DANISH TOURISTS BLAME CANADA!

So a couple of traveling-companion, Euro tourists from Denmark, Holly Chabowski, 30, and Nanna Sorensen, 23, visited Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. During their experience, Ms. Chabowski fired off a letter of complaint, sending copies of said letter to party-hardy Toronto mayor Rob Ford, Jim Watson, mayor of Ottawa, federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt and to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, a newspaper published in the capital.

Of her trip with Ms. Sorensen, Ms. Chabowski wrote, “We just had this impression of Canada being quite different, a bit more European.” According to Ottawa Citizen Marie-Danielle Smith, Ms. Chabowski and Ms. Sorensen slummed it by bumming places to sleep in the houses of strangers, which many rhetorical call "couch-surfing."



Chabowski and Sorensen lamented over “great oceans of car parks,” the "sea of Tim Hortons," and "12 lane high ways, rammed packed with huge SUVs, with people going no where." Chabowski and Sorensen screamed horror over Halifaxians driving their SUVs alone.

And in her disappointment with Canadians, in typical meddling-minded European fashion, Ms. Chabowski wrote, “I write this letter to appeal to you to take radical steps to transform Canada into the healthy, happy and sustainable country we were expecting.”

Rød grød med fløde to those Danish cranks!

Alas, Chabowski and Sorensen suffer from the European disease, meddling European bureaucrat central planning syndrome. According to Ms. Smith, Chabowsk said that urban planning could convert Canadians into Europeans. Chabowski and Sorensen failed to see how meddlesome government planners are the ones who approved zoning, designing the Canada, which Canadians have today.

Suffering years of hyper-indoctrination beginning in childhood, Euros expect everyone on earth to live their diminished lifestyles. And of course, being European, they call for radical action imposed by the heavy hand of dictatorial government.

Noticeably absent from Chabowski and Sorensen were any calls for the removal of politician-fueled subsidies and letting an organic, free-market driven transportation design arise. Ironically, Chabowski acknowledges that European cities arose organically during medieval times of pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages.

It seems Chabowski and Sorensen hope for Canadians to have the same graffiti-sprayed trains as they have in Copenhaven.




Canada is huge. If Chabowski and Sorensen wanted a dinky footprint, why didn't they restrict themselves to Victoria or Vancouver. Better yet, why didn't Chabowski and Sorensen stay in Europe and visit Lichtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, Andorra or Luxembourg?

It amuses always at how profoundly ignorant Lilliputian Europeans are about the size of Canada as well as the United States, especially west of the Mississippi.

According to Google Maps, someone could pedal the 400 km from Krusa, Denmark on the border with Deutschers of nearby Flensburg, Germany, to Skagen, Denmark, in the farthest north of Jutland in 21 hours. As well, someone could pedal from Blåvand, Denmark in the far west, through the islands of Funen, Langeland, Lolland, Falster and Zealand, coming to Copenhaven in 22 hours and 36 minutes.

To make the ride straight through, that someone likely would need to be a world-class Tour De France caliber cyclist. Oh, and that someone would need to ride a ferry as well as pedal through the town of Middlefart.

If a Canadian yearned to pedal from Toronto, which sits on the southern border with Americans who share Lake Erie to Alert, Nunavut, Canada, which sits 4,366.6 km (2713.25 miles) away on the northeastern tip of Ellesmere Island, a mere 817 km (508 mi) from the North Pole, well that one couldn't do it. There aren't any roads that go that far north into Canada as well as traverse the many islands between Canadian mainland and Ellesmere.

However, assuming someone could, based on the Google Maps pedal rate of 19.05 km an hour, it would take someone 228 hours or 9.5 days! Of course, that assumes, the cyclist would enjoy friction-free, clear-skies weather.

Now, someone could pedal across Canada. According to Google Maps, someone could pedal 6,026 km from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Victoria, British Columbia, in 313 hours. Oh and that would would need a ferry ride out to Victoria as well.

So someone could pedal across Denmark in under a day. However, someone would need a bit more than 13 days, of 24-hour a day pedalling to power oneself across Canada.

