Anti-globalists Have Got it Wrong
In George Orwells 1984, the leaders of his nightmare state poisoned speech by disfiguring meanings for political purposes. The War Department became the Department of Peace. Similarly, anti-globalists proclaimed a victory for democracy when the World Bank last week cancelled a meeting on global poverty reduction because of threats of violence.
Bank spokeswoman Caroline Anstey said the Bank couldnt subject the host city, Barcelona, and conference participants to the abuse, property destruction, and violence marshaled by anti-globalization forces.
A conference on poverty reduction should take place in a peaceful atmosphere free from heckling, violence and intimidation, she said. Despite our efforts to reach out to some of the groups planning demonstrations, and to include them in the conference, the intention of many of the groups who plan to converge on Barcelona is not to join the debate or to contribute constructively to the discussion, but to disrupt it.
The anti-globalist Barcelona Campaign Co-ordination Commission trumpeted their triumph. The World Bank, it said, cancelled the meeting because of the prospect of people power rising up against them.
The cancellation had nothing to do with people power and everything to do with violence and intimidation. People exercise their power through the ballot box. They have consistently voted for governments that support trade openness. Polls, too, show the publics strong support for trade openness.
Perhaps thats why anti-globalists reject the democratic option of debate. Instead they turn to violence and, with Orwellian flare, destroy the meaning of the word. Even if some windows are going down
that is not violence, said French radical José Bové. Violence is the free market.
So, smashing windows is non-violence. Free exchange of goods is violence.
Not surprisingly, Bové has a criminal record. Thats normally reason enough to keep someone out of Canada. Canada Customs decision to bar Bové didnt sit well with the Council of Canadians, which sponsored Bovés Canadian visit. Its just another example of how our civil liberties are being suspended, said Council president Maude Barlow.
Wow! Keeping criminals out of Canada is a suspension of our liberties. Words have no meaning in the protestors world. With Barlows aid, Bové got into Canada in time to encourage non-violent window smashing in Quebec.
Bové is a heavily subsidized French farmer. Barlows sponsorship of him points out the Council of Canadians hypocrisy in claiming to help the global poor. The World Bank estimates that agricultural protection and subsidies in the developed world cost agriculturists in the developing world, some of the poorest of the poor, an amount equal to 40 per cent of all current foreign aid received by developing nations. Unlike aid, agricultural sales would create sustainable jobs, increase skills and draw in new investment.
Were losers too. Agricultural subsidies and higher food prices resulting from tariff barriers cost the developed world about $63 billion a year. So, to protect some rich European farmers, we all pay more for food, the poorest in the third world are denied new opportunities, and Canadian farmers suffer as they try to compete European subsidies.
No wonder Bové resorts to brick-throwing instead of rational debate. Meanwhile, Barlow and her ilk claim, Orwellian-style, to be fighting for the worlds poor.
Things get stranger. In the anti-globalists Orwellian reality, protecting democratic leaders and thinkers from bully tactics suppresses free speech. Violence to break up meetings becomes a victory for free speech. Here, the anti-globalists join hands with old-fashioned dictators and aspiring dictators who use violence to break up meetings of democratic leaders, academics and political thinkers.
Anti-globalists are engaged in a full-scale Orwellian rewrite of what happened in Quebec City. We want to sound the alarm about the level of oppression that went on, says Kerry Pither of the Solidarity Network. We need to look into the whole issue of why dissent is being criminalized.
Huh? Peaceful demonstrators faced no police action Those who charged the area where leaders were meeting did meet tear gas, perhaps too much. (Police are human and can react with fear.) Of those arrested, one demonstrator was held longer than perhaps he should have been. Most were released in a few hours. How is dissent being criminalized? Hello Mr. Orwell.
