The Laurel Comment
“Science is simply common sense at its best, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic”.
-Thomas Henry Huxley
Commentary
Now that the Quebec election is behind us and Canada’s second minority government has been installed, it is past time for the Laurel Comment to add its analysis to the growing list of more or less expert commentary.
Although we were fortunate enough to get the election call right in last month’s column we remain reticent in our embrace of the “new wave” politics that is being envisioned in some circles. In essence, the relegation of the PQ to third party status does not reflect the diminishment of Quebec nationalism nor does the situation enhance the movement. If anything, the way we are, is the way we were as the divide between urban and rural Quebec so evident in the Union Nationale and Creditiste eras has once more asserted itself. The aberration, if it may be construed as such, occurred during the past 30 years when the civil service, including educators and the communications industry connected unionism with national political goals and the xenophobia of unilingual regions outside the major city centers. This quasi left-right cohabitation led to several PQ victories and multiple factions and fractions within this unnatural alliance.
Mario Dumont has enjoyed an enormous amount of good luck over the past year, beginning with the incredibly absurd ascension of André Boisclair to the leadership of the PQ. This streak continued with the Hérouxville affair and the growing disconnect between the educated elites and the conservative values still widely held in much of rural Quebec. Jean Charest was not light with his political contribution either as his seeming “walk in the park” campaign found little resonance even among his own supporters.
So who shoots now? Certainly not the PQ who are in much need of a remake and time to ponder. Surely not the Liberals, who will require constant medical attention for their near fatal collapse; and doubtfully the ADQ who may spend some time basking in the glow of victory while figuring out how they might install a grocery bag stuffer in their new cabinet should the present government fail.
Quebec, similar to the minority situation in Ottawa, will need time to muddle through the first 18 months of its new circumstance. This will allow time for many in both rural and urban environs to figure out whether the new leader of the opposition is likely to become Mario Bourassa or a Mario Duplessis.
Markets
Some crises come and go, others linger for years or decades on end. Among the fleeting variety we would include the present (as we write) hostage taking in Iran. Among the latter more permanent troubles, we would mention the Iraq war and the devastating legacy of the Bush administration in its entirety.
As a point of reference, during the final year of the Clinton Administration, oil prices averaged about 20 dollars a barrel, the budget was in surplus and the troubles in the Balkans, rather than igniting World War III, were quieting down. Flash forward 6 years to the world today and ask what might have been.
It is true that markets have done well world wide with commodity based countries such as our own having been particularly fortunate. Yet the main beneficiaries of Bush policies have been oil producers and the relatively tax free wealthy one percent. No, Bush tax cuts did not create China demand and yes central bank monetary policy has impacted both the liquidity upon which the market has depended and the shaky floor upon which it stands. There is a serious coming to Jesus meeting awaiting investors as the cheque and debt kiting that have been driving this international game comes full circle. It is not the “if”, it is the “when” that remains unknown.
Fact: The average inflation adjusted price for a barrel of oil from 1869 to present is approximately $21 per barrel; one third of today’s. Do the math.
Remarkably
Two events occurred at the end of March which may prove to be of longer term importance. The aggressive statement by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the closure of the Arab Summit has watershed overtones. Remember that it was the 1979 Iranian Revolution that brought about the rise of Saudi Arabia as America’s chief client state in the Middle East. Always close to the Bush family and its minions the House of Saud now appears to be feeling its way down a different path, one by which Middle Eastern problems may someday be resolved by those who live there, rather than those who dream of empire.
The other shoe to drop was the opening gambit in a potential trade war with China. Hard to see who would win this one…or is it?
In the final analysis America will someday leave Iraq with or without a victory whatever that may be. In the interim many more will die and much treasure will be wasted. Face saving at whose expense and upon whose conscience?
Back in Canada we are about to be infested with a second series of Conservative attack ads. This is a shameful and disturbing exercise for a country that is uniquely if not uniformly polite and mature.
The other ad campaign that concerns me is the ethanol promotion. This is not the first time we have discussed this phony solution here so please do some internet research before you fall prey to this corn and oil lobby conspiracy. Being concerned about the environment is a good thing, doing the right thing about it is quite something else. This story is so full of holes you could drive an oil billionaire through it.
Google “12 lies about ethanol” for starters.
And who is George Bush waving at anyway?
Geoff Ryan
April 3, 2007
Geoffreyryan@hotmail.com
“Science is simply common sense at its best, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic”.
