Carmen Sandiego

Ever wonder why people come to different conclusions after reading the same book? Or why we draw different impressions from the same movies, people, and life experiences? Maybe it’s because we’re all playing Carmen Sandiego.

Carmen Sandiego was a popular computer game back in the 1990s. It involved solving multiple mysteries along the way to finding a final destination. Solving each mystery yielded a golden key, which helped with the end pursuit. Perhaps, this is comparable to everyday life. And if so, it explains why so many of us have varying opinions.

For example, I read the book, The Road Less Traveled, and it taught me three things:

  • Life is difficult
  • The concept of delayed gratification
  • Competence is love

The Buddhist tenet that life is suffering has been reported in many places but this was my first time seeing it. For me, it was a key. Same goes for delayed gratification. I was a procrastinator famous for bringing home piles of work on Fridays only to cart it back on Mondays, totally undone. But when slapped with the principle of “do your work first, then have a good time,” I had an epiphany the likes of seeing my first stripper. Instantly, I stopped lying to myself and got down to the business of getting my work done. For me, this was a big deal (and I taught it to my kids).

Lastly, when discussing love, M. Scott Peck says that by doing a good job you’re in fact loving. This affected me deeply and later led to my own concept of give love. So for me, this book held three keys (and I’m forever grateful) but my luck doesn’t mean you’ll experience the same. If you go online, you’ll see a number of reviews that are negative. So is this book special or not? For me it was. For you, I don’t know.

Oprah called them “aha!” moments and they come in many forms. It might be words you read, a scene from a film, or something you were taught, overheard, or witnessed out in nature. And not everyone is looking for the same stuff, which is why we don’t all cherish the same things. In the end, life is a mystery. One where we never know why. But maybe while you’re here, it’s good to pick up a few keys.

Bonds

Bonds are loans to governments or corporations that can be traded on a market. A bond always comes with a maturity date (when the principal will be paid back), plus an interest rate and payment schedule (whether annual, semi-annual, quarterly, or monthly).

For example, let’s say the TD Bank needs money and issues a 10 year bond at 4%, paid annually. Chuck buys $10K of the original issue. On his statement it says 10,000 units at $1 / unit.

After a year, Chuck needs the cash. He goes to the market and sells the bond. The new owner gets the bond with only 9 years left to maturity, and may be willing to pay the $1 / unit or a price that’s higher or lower. The reason a buyer would pay par, something higher, or something lower depends on two factors:

  • The likelihood of TD paying the principal and interest payments (bond quality)
  • The bond’s annualized return compared to other competitive investments

If within that year, the bank’s future was affected positively or negatively, the quality of the bond will change and this gets reflected in the unit price. The value is also affected by other investments. If the new buyer can purchase a no risk, government backed GIC that pays 5%, why would he or she pay full price for Chuck’s 4% bond that carries, at least, some risk?

Yield

Calculating a bond’s yield involves using the interest rate on the original bond divided by what the new owner pays, plus the difference in capital between what the new owner pays and the amount of money that gets returned upon maturity.

For example, let’s say the new buyer is willing to pay $1.05 / unit, or $10,500 for Chuck’s bond. The two components of the equation are:

Annual interest component: $400 / $10,500 = 3.8%

Annualized capital appreciation (depreciation): $10,000 – $10,500 = ($500)

-$500 / 9 years = -$55 / year

-$55 / $10,500 = -.5% / year

3.8% – .5% = 3.3% annualized return

The new owner gets $400 / year on his or her $10,500 investment (3.8%), but loses $500 when the bond matures. So together, the annualized yield is 3.3%. In a second example, The TD bank could get in trouble (like Blackberry) and the new buyer is only willing to pay $.70 / unit. Then the numbers would look like this:

Annual interest component: $400 / $7,000 = 5.7%

Annualized capital appreciation (depreciation): $10,000 – $7,000 = $3,000

$3,000 / 9 years = $333 / year

$333 / $10,500 = 3.1%

5.7% + 3.1% = 8.8% annualized return

That’s the way bonds work. Interest rate, payment frequency, and maturity date are all established upon the original issue. Then they can be traded many times before the maturity date is reached.