Here is the letter from Ms. Chabowski:

My girlfriend and I (Danish) were tourists in your country for 5 weeks this summer. We had the most incredible adventure and met the most wonderful Canadians, who welcomed us warmly into their homes.

Apart from these people, who sincerely do your nation credit, our overwhelming memory of Canada is one of cars, traffic, parking and the related obesity and unfulfilled communities. It is an impression that we have since shared with other tourists who have visited Canada.

Before arriving in Canada we had a genuine impression of a clean, healthy and sustainable first world country. Upon arrival in Toronto we were horrified to see great oceans of car parks deserting the landscape and 12 lane high ways, rammed packed with huge SUVs, with people going no where. A greater shock came when we discovered that this kind of infrastructure is not reserved just for the sprawl surrounding towns and cities but that highways actually run through city centres too. As humans trying to enjoy Canada’s major cities (Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa and Halifax) we were treated like second class citizens compared to cars. The air was dirty, and the constant noise from horns and engines was unpleasant.

An observation that was especially noticeable in Halifax was the sheer amount of land in the city centre given to parking. Ginormous swaths of prime locations for living (parks, shops, cafés, market squares, theatres, playing fields etc – human activities which are key to quality of life) concreted over as homes for an ever increasing number of SUVs (most trucks and SUVs we saw contained only one person. The most SUVs we saw in a row were full of singular people driving through Tim Hortens). We asked the Canadians that we met how they felt living in such a car culture, here are a few of their responses:

‘Trying to solve traffic problems by building more roads is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger trousers.’ Ottawa

‘It’s only 10km to my work place. I would love to cycle, it would only take 30 minutes but it is simply not possible. I don’t feel safe. Instead I park and sweat, meaning after 25 minutes stuck in traffic I drive my car to the gym and waste another 25 minutes of time I could spend with my family.’ Quebec City

‘I hate cars in the city so much that I actually find myself slowing down as I cross the road, in a tiny effort to exert my authority as a human being over all that metal.’ Toronto

‘It seems to me that birds fly, fish swim and humans walk. Except in North America where you are expected to drive-everywhere. You wouldn’t put a fish in a submarine!’ Montreal

‘I am obese. My children are overweight and most of the people who live around here. I am surrounded by fast food chains, car parks and highways. I would love to ditch the car. My neighbourhood doesn’t even have sidewalks.’ Levis

As we explored more of the country we tried to console ourselves that at least a few cities were making an effort to make life liveable for humans – small local businesses, cycle infrastructure and pedestrianised streets. However, it felt like a token gesture rather than a genuine effort to make Canada a healthy, happy and sustainable country. Pedestrians were squeezed onto narrow pavements and forced to stop every 100m to cross the road, bike lanes were little more than paint on the ground for the cyclists to help protect the parked cars lining every street. We heard that the mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, is actually tearing up bicycle lanes to make way for more cars!

Walking and cycling are human activities that bring great life, health and economy to communities. Streets that prioritise cars over humans are bad for business, bad for health (mental, social and physical), unsafe and break down communities.

I write this letter to appeal to you to take radical steps to transform Canada into the healthy, happy and sustainable country we were expecting. You are a nation of the most fantastic people, we know because we met them everywhere! As citizens they deserve much, much better.

Come on Canada! When tourists visit Canada make sure they remember it for for its parks rather than parking.

Sincerely yours,
Holly Chabowski

Read more ...

THE PROPERTY-DESTROYING VIOLENCE OF NET METERING

Today, in Forbes, Tim Worstall typed a piece advocating an end to net metering.

Worstall supports the silly, faux argument that solar consumers "don’t pay to maintain the power grid." Worse, Worstall dresses that silly argument in the fallacy of appeal to emotion by claiming "they’re not paying their fair share of ... fixed costs."

Net metering ought to end, but not for the lame argument that Worstall makes. Net metering ought to end because such arrangement abrogates property of electricity firms and their freedom to contract.