-Thomas Henry Huxley
Commentary
Now that the Quebec election is behind us and Canada’s second minority government has been installed, it is past time for the Laurel Comment to add its analysis to the growing list of more or less expert commentary.
Although we were fortunate enough to get the election call right in last month’s column we remain reticent in our embrace of the “new wave” politics that is being envisioned in some circles. In essence, the relegation of the PQ to third party status does not reflect the diminishment of Quebec nationalism nor does the situation enhance the movement. If anything, the way we are, is the way we were as the divide between urban and rural Quebec so evident in the Union Nationale and Creditiste eras has once more asserted itself. The aberration, if it may be construed as such, occurred during the past 30 years when the civil service, including educators and the communications industry connected unionism with national political goals and the xenophobia of unilingual regions outside the major city centers. This quasi left-right cohabitation led to several PQ victories and multiple factions and fractions within this unnatural alliance.
Mario Dumont has enjoyed an enormous amount of good luck over the past year, beginning with the incredibly absurd ascension of André Boisclair to the leadership of the PQ. This streak continued with the Hérouxville affair and the growing disconnect between the educated elites and the conservative values still widely held in much of rural Quebec. Jean Charest was not light with his political contribution either as his seeming “walk in the park” campaign found little resonance even among his own supporters.
So who shoots now? Certainly not the PQ who are in much need of a remake and time to ponder. Surely not the Liberals, who will require constant medical attention for their near fatal collapse; and doubtfully the ADQ who may spend some time basking in the glow of victory while figuring out how they might install a grocery bag stuffer in their new cabinet should the present government fail.
Quebec, similar to the minority situation in Ottawa, will need time to muddle through the first 18 months of its new circumstance. This will allow time for many in both rural and urban environs to figure out whether the new leader of the opposition is likely to become Mario Bourassa or a Mario Duplessis.
Markets
Some crises come and go, others linger for years or decades on end. Among the fleeting variety we would include the present (as we write) hostage taking in Iran. Among the latter more permanent troubles, we would mention the Iraq war and the devastating legacy of the Bush administration in its entirety.
As a point of reference, during the final year of the Clinton Administration, oil prices averaged about 20 dollars a barrel, the budget was in surplus and the troubles in the Balkans, rather than igniting World War III, were quieting down. Flash forward 6 years to the world today and ask what might have been.
It is true that markets have done well world wide with commodity based countries such as our own having been particularly fortunate. Yet the main beneficiaries of Bush policies have been oil producers and the relatively tax free wealthy one percent. No, Bush tax cuts did not create China demand and yes central bank monetary policy has impacted both the liquidity upon which the market has depended and the shaky floor upon which it stands. There is a serious coming to Jesus meeting awaiting investors as the cheque and debt kiting that have been driving this international game comes full circle. It is not the “if”, it is the “when” that remains unknown.
Fact: The average inflation adjusted price for a barrel of oil from 1869 to present is approximately $21 per barrel; one third of today’s. Do the math.
Remarkably
Two events occurred at the end of March which may prove to be of longer term importance. The aggressive statement by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the closure of the Arab Summit has watershed overtones. Remember that it was the 1979 Iranian Revolution that brought about the rise of Saudi Arabia as America’s chief client state in the Middle East. Always close to the Bush family and its minions the House of Saud now appears to be feeling its way down a different path, one by which Middle Eastern problems may someday be resolved by those who live there, rather than those who dream of empire.
The other shoe to drop was the opening gambit in a potential trade war with China. Hard to see who would win this one…or is it?
In the final analysis America will someday leave Iraq with or without a victory whatever that may be. In the interim many more will die and much treasure will be wasted. Face saving at whose expense and upon whose conscience?
Back in Canada we are about to be infested with a second series of Conservative attack ads. This is a shameful and disturbing exercise for a country that is uniquely if not uniformly polite and mature.
The other ad campaign that concerns me is the ethanol promotion. This is not the first time we have discussed this phony solution here so please do some internet research before you fall prey to this corn and oil lobby conspiracy. Being concerned about the environment is a good thing, doing the right thing about it is quite something else. This story is so full of holes you could drive an oil billionaire through it.
Google “12 lies about ethanol” for starters.
And who is George Bush waving at anyway?
Geoff Ryan
April 3, 2007
Geoffreyryan@hotmail.com