Dissent is not being criminalized. Democratically elected governments are not undemocratic. Unelected demonstrators do not democratically represent people who reject their views at the polls. Maintaining the impoverishment of third world farmers is not helping the poor. Protecting the ability of elected leaders and thinkers to meet and discuss issues freely is not an attack on free speech. The use of violence and intimidation to suppress the ability of people to meet and discuss ideas is not a victory for democracy. Bad news budget dims New Brunswick's economic prospects|article|137|639||||||||||||||162|||1372899600|1|1|en|What will be the lasting impact of New Brunswick's latest budget? Free Download(s):
On Tuesday, the BC Liberals unveiled what is perhaps one of the more unconventional pre-election budgets in recent memory. Rather than the usual special-interest spending and boutique tax credits, the Liberals put enormous stock in balancing the budget. The balanced budget along with several other important advances are worthy of praise but, unfortunately, the tax increases included in the budget will impede B.C.s competitiveness.
First the good news. Returning to a balanced budget this year (2013/14) is a marked improvement over the $1.2 billion deficit recorded last year. It means British Columbia is no longer borrowing to pay for current programs.
The BC Liberals also wisely and proactively raised the possibility of creating an endowment fund based on resource revenues, in part to avoid the vast mistakes observed in Alberta.
And the Liberals have re-committed to constraining spending. Total ministerial spending will increase by a modest 1.4 per cent in 2013/14. Most departments, however, will experience a freeze or a slight decline in spending with the exception of health, where spending will increase by 3.9 per cent.
The problem is that the Liberals chose to increase taxes as part of the deficit solution. Worse, the taxes raised will impair BCs competitiveness and in doing so, reduce economic growth in the future and the jobs that come along with it.
Specifically, the Liberals propose to increase the corporate income tax rate to 11 per cent one year ahead of schedule (effective April 1, 2013) and to introduce a new top personal income tax rate of 16.8 per cent on income over $150,000.
The Liberals have indicated that the new personal income tax rate is only temporary through to the end of 2015, though, as Nobel laureate Milton Friedman used to say, there is nothing as permanent as temporary government programs.
Economic research both in Canada and internationally have consistently demonstrated that investment, work effort, entrepreneurship, and business development are sensitive to corporate and personal income tax rates. By increasing both, BC has reduced the incentives for these beneficial activities in the province.
In addition, BC is now distinctly uncompetitive with respect to personal income taxes and to a lesser extent, corporate income taxes. British Columbias top personal income tax rate, which affects skilled professionals like doctors and engineers, business owners, and investors all people we want to attract to the province is now 68 per cent higher than Albertas comparable rate: 16.8 per cent vs. 10 per cent. In addition, our neighbour to the south, Washington State, with whom we also compete, maintains no personal income tax whatsoever.
The increase in the corporate income tax is relatively small except when combined with the return of the PST, which applies to business inputs and therefore increases costs. The combination of both policies will impair B.C.s tax competitiveness.
The tax increases were put into pace to balance the budget and ensure that we are not burdening the next generation of British Columbians with increased debt. And while the budget was balanced the provincial debt continues to increase unabated. The reason for this seeming contradiction is that BC separates its annual or operating budget from its capital budget.
In 2013-14, for example, the BC government will balance its operating budget but increase its total borrowing by some $6.6 billion. Government debt as a share of the economy will increase from 24.9 per cent to 26.9 per cent.
Indeed, over the course of the three years included in the budget plan, BCs total debt will grow to $69.4 billion in 2015-16 from $56.1 billion today.
Beyond the longer term risk of accumulating debt, there is also a short-term risk of debt-servicing costs, i.e. interest. BC will spend $2.5 billion in 2013-14 on interest costs, which is money not spent on health, education, or infrastructure. The risk is that interest rates increase and the cost of maintaining existing debt also increases, which will squeeze spending on other priorities.
While the BC Liberals are rightly trumpeting a balanced budget, there are problematic aspects of the budget to recognize. The 2013 budget has made B.C. less attractive for investment, skilled and educated workers, and entrepreneurs. As a result, the provinces economic future looks less bright.
Author:
Subscribe to the Fraser Institute
Get the latest news from the Fraser Institute on the latest research studies, news and events.