manulife about Interest rates. Manulife had cut the their 5 year fixed mortgage rate to 2.89% and Flaherty thought that was to low; so he rang them up to communicate his displeasure over the drop in rates. Later that day Manulife went back to the old offered rate. This is the second call Flaherty has made to banks over mortgage rates: BMO received a call earlier this month, though they declined to take his advice and kept the new rates.
The Finance Minister has taken some criticism over these interventions into the market place. Business leaders dislike being told how to run their businesses(unless they need money). Conservatives generally opposed Government intervention in the Economy, believing that it leads to inefficiencies and likely to bring about Totalitarian Socialists dictatorships. We have the NDP leader Mulcair suggesting "banana republic behaviour"; interim Liberal leader Rae explained that "either we have a free market or we don't". Tough going when Liberals and NDP criticizes a Conservative for intervening in the economy.
I believe Governments have the right to intervene in economic matters and should do so when the need is there and congratulate Flaherty on his ideological shift. But was there cause and are his methods reasonable?
Flaherty's concern is over an American housing crunch/debt crisis hitting Canada. Our recovery, if steady has been slow and would be damage by a collapse in the housing market. Household debt has been rising to uncomfortable levels. He already reined in amortization periods, reducing them from 40 years to 25; the longer the period, the lower the payments and the more you can spend on a home. Lower interest rates also mean lower payments making more expensive homes affordable. But as the Bank of Canada warned, interest rates will eventually go up and the consequences of that can be defaulting on mortgages and loans. If a large enough number of Canadians find themselves in dire straights it will have a sizable impact on the Canadian economy.
Flaherty sees the mortgage sectors competition for customers, through lower rates as potentially destabilizing; putting unqualified buyers in homes they can't afford, awaiting the first interest rate shocks. A house of cards. I think he is right to be concerned and its the type of problem that requires action way in front of the problem, if there is a problem at all. The downside of ordering banks to maintain higher rates, (keep in mind very low BoC rates) is that citizens pay more for their homes. That is as unpopular as tax hikes. It is awkward that a Conservative Minister of finance must intervene personally to ensure that banks don't make bad loans and people don't borrow unwisely. That tells you a bit about what he thinks of the self regulatory powers of the Free Market that economists boast about.
Tightening rules on lending have already had a softening affect on the housing market. So it seems past actions taken by this government are working. I have no problem with Government being active in the Economy when need arises, the manner of action is important. I also accept in principle that a Well Regulated Free Market is essential to the prosperity of Canada and Canadians. So the idea of the Finance Minister cold calling Mortgage lenders and suggesting appropriate rates is too micro management and somewhat dictatorial Are there only hammers in the Minister"s tool chest.
I applaud the concern, I question the method.
The Finance Minister has taken some criticism over these interventions into the market place. Business leaders dislike being told how to run their businesses(unless they need money). Conservatives generally opposed Government intervention in the Economy, believing that it leads to inefficiencies and likely to bring about Totalitarian Socialists dictatorships. We have the NDP leader Mulcair suggesting "banana republic behaviour"; interim Liberal leader Rae explained that "either we have a free market or we don't". Tough going when Liberals and NDP criticizes a Conservative for intervening in the economy.
I believe Governments have the right to intervene in economic matters and should do so when the need is there and congratulate Flaherty on his ideological shift. But was there cause and are his methods reasonable?
Flaherty's concern is over an American housing crunch/debt crisis hitting Canada. Our recovery, if steady has been slow and would be damage by a collapse in the housing market. Household debt has been rising to uncomfortable levels. He already reined in amortization periods, reducing them from 40 years to 25; the longer the period, the lower the payments and the more you can spend on a home. Lower interest rates also mean lower payments making more expensive homes affordable. But as the Bank of Canada warned, interest rates will eventually go up and the consequences of that can be defaulting on mortgages and loans. If a large enough number of Canadians find themselves in dire straights it will have a sizable impact on the Canadian economy.
Flaherty sees the mortgage sectors competition for customers, through lower rates as potentially destabilizing; putting unqualified buyers in homes they can't afford, awaiting the first interest rate shocks. A house of cards. I think he is right to be concerned and its the type of problem that requires action way in front of the problem, if there is a problem at all. The downside of ordering banks to maintain higher rates, (keep in mind very low BoC rates) is that citizens pay more for their homes. That is as unpopular as tax hikes. It is awkward that a Conservative Minister of finance must intervene personally to ensure that banks don't make bad loans and people don't borrow unwisely. That tells you a bit about what he thinks of the self regulatory powers of the Free Market that economists boast about.
Tightening rules on lending have already had a softening affect on the housing market. So it seems past actions taken by this government are working. I have no problem with Government being active in the Economy when need arises, the manner of action is important. I also accept in principle that a Well Regulated Free Market is essential to the prosperity of Canada and Canadians. So the idea of the Finance Minister cold calling Mortgage lenders and suggesting appropriate rates is too micro management and somewhat dictatorial Are there only hammers in the Minister"s tool chest.
I applaud the concern, I question the method.
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Comment on Supply Management
During the Liberal Leadership debates some candidates commented on Canada's Supply Management system. The Supply Management System is a quota and price support system for producers. It applies to diary and related products, chicken and related products and turkey. The purpose is to provide a stable price environment for farmers; guaranteeing production and profit and so insulating them from potentially bankrupting market forces. Many Candidates expressed their desire to end this agricultural program. I will be commenting on Martha Hall Findlay's contribution to the debate. Ms Findlay's position and other Supply Management opponents do not vary greater in their arguments; so in commenting on her points I am also addressing the whole.
By far the most popular point expressed in favour of eliminating SM is the cost levied on citizens. It is asserted that the average Canadian family pays $300 more each year for food because of SM. It is a powerful point; struggling families hit with one more unnecessary burden/levy/tax, let your politics decide which word you use the word that best defines your political viewpoint. I accept that SM inflates prices, we can argue about how much. Scraping SM as a remedy for higher food costs is excessive. Such an action would lower prices for the poor but also for the better off; who are less affected by food costs, while increasing the financial risk to farmers. The simple remedy is to provide income support to the less well off. Make available $300 to qualify households paid out over a 12 month period, reducing the eligible amount as income climbs. This meets the needs of the poorer among us, keeps the farmer safe and doesn't by accident reward the better off.
Ms. Findlay asserts that the family farm has been in decline during to existence of the SM program; something that it was supposed to prevent. It is a weak point suggesting the SM system doesn't work because family farms still disappeared. Family farms have declined in concert with the movement of population from rural to urban centres. Price support systems take some of the risk out of farming, like insurance does, but if your children want a different kind of life it won't keep them down on the far. Decline in farms and Supply Management are coincidental not allied.
