Ultimately the productivity advancements are from the application of technology. From 2002 on the economy went through a period that someone called the financialization, which ended in 2008 when it all didn't work out. What that meant was that resources were directed to gather information for those who held the capital, essentially a centralizing influence. The availability of cheap capital meant that it really didn't at all how it actually worked at the rubber hits the road level; what was important was to have the controls and systems in place that attracted capital. 

So we saw the application of technology that actually put people out of business. I know of three firms, some I deal with (or used to) who got an ERP system set up with dire results, some were cancelled, others only survived due to infusions of capital to keep them alive. Instead of things being made easier or more efficient, they add layers of complexity and paperwork. I have a couple of clients where it is almost necessary to have a full time secretary to handle the process load. Utter nonsense.

This won't last. This one more reason we had a crash and recession.

I would quibble with details but he gets it right in the main. Marriage is structured and maintained for children. If it brings satisfaction or happiness to the adults, that is a bonus. And yes, adults should suck it up and deny themselves for their children.

A Canadian ethics researcher came out against gay marriage for this very reason. She says children have the right to a father and a mother. Adults can and should have the right to do whatever they want, except when it takes something from children. And taking away the notion of father and mother in law (as is the case) takes something away from children.

The study that caused such a fuss last year where they found that in most cases homosexuality was a negative for children was finding the obvious; in most cases it separated their mother and father. Similar to when Dad takes off with the fetching secretary. 

The sexual revolution has as many victims as most revolutions, except that the bodies are hid or spread wide. Conservatives can actually be on the leading edge of the swing back if they have, ahem, the balls.

It isn't that it works. It limits what would otherwise be done.

There is a nasty reality. The economic crisis is due to a consensus of ideas between both parties. The banking regs, housing, the Fed policies, deficits are common to everyone, the difference is a matter of degree. Fiscal rectitude won't come when both parties are identical in their profligate spending, the difference only being where the money goes.

The next 4 years are going to challenge the President and the Congress. The economy is not going to grow. The deficit is going to remain high. The tax hike and spending cuts in January will happen because Obama wants them to.  The trajectories of government spending obligations are already parabolic. No one will have any choice but to cut government spending. Best that the Democrats be forced into those choices and defend them. 

15 years. The last two are the first two, many more left. Every assumption of both parties will be changed by force.

It is odd. The Republican party would still be bleeding in the gutter if it were not for a vigorous reaction to Obamacare which gained them the House. So for candidate a guy who implemented Obamacare V 1.0 was put forward.

There is probably 2-3% who wouldn't vote for Romney for the simple reason that he is rich and reminds of a boss you had once. Then it became who was the most compassionate, who would better look after people. If you have a liberal running against a liberal, why vote for the one who spent the last year or so trying to convince everyone that he wasn't.

The American people voted for divided government. Nothing will get done, which is just fine. I don't trust Republicans with the public purse, do you? Democrats are not any better, but a rational voter would look at the last time there was divided government with a skinflint Republican House and Democrat president. Pretty good times.

In Canada the Red Tories who could be compared to the establishment Republicans had to lose power and influence before the consensus on fiscal sanity could be established. First step tonight.

No. There are no children affected. What adults do is of no interest, they bear the responsibility for their actions. 

But when children are involved, who are their parents? A child has the right to a father and a mother. Circumstances, many many instances due to the decisions of adults, may take them away. But here we have a decision by the state in the interests of the adults that redefine who are a child's parents. I'm not talking about adoption, which is a response to a situation where the child would not receive necessary care. I'm talking about the right to have children that married people have. Gay couples can have children by rather round about means. So who are the father and mother on their birth certificate? Would it be discrimination to insist that their biological mother and father be included along with the 'married' couple?

We have no right to subject children to the consequences of our inability to control our sexual peccadilloes.

If you don't think this is an issue, look to jurisdiction who have gay marriage. These things are being defined in law. It will be a tragedy where children pay.

I loved the speech. I loved how they highlighted a frail old man, still sharp and able, a man who was once almost a god. I loved how he made fun of the god of the Democrats.

You have half of it. I see the reaction as something akin to the reaction to Rushdie's Satanic Verses, or the over the top reaction to insults to Allah. There Is No God but Obama, how dare you criticise, make fun of him.

