And the full
Definitely one of the best coming out of the city. Look out for him.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Shaun Boothe
Toronto rapper Shaun Boothe (FKA Seazon, FKA Rikoshay) just released the trailer to his anticipated video for "Poor Boy". Check it out:
And the fullsong video:
Definitely one of the best coming out of the city. Look out for him.
And the full
Definitely one of the best coming out of the city. Look out for him.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Keys N Krates
Got this via the good folks at 1 LOVE TO. Illustration by Deadly Delmundo.
Keys N Krates are dope. If you don't know by now, and love music -- get familiar.
Longest Night illustration by my good friend Bjoern Arthurs.
They're (finally) prepping to release their first mixtape, "Live Re-mixing 101". Check the trailer out:
Update: Word on the street is that Keys N Krates will be in Ottawa, at Ritual nightclub, December 12th.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
McGuinty finally does something right, and the PCs don't like it
Yesterday, Ontario's Liberal Finance Minister Dwight Duncan introduced harmonized sales tax legislation at Queen's Park. As most of you are probably aware by now, the bill would lead to the harmonization of the 5 per cent GST and the 8 per cent PST for July 1st, 2010.
This policy proposal, though favoured by the vast majority of economists, has been met with loud opposition from the moment it was first introduced by the McGuinty government. Loudest among the critics, perhaps, is Progressive Conservative leader Team Hudak, who has attempted to re-brand the HST as "Dalton's sales tax (DST) on everything" and set up a website urging Ontarians to help "stop the DST".
The opposition is, in large part, aimed at the fact that certain items -- like haircuts, firewood and gym fees -- that were exempted from the PST will no longer be exempt under the HST. According to a special report commissioned by TD Bank, this would result in a 1.5 per cent increase on the effective tax rate on consumption. The removal of exemptions however, in my view, is one of the HST's main strengths, insofar as it removes distortions from the tax code and forces people to make decisions based on the real costs and benefits of products and services. It also has the added benefit of simplifying our complex tax code.
Of course, to offset the added burden, it would be nice to have a reduction in the overall HST rate or, better yet, cuts in marginal income tax rates, accompany the introduction of the HST. A sentiment probably shared with the Progressive Conservative Party. But, with their opposition, the PCs are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the HST is still very good.
The HST would be a value-added tax, like the GST, and applied only on the final point of consumption, as opposed to a retail sales tax like the PST which applies to most inputs that businesses use along the chain of production. By eliminating the tax on inputs, analysts at the C.D. Howe Institute estimate that harmonization would cut 11 points off Ontario's effective tax rate on new investment by 2012. Businesses would also benefit from the HST in the shrinking of their tax compliance burden. According to TD Bank economists, "the majority of [these] cost savings will pass onto consumers in the form of lower prices". Their report concludes that "harmonization is an important step to increase the competitiveness of these provinces' economies (referring to Ontario and BC) and complements actions the two governments have taken on capital and corporate income taxes".
In another report released earlier this month by Dr. Jack Mintz, the Palmer Chair of Public Policy at the University of Calgary predicts that "a harmonized sales tax combined with Ontario's proposed corporate income tax cuts and other recent tax changes would significantly increase jobs, boost capital investment and lead to higher annual incomes for Ontarians." Specifically, the report predicts that over the next 10 years, Ontario will see 591,000 net new jobs, increased capital investment of $47 Billion, and increased annual income of up to 8.8 per cent, or $29.4 Billion.
Some of you may remember an earlier post I wrote about Canada's "lackluster productivity" being a serious problem. Well, this, the HST, is part of the solution. But, apparently, many "conservatives" don't like it. Among economists however, there is near unanimity on the issue.
With its opposition to the HST, the PC Party is gambling with its credibility on economic matters, and losing.
For more insight, watch these:
This policy proposal, though favoured by the vast majority of economists, has been met with loud opposition from the moment it was first introduced by the McGuinty government. Loudest among the critics, perhaps, is Progressive Conservative leader Team Hudak, who has attempted to re-brand the HST as "Dalton's sales tax (DST) on everything" and set up a website urging Ontarians to help "stop the DST".
The opposition is, in large part, aimed at the fact that certain items -- like haircuts, firewood and gym fees -- that were exempted from the PST will no longer be exempt under the HST. According to a special report commissioned by TD Bank, this would result in a 1.5 per cent increase on the effective tax rate on consumption. The removal of exemptions however, in my view, is one of the HST's main strengths, insofar as it removes distortions from the tax code and forces people to make decisions based on the real costs and benefits of products and services. It also has the added benefit of simplifying our complex tax code.
