An open response to "A False Majority by Fraudulent Means?"

You can find the Green party's press release here.

Canada needs electoral reform - no doubt about it. No matter what happens with this robocall scam one thing is evidently very clear: our system can be easily manipulated, and we have little or none of the tools we need as citizens to investigate sources of manipulation. It's quite likely we'll discover we have even less recourse 9 months (and counting) after the fact.

I'm not going to get into any details or speculation on the robocalls in this post; from my perspective this late in the game it doesn't matter who perpetrated the fraud. What worries me even more than if this election was stolen is: now that we have discovered a problem (vulnerability) in our electoral system we must take great care not to implement solutions that may put us in worse positions in the future. In the Green's press release they advocate a "proportional" voting system and I believe we should be very cautious going down such a path.

Let me ask you a simple question and please be honest with yourself. Who did you vote for in the last election? Think of your answer before continuing.

I expect four "types" of answers to this question:

1. A name of a political party.
2. The name of a political party's leader.
3. The name of an MP.
4. No one/threw my ballot/whatever.

Now, think about why you chose the one you did. For instance: if your answer was "The Conservatives", is it because you identify as a "conservative"? If your answer was a specific leader, was it what you saw them say in the debates? If it's the name of an MP, do you identify with a political party or even a specific party platform or ideology at all?

A proportional system is proportional for the parties running. Its proportional for the promotion of political ideology, but is it proportional for me? Maybe the MP I chose to vote for got my vote because I respected his or her own personal ethic? Maybe I voted for an MP that I had faith in would advocate for their constituents even if what a majority of their constituents want in some cases may be against their ideology. Maybe I voted for an MP that would represent *me*, as a person -- not a brand name -- instead of dictating to me? If I did would a "proportional" system represent me at all? I don't think so.

Our electoral races are strange. Take any typical party press conference: the leader stands behind a podium and somewhere within camera view is (lately) usually a sign that says something like: "[Party Name] party! Vote for [Leader Name]". However when it comes to election time most Canadians will not find [Leader Name] on the ballot. To vote for the "leader" you must vote for the party. Not the MP.

Lets say, theoretically that the liberals won last election, but say for the sake of argument Michael Ignatieff still lost his seat. You would have a situation where the party wins, the leader has no seat, and probably a majority of voters who voted liberal because they like the leader are all like 'WTF?'. Sure the leader will probably trade with another MP to have a seat, but the point remains: What are you really voting for?

If you're voting for ideology or the party line, proportional representation will do wonders. However if you're like me and view MPs as having a responsibility to their constituents regardless of the party line proportional representation isn't for you.

Just think about the joke that is question period. Partisan bickering, finger pointing, and fantasy facts on all sides. It's a big real time flame war - and how often do you ever EVER get a straight answer? That is what proportional representation will bring: all flame war, all the time.

We need to focus on the MP, the individual. All the parties have some good MPs - people I think still have honor. I say forget your political allegiance.. the party brand name because in a war of ideology, everyone loses.

February mid-month round-up: Greece burns, Alberta gambles & Canada trades soul for Pandas

Well it would appear that China has finally found a spot to park it's unwanted USD. That would be here in good old Canada and all it cost them was leasing us two Pandas. What a deal! Back in 2011 I wrote a quick post about why Canada's economy is good, bad and bullshit. A key portion of this post was that China was dumping the USD - but one year later with multiple countries such as Russia, India, and Iran writing off the USD as well one has to wonder, who exactly is taking it? Well it would appear the answer is Canada.

Now not only are we trading resources to the U.S. for a devaluing USD, no no.. now we will accept them from China as well. Many people are probably looking at our new trade relations with China and say to themselves: "well thats good isn't it? We're diversifying from dependence on the U.S. economy" - but this isn't really the case. Whether we are receiving USD from China, or USD from the U.S. it is still USD which is directly tied to the health of the U.S. and global economy. So are we breaking our dependence on the U.S.? When it comes to the actual physical trade: yes. When it comes to the value we receive for what we trade: no.