Ratings

Bonds are loans to governments or corporations, paid and guaranteed only by them (so you can actually lose your money). As a result, bonds are rated for quality (the ability of the debtor to repay interest and principal). High quality bonds are rated between A- and AAA+. Bonds rated below BBB (down to DDD-) are considered junk. The higher the risk, the greater the interest should be.

Note: you always need the rating in order to interpret the return.

Volatility and fees

Bonds fluctuate in inverse relation to interest rates. So if interest rates go up, bond values typically go down. Why? Because if GICs are paying 6%, who wants your 5% bond? Likewise, if GIC rates fall to 3%, everyone is now willing to pay a premium for your 5% bond. But this change in value is mitigated if you hold your bond to maturity.

And owning a bond is like owning real estate, the commission is bore by the seller. So the minute you buy one, it’s instantly worth 1-2% less (and this will be reflected on your statement). But if you hold your bond to maturity, no sales commission will be paid. 

Summary

Bonds are a great addition to any investment family—you just have to understand them. Start with high-quality, short term bonds that can easily be held to maturity. This way you’ll avoid much of the inherent risk and always get what you bargained for.

China

With respect to the intricacies of history, China was governed by a bunch of dynasties until 1912. The Qing dynasty, its last, fell during a revolution of the Nationalist Party led by Sun Yat-sen. The country then became the Republic of China (also called the ROC). Sun’s vision was for China to have an open government and one day, democracy. This vision was greatly respected by the citizenry and Sun is widely regarded as the father of modern China.

In 1921, China’s Communist Party was formed around the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism. A founding member was Mao Zedong. Sun Yat-sen died in 1925 and Chiang Kai-Shek became the new Nationalist leader. His government didn’t care much for commies and suppressed them whenever they could. But Chiang’s group was also known for widespread corruption and increasing the divide between rich and poor, which only fueled the growth of communism.

This Communist-Nationalist thing was bigger than just two party rivals. People identified strongly with one side or the other, and Nationalist suppression often led to killing or imprisonment. But the two groups fought together for China during WWII.

After the war, Mao’s communists revolted against the Nationalists in a civil war (1949). Communists won and Nationalists retreated to the island-province of Taiwan. There they continued to lay claim to all of China. So there were two groups alleging to be in charge—the old Nationalist ROC and Chairman Mao’s People’s Republic of China.

UN

The United Nations was founded in 1945. At the time, China was the Republic of China (the Nationalist version). After the communist revolution, the UN continued to recognize only the ROC (not the commies) and things stayed this way for more than twenty years.

During this period, there were few contacts, limited trade, and no diplomatic ties between China and countries like the US. Things changed in the early 1970s, when President Nixon made his historic trip to reinitiate relations and brought back two panda bears. Eventually, the UN and the US would officially recognize the People’s Republic of China and severe relations with Taiwan.

Taiwan

If you look at a map, Taiwan is between the coasts of China and Japan. It hosts the world’s 22nd largest economy and is currently not a member of the UN. It too has a convoluted past. Mainly inhabited by Taiwanese aborigines before the 17th century, the island was annexed by the Qing dynasty in 1683 and then ceded to Japan in 1895 (after the Sino-Japanese War). Following the Japanese surrender in 1945, China took back control of Taiwan. And in 1949, when the communists overtook the mainland, the old Nationalist government moved there. (Remember?)

In the early 1960s, Taiwan entered a period of rapid economic growth and created a stable industrial economy. In the 1980s and early 1990s, it changed from a one-party dictatorship (the Nationalists) to a multi-party democracy. It’s now ranked highly in terms of freedom of the press, health care, public education, economic freedom, and human development. The country benefits from a highly skilled workforce and is among the most highly educated countries (states? places?) in the world. So they don’t really want to become communist.

Summary

In brief, here’s what happened:

  • China was run by dynasties
  • The nationalists took over in 1912
  • The communists took over in 1949, and the nationalists buggered off to Taiwan
  • For over 20 years, America and the UN ignored the communists, recognizing only the Taiwanese nationalists as the true government of China
  • Nixon went over and got some bears, and now everyone recognizes the People’s Republic of China
  • Taiwan has since become a rock ‘n roll jurisdiction just like Canada

This is what everyone’s talking about regarding the “China One Nation Policy.” China consistently claims sovereignty over Taiwan and pushes for unification over Taiwanese independence. They’ve offered special statehood, like that given to Hong Kong, but have also threaten to use military force (and since Taiwan isn’t a member of the UN, there isn’t anybody there to defend them).

