The Director’s of one of Canada’s MBA programs recently had this to say:
“Never in the history of our country have we been ahead of the United States. The United States has always been richer, more powerful, more aggressive, more dynamic, more successful, more entrepreneurial. And right now they’re going off the cliff. Their banking is a mess. Their real estate is a mess. Their tax system is a mess. The place is going bankrupt before your eyes.” He actually thinks “we have the opportunity to steal some of their business” and get American companies to relocate up here.
Think again. Capitalizing on an opportunity happens because you’re aggressive, dynamic and entrepreneurial. And THAT is the essence of Canada…not! Actually, because things are fine up here, why bother, eh? Isn’t it Canada’s low risk-tolerance and conservative banking culture that saved the country’s butt in the first place. Where exactly are these new traits going to come from to capitalize on the opportunity he sees? And besides that, it’s the height of the NHL play-offs. Business opportunity? What opportunity? Pass the chips and dip, and break open the Molsons.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Notes From The Nanny State
THAT would be Canada, at least according to Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (is there an oxymoron buried in there by chance?), he said in his keynote, “You need to understand something here folks, we’re not in a nanny-state induced coma, like Europe and Canada.” My young teenage son, listening along with me, started up a conversation that went something like this:
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.
* * * * *
Parity
That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?
Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.
* * * *
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited
Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.
Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.
Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.
“What’s that mean dad?”
“Well, a nanny state is a state that takes care of its citizens, it has things like an old-age pension for its citizens, universal healthcare, maybe generous parental leave policies, perhaps national daycare, things like that.”
“But that sounds good, why does he think it’s bad?”
“He thinks it’s bad because it means people will get lazy, and they won’t work hard because the state will take care of them, like a nanny.”
“But if that’s true, why are Americans so lazy? They live in a country that doesn’t take care of them.”
“Why do you say Americans are lazy?”
“Well, geez dad, you’ve been down there, they’re the fattest people around. You get fat when you’re lazy, right?”
And so there, you have it at last—a metric for measuring the degree of Nanny-statism. The U.S. wins by a landslide! No wonder they have that show called The Biggest Loser. France, on the other hand, deep in its nanny-state coma, has citizens known for their thinness. And how about those socialist Scandinavians—aren’t they a bunch of fatties? Wait a minute, they’re actually pretty damn fit….I could get to like this metric.
* * * * *
Parity
That’s been the big word here this past week. Parity. It means the Canadian dollar is of equal value to the U.S. greenback. “Parity” is said with a kind of pride. If the Loonie is of equal value, than the country must be as well. Another metric. Canada, in other words, is finally as good as the U.S.! Right? Aren’t we? I mean, is it okay to say we are? Is that Canadian? Okay, maybe we’re not really as good. But almost, eh?
Truth is, the northern Nanny-state is actually outperforming the U.S.in most economic measures. Take that, Michael Steele. You would think that Canada coming out of the global recession stronger than any other G8 country would also be a source of pride, and it is, but, and this is a big butt, Canada knows its economy is completely tied to the U.S. Canada would actually be better off in the long run if the U.S. were coming out the strongest. It’s why Canada, as much as it may like to see itself as better than the States, can never wish the U.S. anything other than good fortune.
* * * *
The Southern Republican Leadership Conference and Ann Coulter Revisited
Underlying the content of the remarks of those at the conference is a reminder again of the breakdown of political discourse in the U.S. Newt Gingrich described the current administration as “a perfect, unrepresentative left wing machine dedicated to a secular, socialist future.” Sarah Palin was saying the kinds of things Sarah Palin says. Give her points for consistency; then take them away for accuracy…Imagine being fed a constant diet of this stuff, as many Americans are.
Think of political rhetoric as food; given that you are what you eat, perhaps Americans need to eat something more nutritionally balanced. Eating primarily the empty calories of emotionally-charged language is no healthier than eating cheap, overly-processed foods. One is satisfied only temporarily, before one needs to return for more. The reason Canada and Canadians ought not to partake of the words of Ann Coulter and her like is not because of any issues of freedom of speech, but rather because it makes sense to pay attention to what you take in—whether its food or rhetoric. A diet of nothing but twinkies is only good for the producers of twinkies, just as consuming right-wing rhetoric only benefits the producers of that rhetoric. Junkfood is junkfood. Don’t take it in. It’s bad for your health. Eat your vegetables, said your mother. And she was right. The reasonable (and reasoned) language of civil conversation may be a diet that’s a bit bland but it’s good for all of us. Canada still has some of it; the United States, none.
Bringing in those American chefs to listen to their recipes is folly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