Are you a big coffee drinker? Have you noticed anything happening to the price of coffee? How about other imported foods? If you are conscious about your grocery bill you will probably have noticed it's gone up quite a bit. This is a direct result of piggybacking the CAD off the USD. Many analysts now claim the CAD is directly tied to resources now. They indicate that when resources go up, the CAD goes up, and when resources go down, the CAD goes down. However, the target for comparison always happens to be the USD. You may notice that if the CAD does exceed the USD, it's not by very much and not for very long. This is because while resource prices influence our dollar, a 1:1 ratio with the USD at most (approximately) is essential not just for continuing trade with the U.S. but also to continue trade with any country who trades using USD. The number of countries is large, albeit dwindling. It is really a match made in heaven: MAny countries around the world are looking for a place to dump their USD and Canada's valuable resources are "open for business". As most of our politicians are heavily involved in the U.S. stock market, they also have a vested interest in keeping the USD alive, even if the cost of food and gas for you and your family becomes unaffordable. This is the new measure for economic health, this is why the Euro was rising even as Greece was burning. On paper accepting austerity is great, but in reality it is destroying what's left of their physical economy. You know; the economy that feeds people, not HFT.

On top of Canada's "everything must go" fire sale policy it appears that we also are in a bit of a huff about proposed changes to the U.S. banking system. The take away paragraph from this article is:

The source of concern is a new U.S. regulation meant to deter deposit-taking institutions that receive backstopping from Washington from engaging in speculative trading for their own—not their clients’—profit, a practice known as proprietary trading. Risky trades by global banking giants were central to the banking crisis that compelled former U.S. president George W. Bush to launch a $700-billion bailout of Wall Street in 2008.

Translation: our banks engage in the same practices as in the U.S.

It goes on further:

“I think the impact could be very, very negative,” said Canadian Bankers Association President Terry Campbell. “If you interfere with the ability of governments and corporations to fund themselves, if you interfere with liquidity in the marketplace, which is necessary for funding, then you could have a very severe impact on our economy.”

Translation: Governments and Corporations fund themselves using risky and sometimes fraudulent banking practices and if we try to change that now then our "financial stability" is put at risk. Canada's complaints about these changes should confirm for all Canadians that our banks ARE NOT anymore stable than the U.S. or European banks. When you combine this fact with a world that uses the USD and a U.S. whose financial system is mostly dependant on foreign countries providing goods for that USD it should be no surprise the Fed's crisis fund bailed out non-US banks including Canada's TD.

The crisis in Greece is a preview of what's to come for all countries that engage in these practices as their ponzi economies rely on ever-increasing returns while peak oil ensures returns will be ever diminishing. It is the shortfall between leveraged value and real wealth which has Canada concerned as without riskier and riskier ways to leverage funds: profits dry up. For proof of this look no further than Alberta's latest budget which depends on a predicted 40% increase in oil revenue to meet expenses and bring Alberta out of a deficit (yet again).

Alberta's entire budget is based on a "bet" and betting is a feature of gambling. So Alberta's budget isn't really a "budget" at all now is it? When I budget for the month, I do not assume that sometime during that month I'm going to win the lottery and I certainly do not factor my theoretical lottery winnings into my budget. After you win the lottery and have the money in your hand then it is safe to include that in your budget. Now of course the odds of predicting oil price are a lot better than winning the lottery, but the cost of failure is the same.

Back in 2008, no energy analysts and no economic experts predicted a drop in oil price from $147/barrel to $38/barrel. No experts predicted that there would be a scooter revolution due to the price of gas at the time. Alberta has spent the last decade convincing Albertan's the oilsands were making them rich and yet wheres the money? The sustainability fund has been drained, infrastructure is crumbling or 20 years behind, the heritage fund in leu of their olympic train, $25m rebranding effort, and $2B for carbon capture is hardly sufficient to account for all of the resources given away in Albertan's names. With the latest budget and Alberta's continued campaign to pretend it has more money than it does - I expect a repeat of the 2008 situation in Alberta within the next 2 years.

Remember, at $147/barrel - and with cheap credit everywhere - debt could not be sustained. This time around all of that cheap credit has been used up and I believe the ceiling on oil demand is a lot lower. There is no more debt people (Americans) can get into to subsidize their ever-increasing cost of living. If oil hits Albertas targets and without some external crisis (Iran), it's highly unlikely it will be sustained any longer than the time it takes for those price changes to show up in the cost of consumer goods.