As China moves towards Sun’s vision of democracy, by first implementing their version of capitalism, it’s believed things will eventually work themselves out. In the meantime, it’s probably best to do nothing.

See Brian Mulroney’s interview with Conrad Black, starting around the 28-minute mark. Specifically, the 35-minute mark.

Managing Salespeople

When it comes to doing business, it’s commonly known that not everyone can sell. What’s not common knowledge is how to manage those of us who can.

The formula most organizations use is as follows:

Market X Coverage X Salesperson Quality X Product Saleability = Revenue

Market – is the amount of money a region spends on a particular product, in a given time frame (usually a year). For example, hot tub sales in Edmonton, per year.

Coverage – is the percentage of prospects being presented with your company’s offerings before making their decision (i.e, number of deals you’re in on). This includes keeping up with potentials so you’ll receive consideration when they are in the market.

Quality – people buy from people they find competent and trustworthy. So in terms of selling, quality is measured by both a salesperson’s business and personal skills. Business skills are product knowledge, ability to demonstrate, and ability to strategize (e.g., customizing your pitch for a specific company). Personal skills include likeability, professionalism, natural sales ability, and integrity.

Saleability – how your product or service compares with the competitor’s.

So if the market is alive, and you have good coverage by quality salespeople along with a decent product, you’ll do fine. But if the sales numbers aren’t there, there’s usually a problem with some part of your equation.

Why salespeople get fired

It’s always for one of two reasons: not covering the market or poor quality.

Not covering the market can be due to laziness or being a slow worker. It can also be caused by the salesperson not being a good qualifier (i.e., spending too much time chasing poor prospects). In any event, if the market is not being properly covered, action must be taken.

Poor quality is measured by a low “win percentage.” How many deals do they win compared to the number they compete for? Remember, losing only strengthens your competitor’s confidence. So sometimes you’re better off not competing at all.

Why salespeople get laid off

It’s usually due to a decrease in market size. If management feels the potential to meet one’s quota isn’t realistic, then people must be shed. This can be due to a change in the general business climate or your company’s competitiveness.

Summary

Salespeople are a different sort of cat and every company needs them. Oftentimes they’re managed by people who haven’t a clue. If that sounds like you, now you know better.

Letter to Luke

Young Luke recently completed high school and is now attending college. He’s enrolled in a two year business program that will teach him the foundations of finance, accounting, marketing, and economics. So much so that upon graduation Luke will be qualified to work in the business world.

But as an adult, he’ll also be required to know about politics and be asked to vote. He’ll be bombarded with articles and opinions telling him how things should be, without ever being given any of the basics. So what’s he to do? Stay in school an additional two years and spend another twenty thousand dollars? Or take a crash course on the workings of the world and learn how to constantly improve his education.

If he chooses the latter, which is obviously more practical, what then does Luke actually need to know? Here’s my answer: you can’t know politics without understanding history, and you can’t know history without grasping the tactical components of religion. So let’s start with history.

History

As Canadians, we’re descendants of the Roman Empire now living within Western civilization.

Rome was founded in 753 BC. It shifted from a monarchy to a classical republic and then to an autocratic empire that included most of Europe. Rome conquered Greece in 146 BC and adopted much of Greek culture, this period is known as the Greco-Roman world.

After the life of Jesus, a new form of Judaism was created—Christianity. Between 313 and 380, Rome adopted Christianity as its state religion. Roman culture then became the amalgamation of the Greco-Roman world and Judaeo-Christianity.

In 395, Rome split into east and west, with the west containing most of Europe. Canada was colonized by Britain and France (Europeans), that’s why we’re part of Western civilization. The West’s tenets are democracy, capitalism, and a culture based on the Greco-Roman world and Judaeo-Christianity.

1215 is the year of the British Magna Carta, which signifies the start of modern day democracy. The mid-1500s is when the Protestant Reformation challenged Rome’s authority over Christianity by creating many new denominations. And the Industrial Revolution—the beginning of modern day capitalism—started in the 1700s.