Of course, to offset the added burden, it would be nice to have a reduction in the overall HST rate or, better yet, cuts in marginal income tax rates, accompany the introduction of the HST. A sentiment probably shared with the Progressive Conservative Party. But, with their opposition, the PCs are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. And the HST is still very good.
The HST would be a value-added tax, like the GST, and applied only on the final point of consumption, as opposed to a retail sales tax like the PST which applies to most inputs that businesses use along the chain of production. By eliminating the tax on inputs, analysts at the C.D. Howe Institute estimate that harmonization would cut 11 points off Ontario's effective tax rate on new investment by 2012. Businesses would also benefit from the HST in the shrinking of their tax compliance burden. According to TD Bank economists, "the majority of [these] cost savings will pass onto consumers in the form of lower prices". Their report concludes that "harmonization is an important step to increase the competitiveness of these provinces' economies (referring to Ontario and BC) and complements actions the two governments have taken on capital and corporate income taxes".
In another report released earlier this month by Dr. Jack Mintz, the Palmer Chair of Public Policy at the University of Calgary predicts that "a harmonized sales tax combined with Ontario's proposed corporate income tax cuts and other recent tax changes would significantly increase jobs, boost capital investment and lead to higher annual incomes for Ontarians." Specifically, the report predicts that over the next 10 years, Ontario will see 591,000 net new jobs, increased capital investment of $47 Billion, and increased annual income of up to 8.8 per cent, or $29.4 Billion.
Some of you may remember an earlier post I wrote about Canada's "lackluster productivity" being a serious problem. Well, this, the HST, is part of the solution. But, apparently, many "conservatives" don't like it. Among economists however, there is near unanimity on the issue.
With its opposition to the HST, the PC Party is gambling with its credibility on economic matters, and losing.
For more insight, watch these:
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
Capitalism, the world's greatest economic success story
I came across a great article in Forbes Magazine, adapted from Steve Forbe's new book, How Capitalism Will Save Us. Included was a series of rebuttals to common claims made by the economic illiterate. Enjoy:
Is Capitalism Moral?
THE RAP: Capitalism is an amoral, dog-eat-dog system founded on greed and the survival of the fittest.
THE REALITY: Capitalism is the world's most humane economic system, promoting the democratic values of a free and open society: hard work, cooperation, generosity, charity, and devotion to the rule of law.
Isn't Capitalism Brutal?
THE RAP: The free market is brutal: Big players with too much power crush smaller competitors. People are laid off without warning or protection. Individuals are vulnerable to ups and downs in remote sectors of the economy that have little apparent connection to their daily existence, suffering untold disruption to their lives and businesses.
THE REALITY: Democratic capitalism can be disruptive and unpredictable. But the process of "creative destruction" is critical to a healthy economy and society. New products and industries render old ones obsolete. Some jobs may be destroyed. But other jobs--more of them--are created. In this way, individuals and resources go where they are most needed by people and businesses, and wealth-producing innovations are developed. Without creative destruction, the economy would stagnate. Living standards would be lower and unemployment would be far higher.
Aren't The Rich Getting Richer At Other People's Expense?
THE RAP: The rich are a privileged group that prospers at the expense of everyone else, exploiting employees and customers to stay on top, while getting special treatment and tax breaks? Meanwhile, the poor get poorer and the middle class struggles to keep from falling behind.
THE REALITY: Rich people make their fortunes by creating opportunity and wealth for others. They do this by launching businesses that create jobs, by investing in new ventures, or by spending money on other people's products and services. The rich are not a fixed aristocracy. Who is rich and who is poor is always changing. You can't have a prosperous or innovative economy unless people are allowed to become rich.
Don't Regulations Safeguard The Public Good?
THE RAP: Without regulations and statutes imposed by government as the referee of capitalism, greed and selfishness would run rampant in unfettered markets. Regulations safeguard the public good. They promote public safety and ethical business practices, preventing business from cheating and ensuring that citizens abide by the rules of the road.
THE REALITY: The rule of law is essential to the successful functioning of democratic capitalism. Certain regulations are necessary in an open economy. Yet others are a response to political pressure from self-interested constituencies. Politically motivated, overly meddlesome regulations and rules produce unintended consequences, hurting the very people they are trying to protect. They micromanage the economy and stifle innovation, favoring incumbents at the expense of innovative outsiders.
Is Capitalism Moral?
THE RAP: Capitalism is an amoral, dog-eat-dog system founded on greed and the survival of the fittest.
THE REALITY: Capitalism is the world's most humane economic system, promoting the democratic values of a free and open society: hard work, cooperation, generosity, charity, and devotion to the rule of law.
Isn't Capitalism Brutal?