Ms Findlay remarks at length on the success of Australia and New Zealand dairy industries after they ended similar programs. Each seeing a substantial growth in their agricultural exports; when the effected industries stabilized after a few years. I find direct comparisons can be helpful but also misleading. The object is to suggest that the success found by our commonwealth partners is repeatable by us. Canada labours under different circumstances. Our farmers would compete and innovate after the fashion of their Australian counterparts, consolidation would occur; the poor farmer leaving the industry voluntarily or forced out. Our industry would be leaner, but would our exports grow as a result. Australia had the emerging markets of all Asia to export into; an advantage that should be weighed in considering their success. A newly competitive Canadian agricultural industry won't have an Asia to sell into. Our markets will be the Untied States and Europe. They in turn will now sell freely into our markets. We, unlike our Australian friends will be in direct competition, at home and abroad with first world agricultural industries. I do not intend to disparage Canadian businesses or their ability to compete but that is a lot to face for a newly deregulated industry. It would be reasonable to expect even greater consolidation and abandonment of family farmers than either Australia or New Zealand saw. To top that off both Europe and the United States heavily subsidies their agricultural industries.
Many of the next arguments are bound up in the notion of the Free Market; and for its proponents all the benefits of that system. Supply Management is not Capitalism. It is a form of planned economy, on a very small scale. For Conservatives and now a few Liberals that is an anathema. Depending on the rabidness of your disposition you will quote Adam Smith on the superiority of the Capitalism to efficiently allocate resources or Hayek on the inevitable slide from socialism to an all encompassing Authoritarian state,from the acorn comes the Oak. Supply Management does have an effect on competition, innovation and resource allocation, so the free marketeers have a point, but to what degree. Under Supply Management a farmer can expect to sell their goods and make a profit. They do not produce more than their quotas, they do not under cut others to grab market share. What effect does the lack of competition have?What could the average farmer be discouraged from doing because they are not in a competition with other farmers. They might not have improve machinery, but it would seem that any equipment that makes the task of farming easier would be adopted. They don't have to meet their costumer needs since they sell regardless of customer satisfaction, though I think pride of work might but paid to that. Impaired resource allocation would result in raw materials being diverted from "efficient" farmers "wasteful" farmers. Quality perhaps? The standards are set by government. As we have seen from highly public failures of the Private sector food and agricultural industry, mistakes are not a factor of economics style but of practices. The biggest impact of Supply Management is price and profit. The tendency of "free" market competition to reduce prices is suppressed; as well as the ability one or a few to make huge profits while the rest make few or none.
Since free market ideologues have always brayed against Supply Management, there must be one more thing that moves this debate to the front of the line, and I think it is the strongest and most honest point. Other agricultural producers; are injured by this "special" treatment. Those producers that grow for export face heavy tariffs. Tariffs placed on our producers by other Nations in reciprocation for our Supply Management. The not unreasonable argument is made, that far more valuable export are injured in order to keep in place a regime that benefits relatively few people and profit. To be succinct Supply Management inhibits trade and not just in agricultural products referenced above. It is believed that supply management prevents Canada from entering into very profitable Trade entanglements. We protect a small industry at to the detriment of the rest.
This is the pivotal argument. Is it worth protecting certain farmers at the expense of everyone else. If you believe Canadians suffer from lack of reciprocal trade agreements; that our growth and standard of living is adversely affected by Supply Management then you must clamour for its removal.
This is where I find myself. There is obvious harm to ending supply management; the closing of family farms, consolidation is inevitable. There are potential costs like hollowing out of are agricultural sector, factory farming and foreign ownership of our food supply, and other things we can only guess at. Likewise there are tangible benefits; the decline in certain food prices, an increase efficiency, the possible growth of food related industries and exports.
Change to suit an ideological preference is as ridiculous as refusing change out of distrust of what it may bring. Few things are made perfect and timeless; so it is right to look programs or institutions over now and again with an eye ensure they still serve the public good. It is about public good after all. The improvement of all our lots. Make a good case and I might just change my mind.
By far the most popular point expressed in favour of eliminating SM is the cost levied on citizens. It is asserted that the average Canadian family pays $300 more each year for food because of SM. It is a powerful point; struggling families hit with one more unnecessary burden/levy/tax, let your politics decide which word you use the word that best defines your political viewpoint. I accept that SM inflates prices, we can argue about how much. Scraping SM as a remedy for higher food costs is excessive. Such an action would lower prices for the poor but also for the better off; who are less affected by food costs, while increasing the financial risk to farmers. The simple remedy is to provide income support to the less well off. Make available $300 to qualify households paid out over a 12 month period, reducing the eligible amount as income climbs. This meets the needs of the poorer among us, keeps the farmer safe and doesn't by accident reward the better off.
Ms. Findlay asserts that the family farm has been in decline during to existence of the SM program; something that it was supposed to prevent. It is a weak point suggesting the SM system doesn't work because family farms still disappeared. Family farms have declined in concert with the movement of population from rural to urban centres. Price support systems take some of the risk out of farming, like insurance does, but if your children want a different kind of life it won't keep them down on the far. Decline in farms and Supply Management are coincidental not allied.
Ms Findlay remarks at length on the success of Australia and New Zealand dairy industries after they ended similar programs. Each seeing a substantial growth in their agricultural exports; when the effected industries stabilized after a few years. I find direct comparisons can be helpful but also misleading. The object is to suggest that the success found by our commonwealth partners is repeatable by us. Canada labours under different circumstances. Our farmers would compete and innovate after the fashion of their Australian counterparts, consolidation would occur; the poor farmer leaving the industry voluntarily or forced out. Our industry would be leaner, but would our exports grow as a result. Australia had the emerging markets of all Asia to export into; an advantage that should be weighed in considering their success. A newly competitive Canadian agricultural industry won't have an Asia to sell into. Our markets will be the Untied States and Europe. They in turn will now sell freely into our markets. We, unlike our Australian friends will be in direct competition, at home and abroad with first world agricultural industries. I do not intend to disparage Canadian businesses or their ability to compete but that is a lot to face for a newly deregulated industry. It would be reasonable to expect even greater consolidation and abandonment of family farmers than either Australia or New Zealand saw. To top that off both Europe and the United States heavily subsidies their agricultural industries.