See articles on Civilizations, Ancient Greece, British History, and American History. 

Politics

Knowing the difference between a liberal and a conservative is the essential quandary of politics. People spend their whole lives confused about it. Definitions can be found in the articles Left is for Liberal and Conservatives, but before jumping to conclusions please grasp the following:

  • Both ideologies are valid (and you’ll alternate between the two)
  • Party platforms rest on top of ideology, as an interpretation (so parties can be bad but ideologies are always good)

The underpinnings of politics are what the public sector does, the welfare state, government’s role within a free market society, and who votes what. Then it’s good to understand the basic structure of government and where we’ve come from (Senate Reform), plus the essence of what’s behind current world problems (Irish Nationalism, Syria and Iraq, Muslim Countries, and the North-South Divide). This should get you through our current state of propaganda.

Albert Einstein said, “I don’t know how WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.” This sentiment captures modern day international policy thinking (see Imperialism). There are over 190 countries and not all are democratic. The path forward has traditionally been fought through civil wars, but this option, too, is now no longer practical.

Religion

We’re moving towards a global civilization, where democracy and capitalism are widely held, and a multitude of religions are accepted. Yes, Christianity played a significant role in the development of the West, but it’s time to acknowledge our uncertainty about life and welcome other views.

And whether Christ came down to enhance Judaism (Judaism 2.0) or introduce beliefs separate from those of the Jews, devout Christians continue to hold special regard for Israel (and this isn’t expected to change).

See articles on History of Western Faith and the Bible.

Summary

Bottom line: doctors, lawyers, engineers—none of us are qualified to vote. Democracy only works when all sides are able and fortunately, over the years, we’ve experienced good government. Our system does protect us from potential fools, but it’s still up to the citizenry to watchdog those of us in charge. So you should know this stuff.

Now get back to your studies—one day, you’ll need a good job.

Propaganda

The article on Opinions says people’s views come from four main sources. Let’s look at them to see how easily we can be manipulated. There must be some defense. Sources are:

  • Intuition (your gut feel)
  • Personal experience (what you’ve seen)
  • What you’ve been taught
  • What you’ve figured out for yourself

We’ll use the examples of Sigmund Freud and Chartered Schools to illustrate.

Freud

Freud lived between 1859 and 1939. He invented the theory of the subconscious mind. He also said man was inherently bad. His theory of the mind was something he figured out; the belief that man is naturally bad came from personal experience.

The subconscious mind is still being taught today (because it was brilliant), while what he derived from personal experience is no longer considered valid. But if you look at the time in which he lived, it makes sense. The late 1800s was before the implementation of mass education and early 1900s Europe was home to the First World War. So he saw people at their worst. Before modern efforts to arrive at a well-meaning consciousness.

Chartered schools

Jim and Brian were high school mates. Neither had ever experienced a charter school but both subscribed to hard-leaning websites that held staunch political views, albeit opposite. Jim’s websites taunted charter schools, exposing the devil inside. Brian’s credited the process with ingenuity and said people were lining up to get in. Then one day they had a fight about it and are no longer friends.

What happened is these buddies became foot soldiers for some propaganda’s cause. Convinced of their purpose, they began spewing nonsense exactly as masters intended. When things finally came to a head, one was googling “charter schools good” and the other “charter schools bad.”

Buying a book

Propaganda applies mostly to political situations but the same instruments are used by business. Everyone knows what advertisers are doing when presenting their wares but when it comes to politics, bias isn’t always as obvious.

I once bought a book about world issues. When paying, I asked if it was a good one. The clerk flipped it over to read the endorsements and said, “It depends. Are you a liberal?” I said, “Why does that matter?” He said, “Because all the endorsements are from liberal sources. So if you’re a liberal, you’ll like it. That’s the way poli-books work.”

Propaganda centres

According to Steve Jobs, Eastern culture relies heavily on intuition and personal experience, while the West places greater emphasis on what we’ve been taught. This explains why modern day propaganda works so well in America—it’s disguised as knowledge. Couple this with the “good student” phenomena to memorize and regurgitate and you have a nation for the taking.