THE RAP: The free market is brutal: Big players with too much power crush smaller competitors. People are laid off without warning or protection. Individuals are vulnerable to ups and downs in remote sectors of the economy that have little apparent connection to their daily existence, suffering untold disruption to their lives and businesses.
THE REALITY: Democratic capitalism can be disruptive and unpredictable. But the process of "creative destruction" is critical to a healthy economy and society. New products and industries render old ones obsolete. Some jobs may be destroyed. But other jobs--more of them--are created. In this way, individuals and resources go where they are most needed by people and businesses, and wealth-producing innovations are developed. Without creative destruction, the economy would stagnate. Living standards would be lower and unemployment would be far higher.
Aren't The Rich Getting Richer At Other People's Expense?
THE RAP: The rich are a privileged group that prospers at the expense of everyone else, exploiting employees and customers to stay on top, while getting special treatment and tax breaks? Meanwhile, the poor get poorer and the middle class struggles to keep from falling behind.
THE REALITY: Rich people make their fortunes by creating opportunity and wealth for others. They do this by launching businesses that create jobs, by investing in new ventures, or by spending money on other people's products and services. The rich are not a fixed aristocracy. Who is rich and who is poor is always changing. You can't have a prosperous or innovative economy unless people are allowed to become rich.
Don't Regulations Safeguard The Public Good?
THE RAP: Without regulations and statutes imposed by government as the referee of capitalism, greed and selfishness would run rampant in unfettered markets. Regulations safeguard the public good. They promote public safety and ethical business practices, preventing business from cheating and ensuring that citizens abide by the rules of the road.
THE REALITY: The rule of law is essential to the successful functioning of democratic capitalism. Certain regulations are necessary in an open economy. Yet others are a response to political pressure from self-interested constituencies. Politically motivated, overly meddlesome regulations and rules produce unintended consequences, hurting the very people they are trying to protect. They micromanage the economy and stifle innovation, favoring incumbents at the expense of innovative outsiders.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
re: "Drop Fees"
A great piece in this week's Fulcrum (the University of Ottawa's student newspaper) regarding the Canadian Federation of Students "Day of Action for a Poverty-Free Ontario": Check it out.
Last week, my brother and I submitted this letter to the editor on the same subject:
YOU MIGHT HAVE seen them. All around campus and the surrounding area, blue and red posters have been taped to lampposts and mailboxes advertising the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Day of Action for a Poverty-Free Ontario. On the poster, alongside an image of shouting students shaking their fists, is a wish list of reforms or initiatives the CFS would like to see undertaken by our government. Every item on the list, however, has at some point been adopted by some government across the world and been shown to be useless or, worse, counterproductive in reducing and ultimately eliminating poverty. For the purposes of this letter, I’d like to address the most prominent (and probably most popular) of these items: “reduced tuition fees.”
Thanks to the availability of student loans and bursaries, not to mention the amplitude of scholarships and grants, not a single prospective student in Ontario is too poor to attend college or university. Financial barriers to entry being negligible, significantly reduced tuition fees may very well do little more than expand on the all-too-prevalent notion of university as a four-year break from reality. After all, “what we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.” In France, where a post-secondary education is “free” (that is, completely publicly funded), first-year dropout rates are among the highest in the world. Also, not a single French university ranks anywhere near the best internationally.
The fact is that an investment (especially through credit) in education at current tuition levels still provides an excellent return. Consider that the average salary for someone with a university degree is $58,767 per year—50 per cent greater than that of the average high-school graduate and 69 per cent greater than that of a high-school dropout. There is simply no reason why Canadians should shoulder an increased tax burden to fund the sweetening of an already great deal. If anything, the CFS might do better to petition philanthropists for additional performance-based scholarships rather than add to students’ inflated sense of entitlement.
An organization truly concerned with the elimination of poverty might have listed on their poster efforts congruent with the true poverty killer: economic growth. A rising tide does lift all boats. My list would include “free trade,” “supply-side tax cuts,” “stable monetary policy,” and other proven economic stimulants, but I guess that doesn’t sound as good yelled through a megaphone.
Last week, my brother and I submitted this letter to the editor on the same subject:
YOU MIGHT HAVE seen them. All around campus and the surrounding area, blue and red posters have been taped to lampposts and mailboxes advertising the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Day of Action for a Poverty-Free Ontario. On the poster, alongside an image of shouting students shaking their fists, is a wish list of reforms or initiatives the CFS would like to see undertaken by our government. Every item on the list, however, has at some point been adopted by some government across the world and been shown to be useless or, worse, counterproductive in reducing and ultimately eliminating poverty. For the purposes of this letter, I’d like to address the most prominent (and probably most popular) of these items: “reduced tuition fees.”