Many of the next arguments are bound up in the notion of the Free Market; and for its proponents all the benefits of that system. Supply Management is not Capitalism. It is a form of planned economy, on a very small scale. For Conservatives and now a few Liberals that is an anathema. Depending on the rabidness of your disposition you will quote Adam Smith on the superiority of the Capitalism to efficiently allocate resources or Hayek on the inevitable slide from socialism to an all encompassing Authoritarian state,from the acorn comes the Oak. Supply Management does have an effect on competition, innovation and resource allocation, so the free marketeers have a point, but to what degree. Under Supply Management a farmer can expect to sell their goods and make a profit. They do not produce more than their quotas, they do not under cut others to grab market share. What effect does the lack of competition have?What could the average farmer be discouraged from doing because they are not in a competition with other farmers. They might not have improve machinery, but it would seem that any equipment that makes the task of farming easier would be adopted. They don't have to meet their costumer needs since they sell regardless of customer satisfaction, though I think pride of work might but paid to that. Impaired resource allocation would result in raw materials being diverted from "efficient" farmers "wasteful" farmers. Quality perhaps? The standards are set by government. As we have seen from highly public failures of the Private sector food and agricultural industry, mistakes are not a factor of economics style but of practices. The biggest impact of Supply Management is price and profit. The tendency of "free" market competition to reduce prices is suppressed; as well as the ability one or a few to make huge profits while the rest make few or none.
Since free market ideologues have always brayed against Supply Management, there must be one more thing that moves this debate to the front of the line, and I think it is the strongest and most honest point. Other agricultural producers; are injured by this "special" treatment. Those producers that grow for export face heavy tariffs. Tariffs placed on our producers by other Nations in reciprocation for our Supply Management. The not unreasonable argument is made, that far more valuable export are injured in order to keep in place a regime that benefits relatively few people and profit. To be succinct Supply Management inhibits trade and not just in agricultural products referenced above. It is believed that supply management prevents Canada from entering into very profitable Trade entanglements. We protect a small industry at to the detriment of the rest.
This is the pivotal argument. Is it worth protecting certain farmers at the expense of everyone else. If you believe Canadians suffer from lack of reciprocal trade agreements; that our growth and standard of living is adversely affected by Supply Management then you must clamour for its removal.
This is where I find myself. There is obvious harm to ending supply management; the closing of family farms, consolidation is inevitable. There are potential costs like hollowing out of are agricultural sector, factory farming and foreign ownership of our food supply, and other things we can only guess at. Likewise there are tangible benefits; the decline in certain food prices, an increase efficiency, the possible growth of food related industries and exports.
Change to suit an ideological preference is as ridiculous as refusing change out of distrust of what it may bring. Few things are made perfect and timeless; so it is right to look programs or institutions over now and again with an eye ensure they still serve the public good. It is about public good after all. The improvement of all our lots. Make a good case and I might just change my mind.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
On the Sun Media Corp and Mandatory Carriage
The globe and Mail reports that the Sun Media Corp has applied to the CRTC for mandatory distribution. The application maybe found here, the relevant portion is
10. TVA Group Inc. and Sun Media Corporation, partners in a general partnership carrying on business as Sun News General Partnership
Across Canada
Application 2012-0687-1
Application by TVA Group Inc. and Sun Media Corporation, partners in a general partnership carrying on business as Sun News General Partnership, for mandatory distribution on the digital and analog basic service pursuant to an order issued under section 9(1)(h) of the Broadcasting Act of the national English-language specialty national news Category C service Sun TV News.
The Commission notes that the programming of this service is devoted to English- and French-language mainstream national news and information programming. The applicant also provides updated news reports every 120 minutes, as required by Conditions of licence for competitive Canadian specialty services operating in the genres of mainstream sports and national news – Implementation of the Accessibility Policy and other matters, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009-562-1, 18 June 2010.
The licensee states that it meets all the criteria set out in paragraph 11 of Criteria for assessing applications for mandatory distribution of its service on the digital basic service, Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-629, 27 August 2010 and proposes that its service be offered for a per subscriber monthly wholesale rate of $0.09 in the French-language market and $0.18 in the English-language market.
Licensee’s address:
1600 Maisonneuve Boulevard East
Montréal, Quebec
H2L 4P2
Fax: 514-380-4664
Email: reglementaires@quebecor.com
Website to view application: http://www.quebecor.com/en/reg-affairs
Currently there are ten broadcasters that are mandatory carriage:
- CBC News Network (in French-language markets): $0.15
- Réseau de l’information (RDI) (in English-language markets): $0.10
- Avis de recherche (in French-language markets): $0.06
- Weather Network/Météomedia: $0.23
- TVA: offered without a wholesale rate
- Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN): $0.25
- Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC): $0.10
- AMI audio, formerly known as VoicePrint: $0.04
- Accessible Media: $0.20
- Canal M, formerly known as La Magnétothèque: $0.02
What mandatory carriage is and the reason behind it can be found here. The idea is that basic cable programming should contain certain elements. It is in section 10 that you find what those elements are and what Sun Media must demonstrate they provide in order to qualify for mandatory distribution. The CRTC provides a list of what a broadcaster should be bringing to the table; this is I imagine not complete; allowing the CRTC some flexibility.
Does Sun media Corp deliver on any of these elements? The first listed is:
serves to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
That covers a broad swath. It certainly enriches and strengthens the political fabric of Canada; simply by providing another political voice; it is a conservative opinion network, I mean they offer pointed political critique of everything "Centre and left thereof" the quality of the critique varies. So it qualifies on that score.They do provide work to Canadians and so probably get a plus for that. I am less convinced of its contribution socially or culturally to the fabric of Canada. I think they don't measure up on the first criteria.
is varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information and entertainment programming at an affordable cost;
Sun new network schedule is a mix of news and opinion. The opinion shows are the bread and butter of this station and the job of the "newsier" sections of the daily broadcast are to feed the viewer into meaty portion of the evening commentary. This station is not varied. They are 24 hour a day conservative. Their is no entertainment programming to speak of it's pretty much news and politics. Whether its affordable, well they wouldn't be asking for mandatory distribution if it was.
is drawn from local, regional, national and international sources;
They nail this one pretty hard, but again it's narrow news and politics.
includes educational and community programs; and
I can't recall seeing any of that sort of thing when i tuned in; but it's been awhile maybe they have added content. Though a quick look at the schedule doesn't reveal anything.
reflects and contributes to Canada’s linguistic duality and ethno-cultural diversity, including the special place of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian society.
I think on this one they may be in trouble. Most of what is mentioned above are often the subject of the Suns News critiques. It's this kind of social-feel-good stuff that many of the big names on this show cut there teeth on. The Suns raison d'être is to rebut that whole sentence, it is unlikely they will get a pass on that one and quite possible one of the things that will sink the application.
The Sun Media Corp is going to have a hard time justifying their case for mandatory carriage based on the above formula. The ten stations that already have it bear absolutely no resemblance to Sun Media Corp but some to each other. But as stated earlier it is some of what is looked for, but not all, the CRTC has flexibility. I would be surprised if they were granted mandatory carriage but not of the earth shattering variety.