Further Reading: The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%: Forbes

Canada's Economy: The Good, The Bad, and the Bullshit.

Seems to be a lot of confusion out there about why exactly Canada's economy isn't entirely under water like the rest of the world. Is it Conservative policy, was it Liberal policy? No one seems to really know, and both parties claim it was their doing.

Reality Check: The people make the economy and not the politicians. So in this article I will explain to you why our economy is currently percieved as being stable (which in reality it is not anymore stable than the currencies we depend on).

Canadians have all heard the stories about how "stable" our banking system is. The reality couldn't be further from the truth and a little known fact is our banks were bailed out by the U.S. Federal Reserve. This was an under the table deal which was only revealed this year and it was on top of the Canadian stimulus package put forth by the Harper Government and the Liberals. It coincidently didn't make Canadian news, and I'm sure most people reading this never heard about it. You were never meant to hear about it as it would fly directly in the face of the 'deep integration' plans currently underway.

Now I know my detractors will point at the "AAA" rating of our banks in the article and simply say they were just looking for more profit, so let me remind you the banks that failed in the U.S. all had "AAA" ratings. Rating agencies are run by the ratees. This should be obvious given that the S&P is only just now warning about U.S. debt even though U.S. debt has been a problem for awhile. The S&P is only now saying something because their credibility is being seriously questioned by those who bought into the USD koolaid.

So what's so great about the Canadian economy? Well we export resources, and this isn't because of political policy in the last few years. We are one of the few energy exporting countries left, in fact just recently Russia announced it would be cutting off petroleum exports in the month of May. This is just one more sign that the dawn of the post-petroleum age has begun due to peak oil.

What is bad about our economy? Well, about 60% of our economy relies on trade with the U.S. We give them valuable resources, and they give us USD. Unfortunately the USD continues to push towards record lows due to the QE programs while gold continues to push for new record highs. So what exactly is Canada getting for it's valuable resources? Not much. We are trading resources that are only increasing in value, for worthless digital paper that is not worth the paper it's not printed on, and is also decreasing in value. Sound like a good deal to you? Well it gets better.

What does Canada use to import pretty well everything? USD. Unfortunately for us, China has begun dumping the USD meaning that as our politicians push for more integrated trade between the U.S. and Canada, the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to dump the U.S. and not get stuck holding the empty bag. Canada will be the empty bag holder, as none of our politicians have the political will to say no to the United States. In other words, all 4 politicians telling us the economy will be fine are completely full of shit. We have no control over the economy, we are an exporting nation. This means as long as there are buyers, we can be sellers -- but if no one is buying, we won't be selling. We experienced this briefly in 2008 before the U.S. initiated the TARP programs.

So Canada, we have a big decision ahead of us. Do we decouple the CAD from the USD, effectively cutting off trade with them, but returning our dollar to a reasonable value? Or do we keep the trade going by devaluing our own currency and thrusting 8% or more inflation on Canadian citizens. I'll be honest, neither option is without it's downfalls. We will not escape this crisis pain-free.

* Updated | 11/09/2011:The decision is now ahead of us. As I predicted when I wrote this article on April 30th (posted just after midnight on May 1st), Canada is faced with a decision on whether to break the peg to the USD. Raising interest rates would prevent the inflation I mentioned (for a time) at the cost of our exports to the United States. However, as I mentioned in 'Miss Canada' our political "leaders" have no political will and this probably won't happen. This includes the NDP which voted alongside the Liberals and Conservatives to continue our illegal war against Lybia, in which we are actually backing Al-Qaeda. They are all puppets.

* Updated | 18/09/2011: Surprise, surprise, the truth about Canadian banks is coming out. Like I said, our banks are only as stable as the currencies we depend on. Look around the world... all of them are failing.

Canada is a country in economic denial.