Numerous propaganda centres spew nonsense on a daily basis, fueling foot soldiers to convince all their friends. Canadian stations are good but you still have to watch where you get news, especially when it comes from the States. People down there are trying to brainwash you. That’s the bottom line. We mask it with statements like “this is what I think” but the truth is: we don’t think anything. We only regurgitate what others have told us, adding absolutely nothing of what we instinctively feel, have experienced, or figured out for ourselves.

Summary

Wake up! This is our new reality. American news is selling an agenda in addition to telling you what happened today. So it’s work to get news without opinion. And this condition is not going to change anytime soon because it works.

In the public eye, politics has become a team sport, which is ridiculous because that’s not the way it’s supposed to be. And to make matters worse, every time a bias is exposed, adversaries use it to deny their opponent’s entire position—which is crazy. Real opinion involves considering all sides, recognizing bona fide points, and applying humility to whatever you discover because you’ll never have all the information. That’s the way intellectuals do it and they keep all their friends.

An Irish Argument

Two Irishmen were discussing politics in a bar. The first one called liberals whiny, runny-nosed, naively dangerous, small-peckered buffoons. The second proclaimed that every conservative in the country was a c***. The next day, which Irishman was offended?

Neither, because they were both drunk.

Ladies and gentlemen, the art of an Irish argument is in serious danger of extinction. These damn Google machines and the dummies who hold them have almost ruined this time-honoured tradition of marrying intellect with humour and bullshit.

Today’s arguments always turn into hissy-fits where someone leaves pissed off. But back in the day, people could vehemently disagree without such concern for consequence. That’s because we had rules for how to conduct a good fight. But now that culture has changed, the way we argue has changed.

An intellectual argument isn’t the same as an Irish argument and an Italian argument is something completely different. An intellectual argument involves disclosing supporting information, similar to a legal battle, so participants can challenge whatever they wish. But typically in a bar room setting, we don’t have time for that. An Italian argument involves tons of yelling.

I once witnessed an Italian brother and sister go at it for over an hour. The fight was about which type of knowledge is more important. She believed in the arts and he was more interested in a train that went over two hundred miles an hour. They yelled and screamed so hard that prisoners in the local jail cell got scared. By the end of it, they absolutely hated each other. It was awesome.

But an Irish argument is supposed to be fun. It really is a combination of intellect, humour, and bullshit. So here are the rules:

It’s not a competition

Who cares who’s right? The contest is in the arguing itself, not the resolve. The Irish style has nothing to do with actual facts because they’re mostly made up. (And facts don’t matter much inside any argument—it’s principles.)

In the example above, neither Irishman was offended because they knew the real answer was beyond their grasp. So neither could be right without the good fortune of guessing correctly.

Insults are allowed

Back in the day, no disagreement was complete without the term “garbage” and the expression “anybody who thinks like that is a complete tit.” Nowadays, people say something disparaging and the whole debate comes to a screeching halt. It’s like feelings are more important than our point.

But in an Irish argument, half the joy is in hurling wicked insults towards your opponent.

Within old parliamentary intercourse, quick-witted slaps were common. Upon her retirement, a famous British politician was asked for her favourite. She told the story of a question being asked of the Prime Minister but answered by another minister. After the response, the questioner countered with, “I wish to speak with the organ grinder and not the monkey.”

Summary

A good argument is equivalent to two dogs play-fighting in a yard—it’s good for you and it’s fun. What impedes verbal battles today is the insecurity we all feel towards looking stupid. We’ve made intellectual ability a large part of who we are (status) and believe that losing turns us into ninnies. 

But once you get past all that, you’re sure to have a good time. Remember, there’s nothing wrong with a good slur and any argument should leave room for a laugh. Otherwise people’s feelings get hurt and we can’t fight anymore.

What Happened

No doubt you’re still hearing about the US election and why Donald Trump won. Though much of what’s being said is emotional, there are pragmatic factors Canadians can use to navigate through the confusion. Like why were the polls wrong?

Polling

The Electoral College awards so many presidential votes to each state. Certain states almost always vote a certain way (e.g., Texas goes republican while California likes democrats). There can be exceptions but 37 states typically work this way—and in this election, all voted as expected. (Giving Hillary a slight lead). This leaves 13 states where the action actually happens—called battleground states.

Because of this situation, national polls are never the best indicator. Forecasting Electoral College votes based on state polls is much better. And you could see this on some websites but even they left out two important factors.