The Sun Media Corp is losing lots of Money. They have a business model that doesn't seem to work. It would seem that the thirst for hard hitting conservative news wasn't as great as anticipated. Low audience numbers,makes it hard to attract advertisers and it's the advertisers that pay the bills. A successful application will make that fact irrelevant. It will either lessen the loss a lot or turn the red ink to black. Mandatory Carriage means they get paid whether the basic cable subscriber watches or not. I don't know if this means every one's bill goes up the 9 or 18 cents they are asking for or whether the cable provider eats it; my money is not on the latter.
It is funny that a conservative entity that one might conclude as having free market capitalistic sympathies would go and apply for what is essentially a monopoly. The market is speaking and telling you that maybe they don't like your product, normally that means you change the product. Or maybe you just make the choice irrelevant.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Red Light Cameras and Photo Radar in the News, Again
A quick Google search will tell you at least two things about Red Light Cameras-RLC and Photo Radar-PR, they are always in the news and always a contentious issue. The issue of RLC made the headlines Toronto the other day. Police Chief Bill Blair has suggested that that RLC and PR could replace officers now on traffic duties and free them up for more important tasks; reduce gridlock which costs the Toronto a great deal of money in lost economic activity. Let us not forget the cash from fines that would accrue tom the city something acknowledged by all but often not expounded upon by proponents; who are more often promoting the safety aspects of such a plan. Rob Ford has stated his opposition to the idea noting that "the people don't support it, the taxpayers don't support it, I don't support it..."
The questions of Safety and of Money are at the centre of automated traffic control/prevention programs. Are they just a "cash grab" or an element of public safety. Is it a "cash grab"?. Sort of yes; sure, more tickets will be issued because an automated system is more efficient at catching violators than a patrol officer. Sort of no; because guess what, you violated the traffic code, which is punishable by a fine. The notion of "catch me if you can" traffic enforcement is ridiculous. You want officer only supervision because your less likely to be caught.
The larger issue is traffic safety and I guess ensuring a efficient flow of traffic. I submit two studies among the probably thousands commissioned or undertaken on RLC. As always please note who did the study, Chow it was done; and who is promoting it. Against RLC. For RLC. This one is in a neutral voice as befits a government study.
The narrative of the studies depends a lot on the agenda of the authors or promoters. They don't lie; they emphasize certain findings of a study rather than others or commission one to look a one aspect among many. Anti-RLC groups focus on the increase in rear end accidents, which obvious enough increase in RLC areas; sudden stopping to avoid going through a red and getting ticketed. Pro-RLC groups not a decline in T-Bone crashes and the fatalities that often occur with that form of accident.
The question of the utility, beyond income generation for cash strapped municipalities, whether RLC and PR work to lower accident rates; costs associated with accidents. A quick look says they do. That indicates it's worth while doing it, but, if it is unpalatable to your citizens then you need to do more than just throw up a camera and tell driver to "eat cake".
If we want safer roads we need to get the citizens on board and not have them feel like livestock. We new campaigns to promote better driving practices. Engineer better roads and intersections.
The questions of Safety and of Money are at the centre of automated traffic control/prevention programs. Are they just a "cash grab" or an element of public safety. Is it a "cash grab"?. Sort of yes; sure, more tickets will be issued because an automated system is more efficient at catching violators than a patrol officer. Sort of no; because guess what, you violated the traffic code, which is punishable by a fine. The notion of "catch me if you can" traffic enforcement is ridiculous. You want officer only supervision because your less likely to be caught.
The larger issue is traffic safety and I guess ensuring a efficient flow of traffic. I submit two studies among the probably thousands commissioned or undertaken on RLC. As always please note who did the study, Chow it was done; and who is promoting it. Against RLC. For RLC. This one is in a neutral voice as befits a government study.
The narrative of the studies depends a lot on the agenda of the authors or promoters. They don't lie; they emphasize certain findings of a study rather than others or commission one to look a one aspect among many. Anti-RLC groups focus on the increase in rear end accidents, which obvious enough increase in RLC areas; sudden stopping to avoid going through a red and getting ticketed. Pro-RLC groups not a decline in T-Bone crashes and the fatalities that often occur with that form of accident.
The question of the utility, beyond income generation for cash strapped municipalities, whether RLC and PR work to lower accident rates; costs associated with accidents. A quick look says they do. That indicates it's worth while doing it, but, if it is unpalatable to your citizens then you need to do more than just throw up a camera and tell driver to "eat cake".
If we want safer roads we need to get the citizens on board and not have them feel like livestock. We new campaigns to promote better driving practices. Engineer better roads and intersections.
Short Commentary on Friedrich Hayek's-The Road To Serfodom
I finally got around to reading The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek. It seems to be a foundational book for many modern conservative/libertarian; one that informs their world view to a large extent. If I wanted to understand, to any degree how conservatives/libertarians arrive at their positions this book would be helpful.
It was written during the body of the Second World War, beginning at a time when Germany and Japan appeared invulnerable, defeating country after country; the allies, England and her commonwealth but not yet including the United States were pushed to the brink of defeat; it was finished in 1943; the beginning of the beginning of the end for the Axis powers. The Book published in Chicago in 1944. The book feels a bit prophetic, which I think has as much to do with its content as the time and place it was written. The Road to Serfdom is not really apocalyptic; the changing fortunes of the allies over the course of its writing made sure that it would be a warning for Democracy and not a eulogy. Chaos is a breeding ground for such tract. The purpose of Hayek's book is to inform us about totalitarianism; its origins and nature and provide a prescription for its avoidance.
The book within well argued. Hayek is not as shrill as the modern conservative that draw heavily on it in support of more radical positions. The Road To Serfdom is about the rise of Socialism as a Political force as a curative to inequality; primary economic equality by reducing poverty. Socialism aims to reduce poverty through planned economies which necessitates taking on huge powers to regulate the individual and so curtail that freedom to act of the citizen. The transition from socialist to totalitarian state is considered by Hayek as unavoidable; Hayek is of the opinion that economic planning will fail to achieve the desired results through consent; and having disabled the Free Market and Individual freedoms; socialist who sought to govern with consent will be pushed aside those willing to use force to attain their goals. Fascism and Communism are the unavoidable heirs to Socialism. The Road to Serfdom is a book for its time, but less so our time.
Modern conservatives take many liberties with Hayek's major themes. They consider any government involvement in the economy as anathema; though many will ignore subsides to corporation. The planned economy that Hayek feared would erode personal liberty and the efficacy of the Free Market is no longer seriously proposed by any modern liberal democracy and is mostly ignored by those governments that call themselves social democracies. When everything government does comes to be defined as Socialism then the meaning is lost and so is Hayek's warning. Hayek did understand that there are things that governments must do because it is impracticable for private interests to undertake; roads and the like. It is safe to say that among moderns, the list of good government interventions are seriously limited.
