Vote For Info

If you don't vote, you can't complain.

You've heard that, probably from a coworker or friend. Voting is usually touted as the primary democratic right. And it is. But it is not the primary democratic responsibility. Your primary responsibility in a free society is to be informed.

Dictatorships are easy. You don't have to make any decisions. But when things get too bad for you to bear, then action is required. It is like getting out of a rut in a muddy path. Dirty and violent.

Change in democracies should be easy. They are a paved road; switching lanes should be as easy as turning the wheel. A wheel with 24 million hands.

Democracies require continual vigilance and Dictatorships require occasional violence.

The problem in democracies comes when people say, "I'm not into politics." That's like saying, "I'm not into oxygen." You're lungs are into it, whether you are or not. Politics affect every part of your life, unfortunately. You don't need to be an expert, but you do need an understanding of facts. Where do your tax dollars go[1]? What is the difference between debt and deficit[2]? How much of the gasoline price is taxes[3]? What industry emits the most greenhouse gases[4]?

The reason democracies required an informed population is so bullsh!t doesn't rise to the top. If someone says they are going to lower taxes, increase services, and reduce the deficit, you know they are lying. You won't vote for them. You'll vote for the guy who says, "We are spending more than we take in so, unfortunately, we will have to cut back."

The US recently had presidential debates, which is basically Presidential Idol. Some questionable "facts" were spouted that night (see this Mish article). This type of fact checking should be big news, not page 6.

People want it both ways. They want the convenience of a dictatorship, with the freedom of democracy.What happens is they get politicians whispering sweet nothings and bribing them with someone else's money. They get the US, where you can vote for a big liberal government or a big conservative government. Where a "liberal" president has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined.

I had a conversation with an American who thought state-run health-care was some communist plot. I pointed out that health-care in Canada is not only half[5] as expensive, per person, than US health care, but also has better outcomes. I did agreed with some of what he was saying (e.g., we could privatize some of our health care), but facts were clearly getting in the way of his argument.

I shouldn't get off-topic. I'm fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal[6], but I can be swayed by a good argument, backed by facts. Facts are what matter. Facts shame and correct democratic governments when they spout nonsense.

If you don't care about facts, don't complain if you get a used-car salesman for a leader.[7]

-----------------

[1] Can you believe $9.4B per year goes to "Public Safety"? That is 3% of your taxes!
[2] Debt is what you owe, deficit is the difference between what you earn and spend.
[3] 32%.
[4] Coal-fired electricity generation. Or maybe cows. Or electric cows.
[5] Halfish. Or something. It is less, for sure.
[6] Code for: I'm a type-A first-born of hippie parents.
[7] There is no way that quote deserved to be in italics, but its the best I could come up with. Come on, man. I have work to do. I can't spend all my time coming up with quotes you can put on matchbooks. Damn.

European Crisis De-euphemismified

Politicians use euphemisms so no one can understand the truth. The media use euphemisms because they don't understand the truth.

Here, for your viewing pleasure, is a breakdown of the some of the terms used in the discussion about the European debt crisis*. I've used Greece and Germany as examples (represented by their flags), but this really applies to any country. For example, Iceland's government defaulted on its debt to the UK.

The key thing to understand that when people say "Greece is being bailed out", what they are really saying is "Greece is being given European taxpayer money so they can pay foreign banks back".

And as for all the self congratulating yesterday that the crisis had been averted, mark my words: Greece will default.

Oh, and if you are wondering why I'm drawing up flowcharts about economics when I'm supposed to be an engineer, it is because I have layers, like a parfait**.

* This is available in wallet size, so you can carry it around and look like a dork!
** Euphemism for "I took an economics course once and now I think I understand world economies, plus its lunchtime and I'm bored."

Gay Marriage and Abortion

These are very serious and controversial issues. I will not talk about them at all. Instead, I'll talk about some other issues which concern me.

Usury

In Canada, it is illegal to charge more than 60% yearly in interest. But every day, thousands of Canadians are charged much higher rates at payday loan companies like Money Mart and Cash Money. The maximum amount these companies can charge in interest and "fees" is 0.13% per day. For example, if you borrow $1000 you can only be charged $1.28 per day! These stores get around the law by adding fees to the transaction, in addition to the interest rate, which can drive the actual annual interest rate up into the thousands of percent.