Miss Canada 2011

Here we go again, another Miss Canada contest. Leaders debates, campaign roadshows, and probably more time spent in a stylist's chair than your favorite hollywood actor. Is it any wonder we have such low voter turnout when so many Canadians are not even entirely sure how our political system works? Let alone having any faith it works at all?

canada.com

Browsing comments on election articles you often will see statements such as "I'm not voting for Stephen Harper." Well just an FYI, hardly anyone in Canada is voting for Stephen Harper. You would have to be a member of his Calgary constituency. You see here in Canada, we actually don't vote for a Prime Minister, believe it or not. We don't even vote what "party" will be in power. Our MPs vote for these things and it is indeed quite possible to have a Prime Minister elected from a party not in power, as long as the house has faith in the governing body. In simple terms, we elect members of parliament and nothing else.

I know it sounds simple right, and yet here Canada is stuck in this Canada/American party politics, first-past-the-post void. Canadian elections today are more like leader popularity contests, which is funny because it is also entirely possible for the "leader" to not even have a seat in the house. This is why leaders choose a constituency that is highly likely to vote them in and favor "their party". Wouldn't it be embarrassing for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to not get elected to his seat? Yes it *could* happen in our political system. When it comes to the "party system", I believe strongly in what Gerald Celente has to say:

"they're having a party, and you're paying for it." -- Gerald Celente

This election though has had a few interesting turns in events. everyone has heard about Harper throwing students out of his rallies. I personally don't care what he does at his rallies, it is his prerogative who attends and who does not. Whether it represents true democracy or not is debatable but in any case it is not illegal. However, what seems to be getting the good old media white-wash on this is that it is the RCMP doing these background checks:

“I was told the RCMP had done a screening and that perhaps my name was affiliated with something on Facebook or the Internet,” MacDonald told the Star. “Something that made me unfit to enter. They wouldn’t say what it was.”

The RCMP are even complicit in removing media from Harper events:

Since when is it the RCMP's job to work for political campaigns in this manner? Normally we would say things like this happen in a police state but as mainstream media constantly reminds us we are not Iraq and this is not a police state, which leaves me still almost a year later without an appropriate term to call this circus:

Truth of the matter is that Canadian elections are just for our entertainment. None of the parties have any interest in explaining the real way things work. All of them have latched on to this party policy crap which is usually superficial issues that don't affect our overall agenda. Notice how during this election all work for the people has stopped to campaign, but agendas we take part in such as bombing Lybia are going ahead as scheduled. In the end no difference will be made, especially if we go with either the Conservatives or the Liberals who both have publicly stated an intention to sell Canadian sovereignty.

The Cons:

The Libs:

So you see, when it comes to what matters to those in power; on the real issues, they all agree. That is why Ignatieff is not using the G20 public inquiry as an election issue. The liberals don't want an inquiry into the rights abuses, just as much as the conservatives don't. Indeed it was the Paul Martin liberals who created the event in the first place, at which rights abuses have occurred at almost every single event held. The Liberals will focus on the costs though, to give the illusion of opposition. There are many other examples of the singular agenda between the Conservatives and Liberals.

When it comes to the NDP, they will promise the moon to get in power. But once they get in and realize the world economic state what will they do about it? The sad truth is that today, no political "party" or politician has the political will to come out and lay down the situation about the world debt collapse and peak oil even though it's obvious confidence in the economy just isn't there.Take for instance the Liberal Platform fiscal policy which states:

A Liberal government will commit to reducing the deficit to one percent of GDP within two years, down from 3.6 percent in 2009-10. We will set subsequent, rolling targets to continue decreasing the deficit every year after that until the country is returned to surplus. Unless Canada is faced with an unexpected second recession, all fiscal planning will be consistent with this anchor.

"Unless Canada is faced with an unexpected second recession"? How often do you see that on a political platform? Or take Harper's flagship platform promise which might take effect in 4 years if everything is A'Ok economically. Politicians today are running on empty promises, because that is all a politician really has under their belt to offer. They then go and backup their empty statements with propaganda campaigns to keep peoples faith in a political system of all stripes and colors that has screwed them over time and time again. How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb anyway?

Canadians need to realize that we have some serious structural issues that go far beyond our partisan political bickering. Until politicians stop painting the world in rainbows, sunshine and lollipops voter apathy will only go up. Fewer and fewer people believe the tired rhetoric coming out of these people's mouths on a daily basis and I believe this trend will only continue as the world situation gets worse and increasingly contradicts the unrealistic promises in their platforms until one day there will only be one action left to take: facing reality.