Hayek believed that the Free Market was integral to a free society; when you impinge on the former the latter is impaired. I agree that their is a relationship between the two; but see it as a co-evolution. We have the beginnings of political freedom, however narrowly and tenuously applied with the advent of the Magna Carta. The Black Death and the decline of Feudalism; in England, inadvertently gives rise to new economic possibilities, by way of labour mobility and technical innovation. It is hard to give precedence to either economic or political changes that account for the Freedoms we presently enjoy. Modern conservative have a tendency to put forward the Free Market as the fount of our freedoms, in that the are steady with Hayek.
They part ways again on the issue of government support for the citizen. Hayek understands that the Free Market; can unpredictable and may leave labourers destitute and it is in the interest of government to ameliorate as much is possible where doing so doesn't impact the impartial workings of the Free Market. The modern conservatives in an orgy of personal responsibility diatribes seem willing to cut lose the citizen almost entirely.
The Road To Serfdom is an important book, historically and as a way to understand the thinking of the Modern Conservative. Do yourself a favour and read it, but I recommend borrowing a copy from the Library.
It was written during the body of the Second World War, beginning at a time when Germany and Japan appeared invulnerable, defeating country after country; the allies, England and her commonwealth but not yet including the United States were pushed to the brink of defeat; it was finished in 1943; the beginning of the beginning of the end for the Axis powers. The Book published in Chicago in 1944. The book feels a bit prophetic, which I think has as much to do with its content as the time and place it was written. The Road to Serfdom is not really apocalyptic; the changing fortunes of the allies over the course of its writing made sure that it would be a warning for Democracy and not a eulogy. Chaos is a breeding ground for such tract. The purpose of Hayek's book is to inform us about totalitarianism; its origins and nature and provide a prescription for its avoidance.
The book within well argued. Hayek is not as shrill as the modern conservative that draw heavily on it in support of more radical positions. The Road To Serfdom is about the rise of Socialism as a Political force as a curative to inequality; primary economic equality by reducing poverty. Socialism aims to reduce poverty through planned economies which necessitates taking on huge powers to regulate the individual and so curtail that freedom to act of the citizen. The transition from socialist to totalitarian state is considered by Hayek as unavoidable; Hayek is of the opinion that economic planning will fail to achieve the desired results through consent; and having disabled the Free Market and Individual freedoms; socialist who sought to govern with consent will be pushed aside those willing to use force to attain their goals. Fascism and Communism are the unavoidable heirs to Socialism. The Road to Serfdom is a book for its time, but less so our time.
Modern conservatives take many liberties with Hayek's major themes. They consider any government involvement in the economy as anathema; though many will ignore subsides to corporation. The planned economy that Hayek feared would erode personal liberty and the efficacy of the Free Market is no longer seriously proposed by any modern liberal democracy and is mostly ignored by those governments that call themselves social democracies. When everything government does comes to be defined as Socialism then the meaning is lost and so is Hayek's warning. Hayek did understand that there are things that governments must do because it is impracticable for private interests to undertake; roads and the like. It is safe to say that among moderns, the list of good government interventions are seriously limited.
Hayek believed that the Free Market was integral to a free society; when you impinge on the former the latter is impaired. I agree that their is a relationship between the two; but see it as a co-evolution. We have the beginnings of political freedom, however narrowly and tenuously applied with the advent of the Magna Carta. The Black Death and the decline of Feudalism; in England, inadvertently gives rise to new economic possibilities, by way of labour mobility and technical innovation. It is hard to give precedence to either economic or political changes that account for the Freedoms we presently enjoy. Modern conservative have a tendency to put forward the Free Market as the fount of our freedoms, in that the are steady with Hayek.
They part ways again on the issue of government support for the citizen. Hayek understands that the Free Market; can unpredictable and may leave labourers destitute and it is in the interest of government to ameliorate as much is possible where doing so doesn't impact the impartial workings of the Free Market. The modern conservatives in an orgy of personal responsibility diatribes seem willing to cut lose the citizen almost entirely.
The Road To Serfdom is an important book, historically and as a way to understand the thinking of the Modern Conservative. Do yourself a favour and read it, but I recommend borrowing a copy from the Library.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
A Liberal Riposte to Hudak's LCBO Gambit
Earlier this year the leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Tim Hudak, proposed privatizing the LCBO. The LCBO is short for the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The LCBO is a government run liquor retailer. If you want hard liquor this is the only place to get it. Mr. Hudak decried the government monopoly on liquor sales, as I suppose a great injustice to and a burden on the citizens of Ontario.
The very notion of a government run business, much less a monopoly is anathema to the roiling conservative spirit; What can be subject to the free market, should be subject to the free market. After we move past the basic ideology the details of his complaint come into focus; the LCBO leads to higher cost, reduced variety and fewer retail locations. It about competition and Hudak maybe right on those points. It would take little time for Free Market entrepreneurs to erect a multitude of Liquor Outlets; where the vast forces unleashed by competition would work wonders on the price of alcohol; market forces directing the price of spirits to its natural level; which I imagine would be lower. While I accept more locations and lower prices, I think greater product variety might lag or not come to pass.
My opposition is not primarily ideological, though it's that is there too; it comes from on a number reasons. I consider alcohol a drug. It is used for recreational purposes; medicinally and by some to drown in. In moderation it has few harmful effects health wise and may even be beneficial. If used to excess it will kill you, destroy your relationships and damage your community. So in my opinion it's not in anyone's best interest to have alcohol widely available and at the cheapest possible price. So if alcohol is that bad why sell it? Prohibition perhaps? That is a strategy that has been tried and with complete failure. I believe that in an adult society the Government should not be telling you what to do for fun, like conservatives,sort of; (though conservatives dislike government standing between a citizen and their booze, they are quite happy to oppose reforming the law in regards to our other drugs and sex.) What I don't accept is the notion that any Government should place so dangerous a substance like alcohol in the hands of the Free Market, especially if it doesn't have to.
Among the benefits of State owned liquor retailers in quick succession, LCBO profits go to us, the citizen, good paying jobs for our neighbours. Importantly the ability of the government to forgo the frantic product promotion that a private business can't afford to do or doesn't at their peril. The LCBO doesn't really compete, except for The Beer Store; which by the way is a privately owned monopoly of a completely different stripe and wine retailers. It does not need to push liquor on Ontario Citizens, for that I'm glad. Liquor is dangerous and has a creeping cost, a cost that a government retailer can keep in mind because the it is part of a larger entity whose job it is to look after the interests of its citizens. I understand that is an ideal that is met less often in practice, but it is a concern that private businesses don't even have theoretically.
