31 janvier 2011

Né pour un p’tit pain Économie Gauchistan Québec

Extrait d’une lettre d’un enseignant qui réside à Montréal publiée dans La Presse:

Le Québec est-il la contrée d’une seule génération?

Au lieu de toujours chercher à se comparer, il est temps de décider de s’assumer. Au Québec, nous ne sommes pas l’Ontario ou l’Alberta. Et c’est parfait ainsi. Nous sommes différents et nous aspirons à construire une contrée différente où le but premier n’est pas de faire du « cash » sur le dos de son prochain.

Imaginez un enseignant qui se pointe devant sa classe et qui dit à ses élèves de cesser de se comparer aux autres tout en spécifiant qu’il ne sert à rien de faire des efforts pour obtenir 90% lors de l’examen final, puisque 65% c’est suffisant pour obtenir un diplôme.  Imaginez ensuite que cet enseignant culpabilise ses meilleurs élèves en leur racontant que leur réussite se fait sur le dos de leurs camarades…

Édifiant n’est-ce pas…  Quand va-t-on réaliser que les véritables Québec-bashers ce sont les gens qui veulent préserver la médiocrité associée au maintien du modèle québécois (ceux qui se contentent d’un 65%) et non pas les gens qui veulent améliorer les choses (ceux qui visent au minimum un 90%) ?

Abraham Lincoln a déjà déclaré: « the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next ».  Le Québec n’est pas sorti du bois…

P.S. Le lien a été corrigé.

31 janvier 2011

Encore dernier… Canada Économie En Chiffres Québec

L’évolution du décrochage scolaire au Québec et au Canada depuis le début des années 90:

Décrochage Québec

Statistique Canada
Tendances du taux de décrochage et des résultats sur le marché du travail des jeunes décrocheurs

31 janvier 2011

Genghis Khan, le premier militant écolo Économie Environnement

The Hill

Genghis Khan’s massacres helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions
The Hill

Genghis Kahn, in slaughtering massive numbers of people as he worked to build his Mongol Empire, might also have reduced the emissions scientists say cause climate change.

New research suggests depopulation as a result of Khan’s efforts to grow his empire — millions of people are estimated to have been killed during the period — resulted in reforestation and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

“Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world’s total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests, » the website reports.

More trees mean fewer greenhouse gas emissions, because trees take in carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. According the Carnegie Institution’s department of global ecology, a side effect of trees replacing farmland was to remove 700 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, thus cooling the planet.

30 janvier 2011

Chris Christie porn ! Économie En Vidéos États-Unis

Chris Christie baby, oh yeah !!!

Enfin un politicien qui a le courage de dire les choses telles qu’elles sont même si elles risquent de déplaire aux électeurs:

Christ Christie possède un rare talent pour un politicien: il est capable de réfuter les « arguments » émotionnels de la gauche avec un discours rationnel, cartésien. Il faut être un communicateur hors pair pour être en mesure de faire triompher la raison sur les émotions.

C’est un Chris Christie qu’il nous faut au Québec: un politicien qui sera assez honnête pour nous dire que le statu quo ne peut plus durer.

30 janvier 2011

Incompétence Économie Gaspillage Québec

Attention, politicien au travail !Au début, Régis Labeaume voulait un nouvel amphithéâtre pour accueillir des Jeux olympiques. Ce projet est tombé à l’eau faute d’une montagne.

Ensuite, il fallait un nouvel amphithéâtre pour accueillir une équipe de la ligue nationale.  Hier, Gary Bettman a annoncé que la construction d’un nouvel aréna ne garantissait pas l’obtention d’une franchise de la LNH.

Encore pire, cette semaine on a appris que le coût estimé de 400 millions de dollars associé à la construction d’un nouvel amphithéâtre comportait une marge d’erreur de 75% !  Autrement dit, le prochain Colisée pourrait coûter jusqu’à 700 millions de dollars.  Le coût réel ne sera connu qu’en novembre 2011.  Je vous rappelle que Jean Charest s’est déjà engagé à payer 45% de la facture, peu importe le prix !

Quand on analyse la manière dont les événements s’enchaînent dans le dossier du nouvel amphithéâtre, on s’imagine mal comment Régis Labeaume aurait pu être plus incompétent.

