Saturday Learning Series - Geography (Canada)

Recently I found a cool series of geography videos by Geography Now.  Since geography is one of my favorite academic topics (along with history, politics, and science), I thought I'd share some of these videos. starting with my native country, Canada.   Enjoy.

Friday Musical Interlude - Tigercats

From 2012, Tigercats with their song entitled Stevie Nicks.

Steven Crowder's 2nd Amendment Rebuttal of a Young Turk

This stands on it's own, so I thought I'd share it.

Thursday Hillary Bash - She can't win

This weekend, the Washington Times had a story on Democrats being worried that she might not be able to beat Donald Trump.

Really.

“We’re going to start to have to look at how the [Democratic] candidates play against Donald Trump, because he’s certainly holding onto his lead in the Republican Party, and he has certainly played the Republican candidates in a way that has hurt some of his opposition, and I think people are going to start asking, ‘All right, who’s going to stand up under his type of campaigning?’” Mr. Allen said. “If Bernie [Sanders] is the candidate, Trump will play up how un-American socialism is, and if Hillary gets it, he will dig up everything in the past 40 years and use it — and won’t mince words in using it.”

This was just one set of concerns, that included leveraging Bill as a target, and also Hillary's own inability to generate real enthusiasm.

It's reasonable to think that Hillary's lead will hold up and that she can make it to the nomination relatively unscathed. But really, that means she'd make it un-tested in adversity. Remember what happened in 2008 when she faced a real obstacle in Obama? This.

Or during Benghazi, this.

Or is she just cynically doing it on queue? That would be even worse than not being able to handle the heat of a real debate with Trump, or in negotiations with Putin.

Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that the issue arises because she's a women. Heck, John Boehner often wept like a three year old. What I'm merely pointing out, is that she's not ready for prime time, and she shows it.  Those Democrats referenced in the Washington Times story have a real reason to be worried about her nomination.

An example-based reason the U.S. must unfetter it's economy

Oil prices continue to falter. In Canada it has contributed to the changes from a Net Exporter to a Net Importer and a trade deficit, despite favorable trade for those seeking Canadian goods. Unfortunately, too large a percentage of those goods, appear to be oil.

It points out a national need to compete in other areas such as manufacturing, or service based industries. Sadly, Canada has not seen the productivity gains over the last decade required to compete in those areas. That means that Canada's economy will continue to be soft until the productivity situation is rectified or oil prices rebound.

The lesson is that over-reliance on one particular industry or commodity is dangerous. Basic economics would indicate that nations should specialize in whatever area(s) they excel and rely on trade with other nations for other items. This specialization provides the most benefit to the most people. But diversification, as in a stock portfolio is prudent to stave off shocks. What if your nation was the best in the world at manufacturing buggy whips? Those became obsolete a long time ago. If you did not have other industries to rely on, your economy might be in terrible shape. The point is, specialization is important but it should not be in any single industry.

For example, OPEC countries will eventually feel the shock when oil becomes a less valuable commodity. The United States has benefitted from it's heyday in the mid 20th century as the world's manufacturer in that it had a very diverse manufacturing base. While the percentage of the world's manufacturing has declined, the basis for it is still there - the challenge is entirely on the cost of manufacturing side (a productivity/labor issue). The United States is also blessed with resources, some of which they appear loathe to use or produce (e.g. coal, shale oil). Nevertheless they are blessed with geography, population, resources and infrastructure to remain a diverse economic producer.

What they face instead are self-imposed constraints on what they will produce, and how they will produce it. Energy is not encouraged to come from the most efficient methods (oil, coal, nuclear power). Production is often hampered by higher labor costs than in other nations and results in a constant disequilibrium of net imports, and the offshoring of jobs and the net loss of domestic spending power and ultimately demand. There is also a perception that a service based economy, a post-industrial economy is not only inevitable but also sustainable. But at a micro-economic level people will always require food, shelter, heat, clothing, and transportation. Those all involve manufacturing or construction. Medical services and financial services would be the biggest service based industries. Those do not translate internationally for trade as easily as the manufacturing-based industries. It's not impossible for a bank to go international. It's not impossible for drug companies and other medical innovations (e.g. artificial hearts) to be made available for export.

There is no magic formula on what is the right mix of economic activity. But the simple notion that an economy should be diverse (i.e. specialize in more than one single area) just seems like common sense.

North Korean Nuclear Test

North Korea has apparently conducted an underground nuclear test earlier today. The incident registered as a 5.1 magnitude earthquake. North Korea claims the test was of a Hydrogen Bomb, as opposed to a lower yield Atomic Bomb. South Korean spies claim it was of the latter type.

Regardless, the test drew international condemnation, including from that of their benefactor/protector, China. The U.S. joined in the condemnation.

I would expect no further action from the United States. The president is focused far too keenly on his next domestic agenda item, gun control. He also has a history of excessive softness on foreign policy; with Russia, with China, with Syria, multiple instances with Iran, with Venezuela and previously with North Korea. He's soft and the international perception is that he is ineffectual in projecting American influence.

In other words, he's not going to do anything, and the world is currently an unpoliced Wild West where you can do anything you want without consequences. For example, you can conduct a test of an underground nuclear detonation and get not even a slap on the wrist but rather the geopolitical equivalent of rolling eyes.