Thanks to the availability of student loans and bursaries, not to mention the amplitude of scholarships and grants, not a single prospective student in Ontario is too poor to attend college or university. Financial barriers to entry being negligible, significantly reduced tuition fees may very well do little more than expand on the all-too-prevalent notion of university as a four-year break from reality. After all, “what we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly.” In France, where a post-secondary education is “free” (that is, completely publicly funded), first-year dropout rates are among the highest in the world. Also, not a single French university ranks anywhere near the best internationally.
The fact is that an investment (especially through credit) in education at current tuition levels still provides an excellent return. Consider that the average salary for someone with a university degree is $58,767 per year—50 per cent greater than that of the average high-school graduate and 69 per cent greater than that of a high-school dropout. There is simply no reason why Canadians should shoulder an increased tax burden to fund the sweetening of an already great deal. If anything, the CFS might do better to petition philanthropists for additional performance-based scholarships rather than add to students’ inflated sense of entitlement.
An organization truly concerned with the elimination of poverty might have listed on their poster efforts congruent with the true poverty killer: economic growth. A rising tide does lift all boats. My list would include “free trade,” “supply-side tax cuts,” “stable monetary policy,” and other proven economic stimulants, but I guess that doesn’t sound as good yelled through a megaphone.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Travis Barker "Forever" Remix
I remember seeing Drake on Yonge Street, Caribana friday, three years ago, and telling people: "that guy's got next, trust me." Now he's got Travis Barker remixing his song featuring Kanye, Lil' Wayne and Eminem. Crazy.
Toronto's very own!
Remember
Remember that freedom was never free.
Remember the sacrifice.
Remember that we sleep peacefully in our beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf.
Remember the service.
Remember, lest we forget.
Design by be. of The Legend's League.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
J.Cole
I came across this today, check it out:
"They tryna do it how these other n*ggas did it; I'm tryna live it how no other n*gga ever lived it"
And, yes, I know it's old. And I know everyone's already on to J.Cole. Still.
Yours,
Johnny-come-lately
"They tryna do it how these other n*ggas did it; I'm tryna live it how no other n*gga ever lived it"
And, yes, I know it's old. And I know everyone's already on to J.Cole. Still.
Yours,
Johnny-come-lately
Problem
The problem: Lackluster productivity.
"Canada's lacklustre productivity -- masked in recent years by the commodity boom and then largely ignored through the financial crisis -- threatens to slow income growth and dampen living standards over the next decade, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank warned in a report Tuesday." (Financial Post)
Read this.
"And so what?" Well, I'll tell you what (but first, read this again, 'cause you obviously just skimmed through it) . Productivity (output per hour of work) is intimately linked to standard of living. As the former rises, so does the latter.
Consider that, in the past 50 years, real compensation per hour has tripled in the US and that this increase is due almost solely to an increase in labour productivity, as demonstrated in this chart (h/t economist John Taylor's blog):
In short, a nation's productivity is immensely important, especially when facing a rapidly aging, and therefore declining, labour force, and, as such, lackluster productivity is troubling -- definitely a problem.
Coming up: The solution. Stay tuned.
Oh, and I prefer the American spelling of "lackluster". Just thought I'd throw that out there. K, later.
"Canada's lacklustre productivity -- masked in recent years by the commodity boom and then largely ignored through the financial crisis -- threatens to slow income growth and dampen living standards over the next decade, economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank warned in a report Tuesday." (Financial Post)
Read this.
"And so what?" Well, I'll tell you what (but first, read this again, 'cause you obviously just skimmed through it) . Productivity (output per hour of work) is intimately linked to standard of living. As the former rises, so does the latter.
Consider that, in the past 50 years, real compensation per hour has tripled in the US and that this increase is due almost solely to an increase in labour productivity, as demonstrated in this chart (h/t economist John Taylor's blog):
In short, a nation's productivity is immensely important, especially when facing a rapidly aging, and therefore declining, labour force, and, as such, lackluster productivity is troubling -- definitely a problem.
Coming up: The solution. Stay tuned.
Oh, and I prefer the American spelling of "lackluster". Just thought I'd throw that out there. K, later.
New Blog
So, I begin again. Blogging, that is. Peer-pressured into it by my roommate Hong (Kong) and his sidekick Carver (you can call him Carv, or is it Carve?), who both signed up for a blog themselves this past week, I present to you: "Chris Spoke", the blog (better name pending Carv's input).
Update: New name -- "Outspoken".
This here will provide outlet to my ranting, and pause to my studying. Stay tuned.
Update: New name -- "Outspoken".
This here will provide outlet to my ranting, and pause to my studying. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)