30 janvier 2011

Hope & Change États-Unis Revue de presse

USA Today

Poll: Positive views of GOP for first time since 2005
USA Today

Some good news for the Republican Party: A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds more Americans view the GOP positively than negatively for the first time since 2005.

The survey shows the GOP now has a 47% net favorable rating, following its successes at the ballot box in November when Republicans took majority control of the U.S. House, made gains in the U.S. Senate and won key governorships in states such as Ohio and Wisconsin.

By comparison, 43% of Americans have a negative image of House Speaker John Boehner’s party.

Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones writes that if the upward trend continues for Republicans, « this will indicate the party has completely recovered from the downturn it took beginning in 2005. »

The view of the Democratic Party, meanwhile, has improved slightly. The poll showed 46% of Americans viewed Democrats positively, compared with 47% who have a negative view.

Still, those numbers are among the worst Gallup has recorded for Democrats since 1992.

29 janvier 2011

Pro libre-marché n’égale pas pro business Économie Philosophie

"The first great error here is the mental habit that many have of thinking that big government and big business are somehow at odds."

Ludwig von Mises Institute
Does Favoring Free Enterprise Mean Favoring « Business »?
by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Obama = corporatisteAmerican political rhetoric seems to operate on a regular cycle, like a clock, which is why it seems lately like we are reliving the Clinton years.

The story goes like this. A Democratic administration with lefty ideas gets elected, pushes hard for a series of goofy reforms like protosocialized medicine, which prompts a backlash and thereby a rethinking among the rulers, who then tack to the right and become « centrist » by praising the great contribution that the business sector makes to American life.

Most of these grandiose shifts — Obama is going through one now — are illusory and pointless, like slapping a new color of paint on a car that is traveling in one direction in order to fool people into believing that it is a different car going in a different direction.

But what interests me most here is the rhetoric and the way the Left uses it. They imagine that they got themselves in trouble by being seen as too progovernment and not sufficiently in favor of « business » as they understand that term. And so then comes the change when they discover phrases like « private sector » and even words like « capitalism. »

It’s all superficial, and these shifts suggest that the Left accepts a caricature of capitalism: the belief that it is the system that favors the largest and most established capital owners in society. So when things start to go wrong with a socialist agenda, they reach out to the corporate kingpins in the name of becoming friendly to free enterprise.

Look at Obama’s pathetic attempt to reach out to business. The administration claims it is reviewing government regulations to find those for which the cost outruns the benefits. Well, we could make some progress here by turning the Departments of Energy, Education, and Labor into sports arenas, but that’s not what the administration has in mind. Instead, you are to go to and comment, if you can figure it out. I bumped into one rant that seems typical — some giant racket about home-energy upgrades — but no doubt that this site is more safety valve than work order.

Obama also has some new thing he established in the White House called the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, and this is supposed to represent his new centrism. And who is to head it? Not the owner of Cupcake Kitchen down the street in my neighborhood but rather Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, of all people. And this is supposed to signal some kind of new turn for the administration.

Obama’s advisers imagine that his image has become tainted with the impression that he is too much in favor of big government — hmm, where did that come from? — and so now is the time to do the Clinton thing and triangulate by being probusiness, and hence this new council and new appointment.

Yes, it is a hoax on many, many levels. The first great error here is the mental habit that many have of thinking that big government and big business are somehow at odds. The whole of American history from the beginning to the present suggests precisely the opposite. From Alexander Hamilton to Goldman Sachs, a careful look at the history shows that there has been no major expansion of government that some sector of big business hasn’t backed with pressure and funding.

Who won from the mercantilism of the 19th century? Who came out ahead in the war socialism of Woodrow Wilson? Who was the major power behind the economic regimentation of the New Deal? What sectors of American life made out like bandits during World War II and the Cold War and the regulation of medical care and the American workplace in the 1960s and 1970s? Without exception, the corporate elite were behind every push for expanding the leviathan state.

The 19th-century history here has been carefully documented by Thomas DiLorenzo. Murray Rothbard has revealed the role of business in World War I. The postwar period through the New Deal is documented by Butler Shaffer in his great book In Restraint of Trade. The New Deal racket received a thorough exposé with John T. Flynn. The Cold War and after are shown to be radically probusiness in For a New Liberty, as well as Robert Higgs’s excellent works. And this is just the US case: it’s been true in every country where free competition was overtaken by state interventions.

