Since I started training for my first half-marathon, I have come to love running. I always knew I might, but never stuck at it long enough to find out. With my race less than 2 months away, I'm about at the half way mark of training. Things have been going well enough that I plan on continuing to long-distance run and aim for longer average distances over time.
Being a medical science nerd, I was interested to find out what exactly the health benefits of long distance running are, since people invariably point to the reported cases of deaths during marathons every year. I assumed this must be a case of recall bias, that being that things which you've read frequently or can easily recall seem more common than they really are. But where to find the data to support it? Turns out, I'm not the only one who wants an answer to this question.
Paul Williams, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, has published TONS of data from his National Runners' Health Study. I just searched his name on Pubmed and came across the following data supporting the health benefits of long-distance running.
1. Risk for stroke is substantially reduced in those who exceed recommended physical activity levels, even after controlling for consequent reduction in blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, and body weight.
2. Higher fitness levels reduce the odds of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes.
3. Risk of high cholesterol declines in step with increasing average running distance.
4. Incidence of diabetes declines significantly with increasing average weekly running distance, even when adjusted for age and body mass index.
5. Of interest, although many assume that fitness leads to weight loss, study after study after study has failed to prove this association. One of the National Runners' Health Study reports shows that pre-study BMI accounted almost entirely for the association between BMI and fitness levels. That is, those who are already lean are more likely to be faster runners and run more often and, not surprisingly, have the lowest BMIs at the end of the study as well. So the association between fitness and body weight can be almost entirely explained by ones existing body weight. Meaning that it is correlational and not causative as many would assume.
6. While consistent long distance running does not seem to promote weight loss, it does seem to protect against the weight gaining effects of North American diets. So it may not make you lose weight, but it will prevent you from gaining.
7. An interesting study looked at active vs. non-active monozygotic twins. It showed that vigorous physical activity attenuated the genetic "risk" of obesity. Meaning that whatever genetic component contributes to obesity risk and body weight, it should be equal in identical twins. So if one is a long distance runner and the other is not, and the active one has a lower BMI than the sedentary one, you can assume it is the running helping out the situation (they controlled for cigarette use, diet, education, etc.)
8. Just in case the news stories still have you worried, take it from André Picard, the best health reporter in Canada. From his article, you find out the following:
Donald Redelmeier, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, examined records from marathons where there were 3.3 million participants over a 30-year period. There were 26 deaths. That’s a death rate of one in 126,000 – roughly the same as the death rate in the general population. Stated plainly, people die of heart disease, not running.
9. And, in case you are still not convinced, this study conclusively shows that despite a massive increase in marathon participation in the last 30 years, deaths on the course have not become more common and continue to be rare.
So, here I am, happy with my decision to pursue a recreational activity that I not only enjoy but that has myriad health benefits.
(As an aside, although the plural of "anecdote" is not "proof" I am certainly the embodiment of science's failure to find a weight loss effect of exercise. Since April 30, I have run almost 100 miles, averaging 13 miles per week. I have gained almost 5 pounds in that time. Boo!)
Friday, June 22, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
"Whole" Smoke and Mirrors
I follow a blog called Fooducate. Today there is a post on the lack of "wholeness" in Whole Foods pastry offerings. I'd like to draw attention to a few problems with this line of reasoning.
First of all, Whole Foods may have started out with a humble and worthy mission. However, it is now a major corporation with $10 billion in annual sales, $350 million in profit, and a $16 billion market capitalization, with 304 locations. The fact that they don't hand make all of their baked goods in store, from scratch, with only pure ingredients that any home baker could access should not surprise anyone, no less someone who has supposedly worked in the industry for 15 years.
Secondly, since when is it a crime to use white flour in baked goods? Go ahead and use unrefined whole wheat flour in cookies next time you make them. Let me know how it turns out for you. Wholeness should refer to the fact that it has been made from whole ingredients without a bunch of crap added to it. That is, in the example given, snickerdoodle cookies, if you get past all the "legal" ways the ingredients are reported, it really breaks down to this:
-flour
-sugar
-butter
-eggs
-baking powder
-cinnamon
-sea salt
-pure vanilla
I don't know about you, but that's about how I'd make snickerdoodles. The only ingredient that doesn't make sense is palm oil. Why wouldn't they just use canola oil?
And if you look at the other examples given, they really aren't that bad. Next time you are in a non-Whole Foods grocery store, grab a pastry item from the bakery area and read out the ingredients. That will show you what non-whole really means.
The bigger issue here is not that this consultant is focusing on a very narrow problem, which really isn't a problem, if you ask me, but that even these products should be considered a substitute for what are really whole foods. I guarantee you if you walk through a Whole Foods market you can still find a bunch of processed crap that you could find in any other grocery store. It will just have fancier names to make you forget about what you are really doing: substituting convenience for healthy, homemade cooking.
Again, I will go back to the example of bread as I have so often before. Since learning to love the practice of bread baking at home (and no, I don't have a bread machine, and no, it doesn't take me exorbitant amounts of time, and yes, I do work full-time and have 3 children at home to care for on my days off), I can count on one hand the number of times we have bought store bread in the last 2 years. Now, let's take the authors line of reasoning and apply it to bread.
If I go to my local grocery store I can buy Dempster's Ancient Grains Bread. And hooray, the first listed ingredients are whole grain whole wheat flour, whole grain flax, whole grain millet, whole grain spelt flakes, whole grain kamut flakes, whole grain barley flakes, whole grain poppy seeds, whole grain amaranth, and whole grain quinoa. Good start. Then rye flakes, sugar, yeast, wheat gluten, vinegar. Ok. I can get all those. Raisin syrup. Hmmm. Not sure where I'd find that. Salt, vegetable oil. Oh, I recognize those. Monoglycerides, acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono and diglycerides, calcium propionate, sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, calcium carbonte. Baking aisle maybe? Chemistry laboratory nearby?
What about the bagels she lambastes because the vendor doesn't list the "type" of flour besides calling it "high-gluten flour". Here is the ingredient list for Dempster's Cinnamon Raisin Bagels. They do list the "type" of flour. Good for them. Enriched wheat flour, water, raisins, sugar/ glucose-fructose, cinnamon flakes (sugar, hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil, cinnamon, soybean lecithin), cornmeal, salt, yeast*, wheat gluten, cinnamon, malted barley flour, calcium propionate, monoglycerides, vegetable oil (soybean or canola), sorbic acid. May contain potassium sorbate. Fail.
As far as I'm concerned, the "whole" offerings at Whole Foods look preferable to me over those at a "traditional" grocery store. However, even if all the examples given contained whole wheat, whole grain flour, they would still not be a substitute for the homemade version.
It is a sign of our nutrition-obsessed industrial food culture in North America that we are dwelling on such an issue. What we should be discussing is why we need a multi-billion dollar corporation to make our breads, pizzas, and pastries for us in the first place. All the whole grain flour in the world can't replace what we've lost in culinary knowledge in our culture. When did a grocery store become a place where you buy meals instead of ingredients to make meals?
First of all, Whole Foods may have started out with a humble and worthy mission. However, it is now a major corporation with $10 billion in annual sales, $350 million in profit, and a $16 billion market capitalization, with 304 locations. The fact that they don't hand make all of their baked goods in store, from scratch, with only pure ingredients that any home baker could access should not surprise anyone, no less someone who has supposedly worked in the industry for 15 years.
Secondly, since when is it a crime to use white flour in baked goods? Go ahead and use unrefined whole wheat flour in cookies next time you make them. Let me know how it turns out for you. Wholeness should refer to the fact that it has been made from whole ingredients without a bunch of crap added to it. That is, in the example given, snickerdoodle cookies, if you get past all the "legal" ways the ingredients are reported, it really breaks down to this:
-flour
-sugar
-butter
-eggs
-baking powder
-cinnamon
-sea salt
-pure vanilla
I don't know about you, but that's about how I'd make snickerdoodles. The only ingredient that doesn't make sense is palm oil. Why wouldn't they just use canola oil?
And if you look at the other examples given, they really aren't that bad. Next time you are in a non-Whole Foods grocery store, grab a pastry item from the bakery area and read out the ingredients. That will show you what non-whole really means.
The bigger issue here is not that this consultant is focusing on a very narrow problem, which really isn't a problem, if you ask me, but that even these products should be considered a substitute for what are really whole foods. I guarantee you if you walk through a Whole Foods market you can still find a bunch of processed crap that you could find in any other grocery store. It will just have fancier names to make you forget about what you are really doing: substituting convenience for healthy, homemade cooking.
Again, I will go back to the example of bread as I have so often before. Since learning to love the practice of bread baking at home (and no, I don't have a bread machine, and no, it doesn't take me exorbitant amounts of time, and yes, I do work full-time and have 3 children at home to care for on my days off), I can count on one hand the number of times we have bought store bread in the last 2 years. Now, let's take the authors line of reasoning and apply it to bread.
If I go to my local grocery store I can buy Dempster's Ancient Grains Bread. And hooray, the first listed ingredients are whole grain whole wheat flour, whole grain flax, whole grain millet, whole grain spelt flakes, whole grain kamut flakes, whole grain barley flakes, whole grain poppy seeds, whole grain amaranth, and whole grain quinoa. Good start. Then rye flakes, sugar, yeast, wheat gluten, vinegar. Ok. I can get all those. Raisin syrup. Hmmm. Not sure where I'd find that. Salt, vegetable oil. Oh, I recognize those. Monoglycerides, acetylated tartaric acid esters of mono and diglycerides, calcium propionate, sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, calcium carbonte. Baking aisle maybe? Chemistry laboratory nearby?
What about the bagels she lambastes because the vendor doesn't list the "type" of flour besides calling it "high-gluten flour". Here is the ingredient list for Dempster's Cinnamon Raisin Bagels. They do list the "type" of flour. Good for them. Enriched wheat flour, water, raisins, sugar/ glucose-fructose, cinnamon flakes (sugar, hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil, cinnamon, soybean lecithin), cornmeal, salt, yeast*, wheat gluten, cinnamon, malted barley flour, calcium propionate, monoglycerides, vegetable oil (soybean or canola), sorbic acid. May contain potassium sorbate. Fail.
As far as I'm concerned, the "whole" offerings at Whole Foods look preferable to me over those at a "traditional" grocery store. However, even if all the examples given contained whole wheat, whole grain flour, they would still not be a substitute for the homemade version.
It is a sign of our nutrition-obsessed industrial food culture in North America that we are dwelling on such an issue. What we should be discussing is why we need a multi-billion dollar corporation to make our breads, pizzas, and pastries for us in the first place. All the whole grain flour in the world can't replace what we've lost in culinary knowledge in our culture. When did a grocery store become a place where you buy meals instead of ingredients to make meals?
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Maybe my grandkids?
I just finished a fantastic book by Jeannie Marshall entitled Outside the Box: Why Our Children Need Real Food, Not Food Products. If you have kids and are concerned about what they are eating, or you don't and are just concerned about the North American way of eating, you should get this book. The author moves to Italy from Canada for work and raises her son there. It is part story of living in a different culture but also part evaluation of the North American and, increasingly, global food system that is contributing to ever higher rates of overweight and obesity.
As a family, we try very hard to eat a healthy, simple diet consisting of mostly whole foods, only using processed crap sparingly. And we are trying to raise our children to see food as something to enjoy, not as a commodity to consume. Having them help us with our vegetable garden is part of that, but so is the way we cook, having them help in the kitchen, and ensuring they try something new every day. We still let them have fun foods from time to time, but they do not form the centrepiece of their diets.
School lunches have always posed a huge challenge for us, particularly me. I am always at a loss as to what to put in Sacha's lunch each day he goes to kindergarten. When Sarah packs it, I'm pretty sure he has the healthiest lunch at the school, and he loves it. His favorite lunch food is cut up red peppers. Go figure. I am slowly learning from Sarah. But it is a good thing there are no short cuts available in our pantry, because I'd be pulling them out more often than I'd like.
But we are focused on this and make it a priority. What about other parents? Maybe they have healthy breakfasts at home and relatively healthy suppers, but lunch is where things can really go to hell. I've seen kids with lunches full of nothing but processed food products. Intelligent parents who cook healthy at home and who mean perfectly well and assume that what they are sending their child to school with is "healthy" end up doing just the opposite. So when I read the following excerpt from Outside the Box, I knew I had to share it. Because every parent of school-aged kids needs to read this to know, #1, how broken our system is and, #2, that it doesn't have to be that way. That we could raise our children in a more healthy food society. All it takes is demand.