  • What typically happens to the category “other”
  • Who typically shows up to vote

Libertarians and Greens were polling high throughout the summer (10-12%) but in the end they got only four points (3% – Libertarian, 1% – Green). Support falling away from “other” candidates is typical in presidential elections. Based on ideology, we know libertarians fall right and greens fall left. Using the consistent 3:1 split between them, 9% Libertarian actually means 6% republican and 3% libertarian, and 3% Green means 2% democrat and only 1% green. So this election was close all along and they should have predicted better numbers for Trump.

Same thing when it comes to who shows up to vote. The angry and wanting change always line up in greater numbers than those happy with how it is. We saw this with Barack Obama in 2008. This time, the angry and wanting change folk were siding with Trump. This too could have been added to the polls.

Proper polling ignores national data and focuses on Electoral College votes, state by state. Then gets adjusted for “other candidate fallback” and “emotional show-up.” Obviously this wasn’t being done, so it was like the kids who calculated mortgage risk before the crash of ’08—they didn’t really understand the numbers. This was always a much closer race than what was being reported.

Make America Great Again

I think the biggest challenge non-Americans had was comprehending Trump’s slogan. Who was he talking to and why keep referring to the past? The answer lies in his strategy. Every election has two components: economic and social. Economically, Trump targeted 5-6 battleground states. Socially, he appealed to all country conservatives.

Only 13 states mattered and some got hammered by globalization. So economically, they wished to return to the past. When Trump said “Make America Great Again,” he wasn’t speaking to those in California. He was talking to people in particular areas. Then socially, there was a much deeper message. One that appealed to social conservatives who didn’t want change—social change. This is something Canadians have difficulty understanding. One guy told me, “Heck, we just got used to watching gay broadcasters.” 

Social change among conservatives is not a short term affair. They need time to digest. And the recent changes brought about over the past 8 years, especially gay marriage, has left many screaming for stop.

The civil rights act passed in 1964, and they’re still talking about it. Liberals say full female rights still haven’t been attained and gay marriage is currently ripping American churches apart. Now you want to put LTGB urinals into every stall. Are you kidding? It takes generations for things like these to incorporate into rural life—and yes, there is a difference between city slickers and country folk. But American liberals never seem to extend their values of respect and tolerance to their own people. So Donald said it would stop.

Hillary

Trump’s raw strategy gave him a one in three chance of winning. When Hillary blended with Bernie, those odds jumped to over 40%. Described as a centre-right politician, Hillary’s platform had nothing in it like free education or a $15/hour national minimum wage. Issues like these were only added to consolidate with Bernie supporters and it proved to be her demise.

NDP-style liberalism doesn’t work in a conservative country unless you’re the voice of change. So while Donald was in her backyard picking democrats, she couldn’t get past his fence.

And Hillary also played it safe—famously deciding to go high where he went low. Again, this classy approach works with everyday liberals but when Donald is constantly pounding on you, you have to forcibly object. Margaret Thatcher didn’t become Britain’s PM by playing the woman card. She bared her knuckles and rolled around in mud for principles.  

Summary

A lot of people were fooled by this election because no one put forward a solid argument why Trump could win. Michael Moore was close but he didn’t take into account the social part, which was huge. Here’s what happened:

  • There were 13 battleground states.
  • Economically, Trump targeted 5-6 of them (e.g., Ohio, Michigan).
  • Socially, he appealed to country conservatives by promoting no more social change.
  • Hillary got messed up by Bernie and was forced into choosing between far-left or centre-right. She chose far-left, which alienated loads of potential supporters.
  • Hillary played it safe and this probably played a factor. She also got killed by the price hikes in Obamacare.
  • The numbers were consistently misreported because they didn’t take into account “other party fallback” or “emotional voter turnout.”

Donald Trump always had a realistic chance. But what about the horrible things he said? and Megan Kelly? and all the people he offended? Most of them live in cities, located in democrat states. Their votes didn’t really count. It was rural women who made this choice and they took Don’s package over his faults. He was continually shown with his beautiful family and they bought it—he couldn’t be all that bad. 