It is always important to ensure that ideology is a guide but not a barrier to good sense.
This brings me back to the Liberal Riposte. The McGuinty government announced it will look into expanding LCBO retail locations. They will look into placing LCBO outlets in super markets and such. This would answer at least one Tory complaint, that of limited locations their attendant difficulties. It is a riposte, not a scoring point. Hudak conservatives will snarl and moan "that it does nothing" for the problems they claim to exist. I can live with that since I'm not in favour of bigger changes. It will make buying liquor more convenient, that's handy, without being harmful. It won't lower the prices. It will keep the monopoly intact. More importantly it is a measured response to Hudak's free market charge. It suggests a government that is responding to a perceived need, at least some of them. For a government that has disappointed and even outraged us in a wide variety of ways, it is refreshing change. Give and take is much better than bulldozers.
If I was inclined to give advise to the Progressive Conservatives it might go like this, put down the "The Road to Serfdom" and start asking yourselves one question "how can I help improve the lot of my neighbours". Being Conservative doesn't have to be as harsh as you people see to make it.
Among the benefits of State owned liquor retailers in quick succession, LCBO profits go to us, the citizen, good paying jobs for our neighbours. Importantly the ability of the government to forgo the frantic product promotion that a private business can't afford to do or doesn't at their peril. The LCBO doesn't really compete, except for The Beer Store; which by the way is a privately owned monopoly of a completely different stripe and wine retailers. It does not need to push liquor on Ontario Citizens, for that I'm glad. Liquor is dangerous and has a creeping cost, a cost that a government retailer can keep in mind because the it is part of a larger entity whose job it is to look after the interests of its citizens. I understand that is an ideal that is met less often in practice, but it is a concern that private businesses don't even have theoretically.
It is always important to ensure that ideology is a guide but not a barrier to good sense.
This brings me back to the Liberal Riposte. The McGuinty government announced it will look into expanding LCBO retail locations. They will look into placing LCBO outlets in super markets and such. This would answer at least one Tory complaint, that of limited locations their attendant difficulties. It is a riposte, not a scoring point. Hudak conservatives will snarl and moan "that it does nothing" for the problems they claim to exist. I can live with that since I'm not in favour of bigger changes. It will make buying liquor more convenient, that's handy, without being harmful. It won't lower the prices. It will keep the monopoly intact. More importantly it is a measured response to Hudak's free market charge. It suggests a government that is responding to a perceived need, at least some of them. For a government that has disappointed and even outraged us in a wide variety of ways, it is refreshing change. Give and take is much better than bulldozers.
If I was inclined to give advise to the Progressive Conservatives it might go like this, put down the "The Road to Serfdom" and start asking yourselves one question "how can I help improve the lot of my neighbours". Being Conservative doesn't have to be as harsh as you people see to make it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
This is The Canada-China FIPA Document
Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (the “Contracting Parties”),
RECOGNIZING the need to promote investment based on the principles of sustainable development;
DESIRING to intensify the economic cooperation of both States, based on equality and mutual benefit;
My original idea was to post the deal as written and withhold comment. I had read the FIPA but found little overt harm. That may be attributed more to a lack of understanding and education in the field of International trade than a benign nature of the deal. So I waited for comment from the better informed to give perspective.
My only discomfort was that we were entering into a trade deal with a Dictatorship; a capitalist/communist hybrid, but still a Dictatorship. These types of regimes are unpalatable and we should think long and hard before dealing with them. I fear that while all the time suggesting that greater association and integration with democratic nations will bring change, Canada is looking at the "money". Pragmatism is the opposite of idealism, I think the best work is done somewhere between the two. This deal is more a work between equals; Canada and China are not equals.
Read both pieces. It will give you something to think about. I'm still unsure. I think that the deal has problems, concerning arbitration guidelines. Nothing unusual, I just don't like these types of mechanisms. Interpreting a contractual obligation is not always easy. Sometimes victory goes to the best lawyers rather that then the right position.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
A Casino for Toronto
Toronto is contemplating a Casino. A recent report says there is a lot of money to be made and the city should not pass on the chance to play host to Ontario's newest gaming house. The economic benefits are clear, construction jobs and then permanent ones; one time payments to the City and then ongoing tax revenue. The report also contained the figure of .2%, this is the number of expected problem gamblers. It was also noted that if the casino goes to somewhere else in the GTA Toronto will get fewer of the benefits but still deal with most of the problems associated with a Casino, addiction, entertainment competition. The conclusion is couched in the form of , "a casino is coming, it's better to be part of it."
I'm not a fan of Casino development. Gambling as entertainment is just a little more rational than burning money for heat. I understand that the development will include Rooms; shows; perhaps more convention space and restaurants. People go to Casinos for the Gambling. They take in a show; use a room or eat at a restaurant, but gaming is the central attraction.
Casino development brings increased incidences of gambling addiction, and perhaps a minor spike in crime. These are small and can be dealt with by diverting a portion of casino revenue to bulk up programs dealing with addiction and crime prevention. I'm not attempting to minimize the devastating effect of gambling addiction but it's effect is personal and with treatment addressable.
My interest is in the economic side of Casino development. Casino's are service providing industries. They don't make anything. They don't, like a clothing manufacturer turning cloth into suits, adding value. Like the retail outlet providing a space to sell the new suits; once again adding value; creating wealth. A casino is like Spa or Salon a service is provided that transfers wealth from the customer but does not create any.
Casinos are wealth redistribution devices, they take your money on the promise of a chance to win more than you spend. It's not an even circumstance, the Casino always comes out ahead because the gaming odds are in the theirs favour. People do gamble for fun; for the chance to be the exception to the rule and hit the 1/350000 chance and walk out of the Casino a winner. Most people go, lose a couple of hundred and walk out wishing they had won but also feeling they had a good time.
That is the larger problem. Casinos are large gravity wells only they attract money instead of matter and lots of it, concentrating it in one place. Ideally money spent in a Casino is disposable income, as opposed to your rent money. This is income you might have placed in a savings account; spent at a retail outlet; Salon; given to charity; a homeless person you walk by on your way to work. The are many and diverse ways to use disposable income. We generally spread it around and in doing so support many wealth creating businesses as well as smaller wealth redistribution enterprises; and of course the employment of many of our fellow citizens. The impact on local business depends on how much wealth redistribution comes from local sources. If the majority of Casino revenue comes from outside Toronto locals business the harm is reduced and if the tourists spend money outside the casino, may in fact benefit. Though if you widen then scope, money spent by a tourist couple in a Toronto Casino, isn't spent locally on goods and services in there home town, the effect is the same, just removed from Toronto. One report I have read suggests the majority of Casino patrons are local, within 50 miles, exceptions are Border Casinos. The fact that there are 6 million people within 50 miles of Toronto may appear to lesson the impact. For a city like Kenora, for whom the report was authored, local participation in gambling is a major concern.
