Spare me the constitution, I know better!

Twit This!

Forgive me my ignorance, but my understanding is that licensing and regulating insurance and securities was a provincial responsibility.

Now, the National Post is reporting that the Federal Government is leaning towards one federal regulator.  I haven’t decided whether this is a good or bad thing, but it is yet again another area where a federal government decides to intrude on provincial responsibilities without reopening the Constitution.

This must stop.  Besides, we’d be better off letting the free market work, instead of rethinking it.

After the Speech from the Throne last November, Mr. Flaherty said Ottawa would forge ahead with "willing" provinces to create a national securities regulator.

Indeed, the rules governing the new regulator will give provinces the option not to participate.

Quebec has long objected to the national scheme, and Alberta and British Columbia have been lukewarm about joining such a body.

However, the regulator's proposed structure would allow publicly traded companies based in the no-go provinces the ability to bypass the provincial watchdogs and file their documents -- such as prospectuses, financial statements and proxy circulars -- with the national regulator. This is likely to be addressed in the legislation, because currently companies need to file in each province if they want to sell shares to its residents, including large institutional buyers such as the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Quebec.

In an attempt to appease provinces, the national regulator would keep regional offices in provinces that have certain expertise -- such as Alberta with energy and British Columbia with mining.

Just what we need.  Another Super Govt organization with split federal/provincial responsibilities/organizations.  Whatever “savings” businesses will find in dealing with one regulator will be passed down to us consumers as taxpayers paying fore more bureaucrats to run things.  It doesn’t really work that well in the US with the SEC…

Is big government the way out? Atlas Shrugged.

Twit This!

I was reading a posting in Western Standard’s Shotgun blog where they commented on an article.  I have to dust off my copy of the book and read it.

This is supply-side economist Stephen Moore on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal:

For the uninitiated, the moral of [Atlas Shrugged} is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?

These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.

The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."

Read the rest here.