Payday loan companies pray on the poor and those who may not understand how punishing compound interest is. They must be regulated nationally.

Statistics and Surveys

There is a subject I think requires more explanation in school. That is Statistics.

Almost every day, we are exposed to some survey in the media. But we should not treat them as all the same. Surveys are only valid if 1) they are random, 2) enough people participate, 3) the questions are good.

First, many surveys aren't truly random. Telephone surveys can be slightly biased because they only survey people who own phones, have their number in a phone book, and (more importantly) agree to participate in the survey. Internet surveys are terrible because only people who are truly passionate tend to respond.

Second, the more people who participate, the more accurate the survey. But keep in mind the actual population size. 100 people surveyed may be fine to know the opinion of Kia drivers but not to know the opinion of all Canadians.

Third, the questions need to be clear, not-loaded, and unbiased. For example, "Should it be illegal to beat your child?" will give different results than "Do you think the government should be able to tell you how to discipline your child?". This is why it is important to look at the source of the survey if the results look wonky.

Finally, what do those margin of error statements mean (e.g., plus or minus 5 percentage points, 19 out of 20 times)? The first number is accuracy and the second is repeatability. Accuracy is how close the survey is to the actual opinion of the population being surveyed. Repeatability means if they did the survey again, how likely are they to get that same accuracy. Luckily, the repeatability on most surveys is 95% (19 out of 20 times) so looking at the percentage accuracy is a good judge of the survey.

Surveys are just one part of statistics. Many people confuse correlation and causation (e.g., most prisoners are smokers, but that doesn't mean most smokers are criminals) and put far too much weight on anecdotal evidence (e.g., violent crime has steadily decreased since the 70's, but people still yearn for the "good ol' days").

Okay, there I'm done. Oh right, I hate ads before movies. Yeah. Okay, now I'm done.

The Market Works

The free market works. How many loaves of bread to make next year? The government could do studies and create models, instruct bakers on how much to make, and then legislate and enforce the price. This was actually done in China and Russia. But, of course, they were disasters, with massive shortages or surpluses, and rife with corruption.

The alternative is let price determine what should be produced and who should produce it. If no one wants to buy SUVs, why should the government get involved? The free market is democratic, and the people have spoken. Giving GM, Ford, and Chrysler money is like giving money to Croc's when that strange foam shoe goes out of style. Tastes change and companies come and go.

Of course, the market can be brutal. It took a few years for the affordable housing crisis in Calgary to sort itself out and while the market works, people can suffer. This is where the government should be focusing. Put money into retraining and relocating people whose jobs were lost. Invest in new companies (and entrepreneurs) that need help getting started. This insane notion of "trickle-down" economics, that giving GM 15 billion will somehow trickle down to the workers, is an absolute waste. 12 months later, GM will still fail, but the money will be in the pockets of owners, managers, union leaders, etc. and the employees will still have to go find another job, go on EI, etc. Reckless spending on things we can't afford, using money we don't have (the magical "equity in your house"), is exactly the reason we're in this mess. You can't spend your way out of this, hoping that people start buying SUVs again. We need to save. We need to regroup and focus on working hard, creating products that people need.

This is all the stuff our grandparents knew. Hard work and prudent financial decisions is what make a country strong, not granite countertops and trips to Mexico.

Liberal Deficit

Some viewer of CTV Calgary news emailed in saying Liberals have kept "us in the red", implying that Liberal parties tend to run deficits. Historically, this isn't always the case. While Liberal parties tend to fund social programs, they also tend to keep taxes high to pay for them. I've overlaid federal budget surpluses with Liberal governments. In the recent history, the Liberals have run large surpluses. In Alberta, the Liberals haven't been in power for 37 years. So what the heck was that viewer talking about? I would imagine it was just electioneering because Albertans vote on Monday for a new provincial government. Only Castro has ruled for more years that the Conservatives in Alberta.