Whether you are diverting spending from local businesses or the hometowns of tourists the problem remains. Wealth is concentrated at Casinos at the expense of other outlets. The outcome will be reduced revenues at these businesses possible reduction in employment or closings. If such is the case, employment after the construction phase would be eventually out, with little net gains. This effect would also carry into the revenue side, not the property tax or hosting revenue but income tax or expected rise in taxes from businesses. These would no doubt reach an equilibrium if not on a local level then at least on a GTA or Provincial one.
Casinos bring benefits and headaches. Plenty of deliberation and debate should go into the decision to host such an enterprise. Our elected representatives must look past the revenues, hard in these cash strapped, anti tax times; and truly investigate the whether a Casino is the cure to what ills. They are a mixed blessing at best, at worst, they create more problems than they are meant to relieve.
I'm not a fan of Casino development. Gambling as entertainment is just a little more rational than burning money for heat. I understand that the development will include Rooms; shows; perhaps more convention space and restaurants. People go to Casinos for the Gambling. They take in a show; use a room or eat at a restaurant, but gaming is the central attraction.
Casino development brings increased incidences of gambling addiction, and perhaps a minor spike in crime. These are small and can be dealt with by diverting a portion of casino revenue to bulk up programs dealing with addiction and crime prevention. I'm not attempting to minimize the devastating effect of gambling addiction but it's effect is personal and with treatment addressable.
My interest is in the economic side of Casino development. Casino's are service providing industries. They don't make anything. They don't, like a clothing manufacturer turning cloth into suits, adding value. Like the retail outlet providing a space to sell the new suits; once again adding value; creating wealth. A casino is like Spa or Salon a service is provided that transfers wealth from the customer but does not create any.
Casinos are wealth redistribution devices, they take your money on the promise of a chance to win more than you spend. It's not an even circumstance, the Casino always comes out ahead because the gaming odds are in the theirs favour. People do gamble for fun; for the chance to be the exception to the rule and hit the 1/350000 chance and walk out of the Casino a winner. Most people go, lose a couple of hundred and walk out wishing they had won but also feeling they had a good time.
That is the larger problem. Casinos are large gravity wells only they attract money instead of matter and lots of it, concentrating it in one place. Ideally money spent in a Casino is disposable income, as opposed to your rent money. This is income you might have placed in a savings account; spent at a retail outlet; Salon; given to charity; a homeless person you walk by on your way to work. The are many and diverse ways to use disposable income. We generally spread it around and in doing so support many wealth creating businesses as well as smaller wealth redistribution enterprises; and of course the employment of many of our fellow citizens. The impact on local business depends on how much wealth redistribution comes from local sources. If the majority of Casino revenue comes from outside Toronto locals business the harm is reduced and if the tourists spend money outside the casino, may in fact benefit. Though if you widen then scope, money spent by a tourist couple in a Toronto Casino, isn't spent locally on goods and services in there home town, the effect is the same, just removed from Toronto. One report I have read suggests the majority of Casino patrons are local, within 50 miles, exceptions are Border Casinos. The fact that there are 6 million people within 50 miles of Toronto may appear to lesson the impact. For a city like Kenora, for whom the report was authored, local participation in gambling is a major concern.
Whether you are diverting spending from local businesses or the hometowns of tourists the problem remains. Wealth is concentrated at Casinos at the expense of other outlets. The outcome will be reduced revenues at these businesses possible reduction in employment or closings. If such is the case, employment after the construction phase would be eventually out, with little net gains. This effect would also carry into the revenue side, not the property tax or hosting revenue but income tax or expected rise in taxes from businesses. These would no doubt reach an equilibrium if not on a local level then at least on a GTA or Provincial one.
Casinos bring benefits and headaches. Plenty of deliberation and debate should go into the decision to host such an enterprise. Our elected representatives must look past the revenues, hard in these cash strapped, anti tax times; and truly investigate the whether a Casino is the cure to what ills. They are a mixed blessing at best, at worst, they create more problems than they are meant to relieve.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Bank of Canada+Focus Groups= Controversy
Edit: This is a link to Bank of Canada explanation and apology.
Focus groups are there to help a developer understand how a product, design, or any number of things, may impact on consumer; to avoid damage to the brand, or help them better target the product or service to its intended audience. It generally isn't a bad thing, but you need to be careful what advice you take.
The Bank of Canada designed a 100 dollar bill. They sent that Bill design around to focus groups. Some of the participants thought the women on the bill looked Asian. Some people thought this was a problem; some because it seemed not to reflect what a Canadian is, which is kinda sad. Another group made a point that it is not right to represent one ethnicity without representing all of them, which is sad in a whole different way. A third group thought the image of an Asian on the 100 dollar bill signified Canadian diversity it that was OK, which for me was OK too.
I don't know if the Bank intended for the person look Asian. The Bank of Canada says "it does have a policy of not highlighting specific ethnicities". Though I read a comment that made an interesting point. Bank policy on not depicting ethnicity, means the default setting is European. On our money the people depicted are European looking, I won't complain much, when the scene depicted is historical and the participants are actually of European descent. Though if you want you can ask why they don't pick non-european events to depict.
One or two have labeled the Bank racist for alter the image of the 100 dollar bill, an unfair criticism. The Bank is at worst just timid, seeking not to offend one group and by doing so offend more groups. They paid too much attention to too what the focus group said, primarily i think because it dealt with the issue of race. The Bank of Canada was releasing a new bank note, they were not trying to start a dialogue on race. They took the middle path, in this case doing nothing different, hoping to avoid criticism, only to get hit by the train they were trying to avoid.
What do I expect from institutions like the Bank of Canada? I expect them to lead from the front. No they don't have to be trend setters, it's a bank after all. But when the opportunity arose, in the case of an Asian looking woman on the back of a bank note, they should have embraced it. proudly declared "so what if there is an Asian looking woman doing science on the100 dollar bill. Asian women do work in science don't they?"
I missed opportunity there.
Focus groups are there to help a developer understand how a product, design, or any number of things, may impact on consumer; to avoid damage to the brand, or help them better target the product or service to its intended audience. It generally isn't a bad thing, but you need to be careful what advice you take.