There are several pieces of the puzzle one must understand to see why this is so. The largest companies have a strong interest in crushing upstarts any way they can. In a free market, they do this through better products at better prices. But that’s a hard-knock life. The struggle to stay on top in this rat race consumes all energies. Profits are always threatened in unexpected ways. Market share is never really secure. The capitalist in this system feels like a slave to consumers, and there is always another entrepreneur out there with a better idea to market. Not even gigantic companies can be sure that they can hold on.

In a mixed economy, the government itself becomes an occasion of sin. Capitalists are all-too-happy to jump out of the rat race and reach for the levers of power. And to do what? To grant favors, privileges, security, protection against failure, and, crucially, to stultify competition by imposing business costs they have already absorbed onto their less-lucrative competitors.

This is how the minimum wage and healthcare mandates and every manner of regulations come to be imposed on the entire business sector: it is a tactical move by the dominant players. It is the same with the regulatory agencies, who hardly make a move without pressure and consultation from business interests.

Antitrust is the classic case (protecting big business against competition) but it is true with labor mandates, health mandates, environmental mandates, and everything else. It’s true with patents, great inflations, higher taxes, mandated workplace benefits, consumer-product regulations, and everything else. They are all mechanisms to cartelize the market on behalf of the biggest players, while the rhetoric about the small guy is just the political excuse.

A book that absolutely blew me away was written by Ludwig Erhard, the great, Misesian-influenced reformer of the postwar German economy, a passionate opponent of the interventionist state and a man who deserves nearly all the credit for the so-called miracle experienced by Germany after the war. The book is a patient-but-compelling argument in favor of free competition and a plea to move away from wartime cartelization, from which the German business sector benefited mightily. The book is outstanding on its own terms, but much more interesting is the intended audience: not consumers, not intellectuals, not voters, but business itself, for Erhard knew what so many others seemed not to know, namely, that the business sector is among the least likely to favor the free market. It was this sector more than any other that needed to hear the message.

And this becomes transparently obvious in the case of General Electric, which is as intertwined with the government as the East India Company was in its day. Mr. Immelt himself is a good case in point: not an advocate of free enterprise but rather an enthusiastic champion of regulation, green-energy subsidies, high regulatory barriers in energy, not free trade but export-driven trade, and a loud proponent of regimentation in general insofar as interventions end up benefiting his company. This guy finds a very happy home in the halls of power, pushing for all kinds of policies that the state will love.

But back to Obama’s new « centrism. » What puzzles me is that left-wing triangulation of this sort could possibly fool anyone. The idealistic Left is undoubtedly upset with Obama’s new turn, but are these people really naïve enough to believe that there is such as thing as a big government that is somehow untainted by the backing of big business? As for the chamber-of-commerce Republicans, can they really be fooled into believing that such moves amount to a new friendliness on the part of Obama to the interests of the private sector?

Mises wrote in his inspiring book Liberalism (still the bible of liberty after all these years) that freedom is not about being in favor of the business sector; often the business sector is the strongest and most well-heeled opponent of freedom.

Did we not learn this during the succession of Bush/Obama bailouts, all designed to privatize the gains of big business and socialize its losses? These bailouts had nothing whatever to do with macroeconomic stabilization or with the general interest of society; they were all about looting society to favor large banks and corporations like General Motors and AIG, protecting the state’s friends from the wiles of market change.

Mises goes on to speak of the tragedy of liberalism. As a doctrine, it is not favored by any single special interest and certainly no single political party. It is nonetheless in the interest of the whole society over the long term; indeed, it is the wellspring of civilization. It is for this reason that Mises believed that liberalism needs dedicated champions in all walks of life. Otherwise we end up with endless cycles of phony change such as we observe by looking at the whole history of presidents after midterm elections.

27 janvier 2011

Démolition contrôlée Économie En Vidéos États-Unis Récession

La réponse du CATO Institute au discours de l’état de l’Union du président Obama:

27 janvier 2011

Payez bande de caves Économie En Images Gauchistan Québec

Un message de l’Alliance Sociale(iste) au Québécois qui manifestera à Québec le 12 mars prochain: