Dual citizenship and forced marriages, by Alison Symington

Posted by

0

Petros's avatarThe Isaac Brock Society

Alison Symington, “Dual citizenship and forced marriages” (PDF), Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 10 (2001); Winner of the Smith Lyons Essay Prize.

Abstract:  This paper examines the phenomenon of forced marriage and how the international law on diplomatic protection and domestic citizenship laws interact to prevent young women from receiving help because of their status as dual nationals. The evolution of international law and the rise of human rights are considered, the author contesting international rules preventing the United Kingdom from attempting to assist its nationals who are abducted to South Asia for the purposes of forced marriage. This paper demonstrates how in complex situations involving power, gender, culture and politics, law is better understood as a struggle over meaning than as a stated rule of practice.

View original post 437 more words

FATCA: The need-to-know basis is not satisfied

Posted by

0

Petros's avatarThe Isaac Brock Society

Soon after I finished my PhD, I had the experience of teaching as an adjunct professor in Ontario.  Eventually, I quit because I felt that the working conditions for contingent labor in higher education sucked–and they do:  just google the terms “adjunct hell”.  Then, I worked another job which I soon quit.  But to damage my reputation after I quit, one of the people from the second job asked for a reference via e-mail from the first employer and soon a flurry of e-mails had damaged my reputation among about a couple dozen people.  The first employer had even gone so far as to accuse me of “unpleasant breaches of trust”, not realizing that the term “breach of trust” is legaleze, usually for criminal behaviour related to money or the virtue of young women.  Later, the man apologized to me, saying that what he meant is that I had let them down.

View original post 675 more words

Keystone Aftermath Arrives: Canada Pledges To Sell Oil To Asia, As US Becomes Source Of “Uncertainty” Zero Hedge

Posted by

0

Zerohedge reports that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated to the United States, “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports.”

History books study catastrophic events such as wars or the collapse of empires and try to determine what were the causes and factors that led up to the disaster.  What will the future history books say about the collapse of the American hegemony in the global economy?  Here are four possible factors:

(1) The leadership did not secure cheap and safe energy from Canada, starving the nation of the resources that they needed to secure the economy.

(2) The leadership refused to reign in spending at all levels of government, leading to a debt-death spiral and to default of the nation finances and the collapse of the dollar.

(3) The leadership overextended itself militarily around the globe, which had at best a dubious, if not a negative, return on investment.

(4) The leadership refused to change arcane tax laws that made it impossible for Americans to set up shop in foreign countries to foster exports and trade of made-in-America products.

Future history books may see Stephen Harper’s statement to the United States as indeed a pivotal moment.  Harper is saying, Fine!  If you don’t want our energy, we can find other buyers.

Why are manufactured goods cheap in the United States?

Posted by

0

I enjoy reading Kevin Graham’s blog, because he often has observations that disagree completely with my own.  Recently, he’s blogged that inflation has increased the standard of living.  Kevin and a certain Joel got into an interesting conversation about it.  But here is the picture that Kevin got from Carpe Diem from the 1964 Sears Catalog:

Kevin’s point is that big screen HDTVs today are hardly more expensive in nominal dollars, and far cheaper in inflation adjusted dollars.  But furthermore, the actual TV product is superior.

Now, I encourage readers to read both Joel and Kevin to see the two sides of the coin.  I interjected myself with a couple of comments that I wish to record here:

@Joel, thanks for your thoughtful responses to Kevin’s stimulating post. I would like to add one point, which is crucial in this whole picture. The 1964 TV is American made in factors in the United States with US workers; back then, TVs were likely exported to other countries. The 2012 TV is made in China. The reason it is cheap is because the Chinese sell their products in exchange for the United States fiat dollars, which the Chinese can then use on world markets either to invest or to buy the raw materials that they need. The United State has a three-decade trade deficit. All that means is that the United States has been able to export its own currency receiving manufactured goods in return, currency which it costs virtually nothing to make–particularly when it is created electronically and not printed. Now the United States by inflating its currency over this period has been a big winner in global trade. And those TVs and such are indeed cheap. But I defy you to go to a country which is not able to export its currency to China. Say a poor African country. There, people still fix, e.g., 30 year old refrigerators, because the cost of labour and parts is still much, much cheaper than replacing the unit. All this means is that it is possible for the United States to overdo it–I think inevitable at this point. Then the rest of the world will reject the US dollar and there will be completely new dynamic, where the cheap money is unable to chase real goods. This is an unprecedented situation in the world today; to my knowledge, no fiat currency has ever enjoyed the ascendency of the dollar, and so no such currency has ever fallen from such a pinnacle. When it does, watch out. It will be the end of the global economy as we know it.

By the way, Kevin, did you take into consideration that that TV you picture is in a fine piece of crafted wood furniture? I know the TV cabinet is out of style, but if you were able to purchase something comparable in quality and materials, say a buffet cabinet without the hutch, it would cost starting  at around $2000, and that is without a the TV. How does that figure into your calculations about the benefits of inflation?