The Bank of Canada designed a 100 dollar bill. They sent that Bill design around to focus groups. Some of the participants thought the women on the bill looked Asian. Some people thought this was a problem; some because it seemed not to reflect what a Canadian is, which is kinda sad. Another group made a point that it is not right to represent one ethnicity without representing all of them, which is sad in a whole different way. A third group thought the image of an Asian on the 100 dollar bill signified Canadian diversity it that was OK, which for me was OK too.
I don't know if the Bank intended for the person look Asian. The Bank of Canada says "it does have a policy of not highlighting specific ethnicities". Though I read a comment that made an interesting point. Bank policy on not depicting ethnicity, means the default setting is European. On our money the people depicted are European looking, I won't complain much, when the scene depicted is historical and the participants are actually of European descent. Though if you want you can ask why they don't pick non-european events to depict.
One or two have labeled the Bank racist for alter the image of the 100 dollar bill, an unfair criticism. The Bank is at worst just timid, seeking not to offend one group and by doing so offend more groups. They paid too much attention to too what the focus group said, primarily i think because it dealt with the issue of race. The Bank of Canada was releasing a new bank note, they were not trying to start a dialogue on race. They took the middle path, in this case doing nothing different, hoping to avoid criticism, only to get hit by the train they were trying to avoid.
What do I expect from institutions like the Bank of Canada? I expect them to lead from the front. No they don't have to be trend setters, it's a bank after all. But when the opportunity arose, in the case of an Asian looking woman on the back of a bank note, they should have embraced it. proudly declared "so what if there is an Asian looking woman doing science on the100 dollar bill. Asian women do work in science don't they?"
I missed opportunity there.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Are You Trying to Sell Me Beer?
There are a lot of clever people in advertising. They work diligently on behalf of clients trying to convince the public to buy this or that product.What advertising does is connect a product that may otherwise be indistinguishable from its counterparts, to YOU and what YOU desire. It is done with cloths cars and of course beer.
Their effort on behalf of the Brewing industry can be especially stylish and witty. The Beer Commercial is a mainstay on TV and radio. Beer advertising is ubiquitous at sporting events, concerts and it seems at any large outdoor event.
Are they trying to sell me beer? That is a resounding no. People drink beer because it has alcohol in it. Addicts sadly need no convincing. People will drink beer because it feels good. Specifically that spot between some and too many. Some claim taste is a factor. I find most beer fairly generic, the taste scale flows bitter to neutral to sweet. For me beer is beer. So why then do I "prefer" one over the other. I am being sold a lifestyle not a beer.
The message depends on target audience. But its seems males are sold too most often. Young men are pitched two primary themes, the adventure message. Outdoor activity and drinking beer. The party message contains liberal amounts of good times, music, women, friends and beer. Not surprisingly women figure prominently in commercials targeted at young males (or men of any age).The ads are conspicuous for the attractiveness of the actors. But also for the level of inebriation, the scenes never show overindulgence. Everyone in a commercial is a responsible drinker.
The goal is to attach experience by the linking of imperfect memory to brand. It is unimportant whether it is your authentic experience, only that there exists a positive association between you and the drink; or you and any product.
So when looking at beer ads or any ad for that matter remember, it's just a beer or a couch or a car. It is not imbued with the power to make your life better, in any meaningful way. Live as brand free a life as you can eyes wide open.
Their effort on behalf of the Brewing industry can be especially stylish and witty. The Beer Commercial is a mainstay on TV and radio. Beer advertising is ubiquitous at sporting events, concerts and it seems at any large outdoor event.
Are they trying to sell me beer? That is a resounding no. People drink beer because it has alcohol in it. Addicts sadly need no convincing. People will drink beer because it feels good. Specifically that spot between some and too many. Some claim taste is a factor. I find most beer fairly generic, the taste scale flows bitter to neutral to sweet. For me beer is beer. So why then do I "prefer" one over the other. I am being sold a lifestyle not a beer.
The message depends on target audience. But its seems males are sold too most often. Young men are pitched two primary themes, the adventure message. Outdoor activity and drinking beer. The party message contains liberal amounts of good times, music, women, friends and beer. Not surprisingly women figure prominently in commercials targeted at young males (or men of any age).The ads are conspicuous for the attractiveness of the actors. But also for the level of inebriation, the scenes never show overindulgence. Everyone in a commercial is a responsible drinker.
The goal is to attach experience by the linking of imperfect memory to brand. It is unimportant whether it is your authentic experience, only that there exists a positive association between you and the drink; or you and any product.
So when looking at beer ads or any ad for that matter remember, it's just a beer or a couch or a car. It is not imbued with the power to make your life better, in any meaningful way. Live as brand free a life as you can eyes wide open.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Monetising Users Is An Ugly Phrase
I was watching CNBC, when the phrase “Monetizing Users” was uttered. I took immediately dislike to it. It came up during a discussion of Facebook, mobile media and advertising. The questioner was wondering how Facebook was going to turn its user base into cash. It was noted that the internet was becoming mobile, smart phones and tablets are being taken up by people at a phenomenal rate. These platforms especially smart phones make advertising difficult due to a smaller screen size and the way they are used.
A basic description of online advertizing is one where the host gets paid by the number of unique page loading, targeted ads to specific users or clicks. It is much more complicated than that but the basic nature is getting eyes on ads. This is how formerly “bricks and mortar” media like magazines or newspapers are trying to create profit, though some are trying pay walls or subscriptions. This is also how “free” social media applications pay the freight.
Advertizing has been around for over a century. It has infiltrated, (I hate to use that word but it seems so right), every part of our lives. Our attention has been the price we paid for such things as, newspapers and magazines. They filled their pages with ads that we look over while catching up on the latest news or gossip. Radio and TV were “free”; sitting through commercials was the actual cost. It didn’t seem an inconvenience, the advertisers got their audience and we were entertained. It was a fair trade. We could always turn the set off and walk away. Telemarketing made things a little worse tying up our phones and junk mail over flooding our mailboxes. Now we employ “do not call list”. We ban what mail we can.
Now it seems different. Social media and mobile internet are not just in our lives but very much part of it them. The young are firmly entrenched in the net. The older generation is fast taking up their place in the web too; the difference is only in degree.
Advertising doesn’t feel the same way. It seems intrusive, demanding and at times alive by the way it can target likes, tailoring ads to the specific person.
We have become commodities. We have been monetized. Even as the advertiser sells to us we are bundled up and sold by Facebook, Google or any number of mass media outlets. We can’t walk away from the net the way we did the Old Media. So we need to learn to live with it.
The situation is not dire. There is no looming danger from some rising internet tyrant. We citizens (not consumers, don’t get me started) encountering a new way of doing things. We have the intelligence to plan the future of the internet commerce and define our relationship to it. We can install proper safe guards and regulations that will Take the all the Ugly out of the phrase “Monetising Users”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)