Suppliers of oil, coal and of natural gas to electricity generators don't pay to maintain the power grid. Yet, no one argues that electricity firms ought to have the right and thus oil, coal and natural firms should have the duty to pay for the costs electricity firms incur to transmit electricity from plants to cities.

Instead, electricity firms buy oil, coal and natural gas to fuel their plants. Firm execs decide what fuel sources to buy depending upon market prices and what fuels their plants can burn.

Because of net metering, residential and commercial customers who generate excess electricity from solar installs supply already-generated electricity to electricity firms whose executives are required by law to buy.

Worstall's silly claim that those with solar only contribute to overhead when sucking power off the grid is akin to saying that if you only shop in Kroger's, Safeway or Publix once a month, you are contributing to the overhead of their physical stores, but you don't buy enough for those firms to profit upon you, thus you should be banned from shopping at all at those stores.

In trade, all firms get held to the great Axiom of Profit and the infrangible Law of Prices. The Axiom of Profit holds the sum of sales must at least equal the cost of production otherwise firms go to ruin. The Law of Prices holds the winning bids of purchase and sale for what is on offer set the price.

The sum of sales for electricity sellers comes from rate payers and not from suppliers of fuel used to generate electricity. It is from the sales of electricity to rate payers that electricity-selling firms pay their expenses. If they have planned their businesses right, they might break even.

A better argument to end net metering would be thus:

1. Executives of electricity firms cannot know how much solar install exists at any time, nor can these executive know how much sun shall shine over a futures contract period for oil or natural gas, nor how efficient the production of electricity from solar shall be during this period. 
2. Times of solar abundance pushes higher the true price electricity firms have paid already for oil, coal and natural gas, thus increasing costs and reducing the likelihood of break even.
3. Thus, executives cannot forecast and mitigate risks to insure break even. 
4. Therefore, executives should not be forced to deal with commercial and residential customers who wish to sell their excess electricity to their local utility.

Wal-Mart execs aren't forced by law to buy products from any wholesaler nor any manufacturer. No franchise in the NFL is forced to draft any player nor contract with any player. Forcing any electric utility to do the same violates their freedom of contract, freedom of association and their property in capital and property in wealth.

Worstall makes his silly argument based on the faux science of economics. In WHY IS THE ECONOMY SO HORRIBLE? BECAUSE ACADEMIA ECONOMICS IS FAKE, I show how trade of property for profit is the only basis upon which anyone can discuss trade or commerce or authentic economics.

Americans need to come to understand that there isn't "The Grid." "The Grid" is pure fiction that politicians spin on behalf of electric utilities hoping to get Americans to subsidize the capital of these firms, thus increasing their unearned profit.

There are firms, which sell electricity to residential and commercial customers. There are firms, which own and operate high voltage transmission lines connected by towers. There are firms that own electrical generation power plants, which buy the services of transmission-line operators in the same way that manufacturers hire long-haul truckers to haul goods to wholesalers and wholesalers hiring the same to haul goods to retailers. In the past, firms did all three — generate, transmit and sell.

Americans do not own "the Grid" in the same way that Americans do not own the U.S. Interstate highway system. Congress owns the U.S. Interstate highways.

Congress imposes the duty on you to pay taxes for the Interstates. Congress gives itself the right to collect taxes from you. Congress gives you the right to travel the Interstates. Congress imposes the duty upon itself to let you travel the Interstates.

Firms run transmission lines from more than one power plant, which are the sources, to the same city, which is the sink. This is done to ensure that electricity stays running in case of failure at any power plant.

If you don't know what net metering is, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a federal law, requires all public electric utilities to facilitate net metering to their customers upon request.  Net metering requires electricity firms to accept electricity generated by commercial and residential customers through renewable methods, such as solar panels, and then reduce bills of these customers by the amount of electricity they have generated.

If you don't know what property means, property means ownership, a bundle of rights — right for possession (Jus Possidendi), right for using (Jus Utendi), right for destroying, alienating (Jus Abutendi), right for recovery when found in the wrongful possession of another (Jus Vindicandi).

Property means the right of ownership and never the thing owned.

Read more ...