There’s no question Donald Trump is an ass. And that Americans will face the consequences of having just elected Henry the VIIIth. But this wasn’t a perfect storm. It was a clash of ideals that had to happen. Bernie’s movement needed to be exposed—because that’s what’s coming. And liberals needed to learn that conservatives aren’t opposed to social change—they just need it done slowly.

But I still can’t believe it.

Note: The same day Arizona voted for Trump they passed Proposition 206 to increase minimum wage from $8 to $12/hour, over a four year period. This is much different than $15/hour, tomorrow.

Conservatives

The article, Left is for Liberal, looks at the ideology and history of liberals. This time we’re tackling the Tories. We’ll start with general concepts, address social issues, and then turn to economics.

Understanding conservatism is complicated because there are various types. Knowing liberalism is easy: socially, you let everyone do as they wish and then economically play Robin Hood. But there’s a lot more to tilting right (especially in the States).

Carrot vs. stick

Billy lost a friend through an accident. He’s taken time off to grieve. After three days, dad suggests he get back to school. Billy’s mom says just a few more days. Who’s right? It depends. Sometimes kids need to be coddled and sometimes they need a kick in the pants.

In the olden days, the coddling style was attributed to females (liberal), while the miserable boot-in-the-arse system was characteristic of men (conservative). But any parent can relate. Sometimes you have to be understanding and sometimes you need to be firm. In political speak we say “sometimes the carrot, sometimes the stick” or “sometimes the hand, sometimes the fist.” Liberals and cons play each other’s yin and yang in this regard, and both approaches should be respected.

Adjectives

These ideologies stay true to their adjectives. Conservatives like to implement change slowly and after considerable consideration, preferably in baby steps. Liberals are more apt to go with sweeping changes that are grandiose. The formal definition of the word liberal is “open to new behavior and willing to discard traditional values,” while conservative means “holding to traditional attitudes and cautious about change or innovation.”

The political terms, left and right, come from the old French Assembly. Those favouring change sat on the left side of the chamber, while those preferring things stay the same sat on the right.

The Bible

A big part of conservative social resistance rests with the Bible. Remember, 100 years ago everyone was religious. It’s the liberals who broke away. Conservatives didn’t run around soliciting people into believing this stuff—they already believed. And though Christianity has served us well through things like the Protestant work ethic, the Bible says some pretty weird stuff—especially when it comes to women and gay rights. So liberals championed us away through various causes, while cons found it best to resist (claiming higher moral ground).

Personal responsibility

Social cons also say we’re better served when people take responsibility for themselves (as with capitalism). Conservatives believe you wake up in the morning and get to work. This sometimes gets misinterpreted as “me versus we,” but that’s not the case. To them, society doesn’t function if too many play the victim. Conservatives say be a giver, not a taker, and take pride in your hard work. Only make children when you can afford them and then live within your means. Self-respect is an admirable quality. Yes, the strong must carry the weak but the weak must also put forth their best efforts. (Much of this comes from the old farming mentality where people help each other out, but no one takes advantage.)

Less government

This concept then extends into believing in smaller government, especially when it comes to social assistance. Conservatives say if your nephew doesn’t have money, it’s a family problem and he shouldn’t be looking to government for help. And they say a lot of what gov does now should be performed by private charity or solved within the home. Sure, if someone doesn’t have a rich uncle it’s okay for society to assist, but in an environment of lower taxation the idea is for families to address such issues. (And with taxes so darn high, it’s confusing whose job this is.)

Free market

Remember back in school how some people were strong at English while others were good at math. Well, conservatives consider themselves good at math. Mostly because many are business-minded brawlers who lean towards the free market system. Fiscal conservatives desire smaller government because they don’t want gov involved unless it’s absolutely necessary (e.g., starting a railway). They believe in privatizing and subcontracting services where possible, and totally despise red tape—preferring efficiency instead.

Jefferson

America was founded on freedom, specifically from tyranny of government. Thomas Jefferson’s writings are symbolic of this and many Americans still carry his flag. Not just NRA members who pack military grade in case the feds decide to attack, there are plenty who vehemently oppose government authority over any part of their lives. But to be honest, some of this disdain is obsolete. Take for example health care. Back in Tommy’s time, if you suffered from heart problems you just died. But today we have methods to cure such disorders, so why not band together and group insure?

Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt was president from 1901 to 1909. He was a conservative Republican. Back then, they didn’t have term limits so he re-ran in 1912, advocating the principles of a welfare state. For such a radical position he was labelled a progressive. Naturally, the Jeffersonians went nuts and strongly opposed these ideals, successfully defeating his candidacy, but the term and political ideology remain. (Teddy’s cousin, Franklin Roosevelt, a democrat who also served as president, introduced the welfare state in the 1930s. It was called the New Deal.)

Progressives are now called moderates or centre-right conservatives. They believe in the welfare state but also subscribe to common free market principles like privatization and outsourcing where possible, limited government spending, and most other right-wing stances (except maybe the old Bible stuff).

Summary

So we have a wide variety within conservatism. Many buy into the whole package, while others favour just a few thoughts (say, religious beliefs). Regardless, they come together to form the antithesis to runaway liberals who, through their naïve economic agenda, are trying to ruin the world (wink).

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “intelligence is the ability to hold opposing views at the same time.” And if people could do this more often, politics would be fun. As it is, we have an angry game being played between perceived good guys and bad—which is ridiculous. The principles of conservatism are solid and they’re essential for any society to succeed. Liquor stores should be privatized and garbage collection should be outsourced. Government can’t be the solution to everyone’s problems and culture should call on personal responsibility. It’s not that cons are opposed to the strong carrying the weak—they just disagree with the liberal way of doing it. Their version is: don’t give a man a fish, tell him to go fishing.

In the end, anti-biblical change will come because it represents freedom. And everyone will learn to embrace the welfare state. But don’t expect all of this to happen anytime soon—conservatives like to move slow, real slow.

Note: Libertarians are social liberals and Jeffersonian conservatives, which makes them one step away from anarchists.

North-South Divide

The North-South divide is a common expression used in Europe but not so much here. It refers to people of the first and third world, and the difference between them. Not so much pertaining to wealth and percentage of world resources, but cultural differences regarding hard work and organization.

Initially everyone was of the South. People lived an agrarian lifestyle where pleasure was coveted, work was done to survive, and education wasn’t important. Back then, people accepted life for what it was and endured suffering or enjoyed times of beauty as they came. Then two major events occurred. Thanks to our friends the Germans and the Brits, some of us began to appreciate education and started to work hard.

Protestant work ethic

The Protestant split from the Catholic Church occurred during the 15th and 16th centuries. It became known as the Reformation and was led by Britain and Germany. These churches continued to remain Christian but added their own denominational twists. More importantly, for the sake of this discussion, it gave governments control over social norms.

Because of the church’s heavy influence over culture, governments could now mold people as they wished and some countries capitalized on the opportunity. They got churches to tell people that God wanted them to work hard, which became known as the Protestant work ethic. Perhaps it was initially for military purposes but once the Industrial Revolution began it boded well for business—a place where ambition and hard work are highly regarded. Then, in further response to this revolution, modern Europe instituted mass public education.

America

America has always had its own spin. Their form of Protestantism began in the 1730s. It generally stuck with the European model except Evangelicalism pulled away from the formal, ceremonial, hierarchical stuff and made Christianity intensely personal to the average person. It also gave the Protestant work ethic a boost.

The American ideology became: hard work is the way to heaven and the American dream. You’re in control of your own life. Heaven and wealth are not just for the elites. Everything is up to you. (Now you see where the conservative principle of self-reliance comes from.)

The South

This Northern idea of “all work, no play” was built into society by way of religion. Southerners didn’t have anything like this. They lived solely for dancing, good food, and making love—working only when they had to. Basically, achieving nothing.

It’s the educated and hardworking versus their opposites. The North is built upon the Protestant work ethic plus mass education, while the South is based on living for the moment.

When the British were acquiring land for their empire in the 1800s, they believed they were doing inhabitants a favour. All they encountered was a pleasure seeking populace being served by an idiot king. The Brits brought with them medicine, education, production methodology, and a legal system. Plus administration to keep it all together.  

Conclusion

Nothing ever lines up exactly as described because you can’t categorize individual people, let alone whole countries. But knowing these differences is essential for dealing with developing nations. They just see things differently. And though we certainly have southern-style people living here, it’s probably best to continue with the policy of making everyone the same. Then again, there’s nothing wrong with having a good time.