I was disgusted by 2008 when this man was elevated, with the halo photos, the fainting, the candles (have you ever seen a procession?). It was an act of worship. And the media are the True Believers, Keepers of the Faith, and will react furiously with religious fervour to any criticism.

I really respected Romney this week. He studiously avoided being made a god. He said throughout, we can fix this, we can handle it. Hire me. No tingle, just value for dollar.

Some will get it, some won't. The message was, we are adults here, we can have our fun, but to get the stage you have to earn it. Eastwood did. So did Romney/Ryan.

Alberta has shorter waiting times for surgery than most other provinces. 

A few anecdotes. 4 month wait for colonoscopy (which you don't get unless you have symptoms. 6 month wait for cardiac diagnosis. Year long wait to remove and repipe a shunt from the bladder.

These are what I and my friends have experienced. The reality is that if I trash my knee or something non life threatening that makes it difficult or impossible to work, I'm further ahead paying out of pocket, getting things sorted out and back to work than wait for the government system to get around to it.

I like asking pompous Canadians a simple question; How do waiting lists save money?

As usual the issue here is not government supporting marriage, but what happens when government redefines marriage. It is not a libertarian enterprise for government to, first, remove in law any reference to father and mother, second to define parents of a child.

I'd like to know how a judge ruling that a child's parents are a man and two women, as was the case in Ontario where a lesbian couple, wanting a child, one of the women was impregnated.

I'm not talking about adoption. I'm talking about government defining who your parents are aside from any biological reality.

That is totalitarian in nature, not libertarian.

What a dumb thing to say.

If Santorum can't take the heat from Romney, what would he do when faced with Obama? Does anyone think that race will be gentle and kind?

We are about to see the bloodiest, ugliest and low election campaign that we can remember. Obama will flood the airwaves with accusations and innuendo. And scream racism at the least provocation. Fully supported by a loud, screaming and desperate print and broadcast media.

What Romney is showing is that he unapologetically and with a smiling face is willing and able to systematically dismantle his opponents.

For policy, keep the House and win the Senate. Democracy is about the populace removing the powerful. That is all that matters in November when it comes to the Presidency.

What is sad is that if everyone involved had the chance to do it again, they would do exactly the same thing with the same result.

It is turning into a fight between moderate establishment republicans and compassionate conservatives.

Obama gets 4 more years.

In Canada the Nurses unions are as powerful and large as the teachers unions. So by definition, nationalization of health care means large over powerful unions.

Interestingly, in the Canadian coming to terms stage of fiscal discipline Argentina was discussed frequently as an object lesson in getting it wrong. The Canadian parallels are even more striking.

One of the fictions in common currency right now in the US is that it doesn't matter, it will go away like a bad cold. Argentina describes a chronic wasting illness. The fools who don't consider the US fiscal situation as dire need to hear about Argentina every day.

Two points. I lived in Quebec Canada during the last years of the political Catholicism that ruled that province. Something similar to many middle eastern countries, maybe less violent. The Church, capitalized, was powerful and influential, essentially delivering the people to the politicians in exchange for favors. It wasn't conservatives who stood up to the excesses, it was the left. Oddly enough with Islamism, the roles have reversed.

The social programs in Canada come from the leftist religious progressive movement. To be conservative, or stand against the encroachment of the state into all affairs of life required a stand against the progressive religious.

So to answer the question, I say no. Or maybe I tend towards classic liberalism, which probably would be defined as conservative today. The conservatives of old stood for much that would be anathema to modern conservatives.

More like Ontario 2011. A hapless twit goes up against a well oiled machine and loses. Handed opportunity on a golden plate and dropped them.

And yes, everyone in the race is a hapless twit.

How many elections have been won by running against the media?

If it of any comfort, the change in Canada started in 1983 with the British Columbia provincial government implementing a Restraint program. It was the first of more provincial governments changing assumptions, or rather adjusting to the reality. Eventually the Federal government followed suit, and the rest is history.

So consider New Jersey and Wisconsin as the first of many. By 2030 or so the US will start attracting entrepreneurial immigrants.

Remember the trip he and others made to Lebanon a few years back, where he got into a fight with some fascists?

He will be missed.