1. Lunch time at a Canadian school
"The children are given twenty minutes in a crowded, noisy room to wolf down whatever their parents have packed for them. Elizabeth said that Aiden finds it stressful, so whenever it's possible for her to do so, she brings him home for lunch or at least tries to check in on him. I watched the other children as Elizabeth went to find her son. I saw a girl with a Thermos full of soup and a bag of Cheezies; a boy with a bottle of water, a ham and cheese sandwich on a white bun and a small container of Pringles chips; and another boy eating a slice of cold pizza. There were lots of juice boxes, chocolate milk and yogurt drinks. I saw two girls around seven or eight years old drinking Diet Coke, and a boy with a can of Sprite. Another boy had a processed cheese sandwich on whole wheat and a silver bag that he sucked at with a straw. I saw a few apples and one banana and quite a bit of fruit leather. I was surprised to see a girl eating spaghetti with tomato sauce from a Thermos and another eating a takeout Caesar salad in a clear, plastic container with a bottle of vitamin water. The children sat at long tables, some together and others trying to eat alone. There were two adult monitors...but the room was incredibly noisy and most of the children wouldn't sit down....
There was no coherence to the food, since the children all brought their own. Some of it was healthy-ish but there were a lot of food products and loads of actual junk food. But what bothered Elizabeth the most was that the children were so unruly..."
2. Lunch time at an Italian school
"In Italy all the schools, public and private, prepare a two-course lunch with vegetables for all the children. Some schools might offer dessert once a week, but most don't offer it at all. I went to Nico's school...to watch the children at lunch one day. Several classes at a time came to the mensa. The children sat around a table and each of them set their own place with a placemat, napkin, spoon, fork, and cup that they brought from home. The cook, a young man whom the children adore, rushed out with a big bowl of pasta with ragu...for each table. The teachers served the children and then themselves, and sat down to eat with their class. The teachers engaged in casual discussions with the children about whatever the children wanted to talk about. They also helped them to hold their forks properly, insisted that they wipe their hands and faces with their napkins and required them to stay in their seats throughout the meal. When they were finished eating their pasta, the cook brought a large pan of scrambled eggs with Parmesan and a bowl of green salad to each table. Each child took a plate with a little of each. He also offered them ortiche (nettles) that he had picked that morning from their terrace garden and cooked and dressed with olive oil, salt, and lemon, and also some fresh, giant cranberry beans to taste...Some of the children asked for more. There were pitchers of water on the table, along with bowls of freshly grated Parmesan. When they were finished, they were offered bread that had been delivered that morning from a nearby bakery....
The school does not accommodate picky eaters or vegetarians, though it will make allowance for genuine food allergies. There's no dessert, except during cherry season....There are no fruit juices and certainly no soft drinks, and the children don't expect them. When everyone is finished, which is usually after about half an hour to forty minutes, the children clear their places and go outside to play.
The standard form of lunch at this school is a first course of soup, risotto, or pasta and a second course of fish, meat, eggs or cheese and a vegetable. I've seen the children eat pumpkin risotto; sauteed zucchini flowers; meatballs made with ground chicken, Parmesan and lemon zest; and fish with tomatoes and capers....It's not only the food that is important, but the social skills the children pick up by sitting around the table with their peers and their teachers. They learn to take turns speaking, they learn to share, and they learn to pass the water pitcher. They learn to stay seated until everyone has finished their meal."
Read both and think about which you would prefer for your children. And then think about what it would take to make this a reality. Given the glacial pace at which regulatory change occurs in Canada, I have little hope this will come to fruition for my children. But I can hold out hope for my grandkids. Do you too?
As a family, we try very hard to eat a healthy, simple diet consisting of mostly whole foods, only using processed crap sparingly. And we are trying to raise our children to see food as something to enjoy, not as a commodity to consume. Having them help us with our vegetable garden is part of that, but so is the way we cook, having them help in the kitchen, and ensuring they try something new every day. We still let them have fun foods from time to time, but they do not form the centrepiece of their diets.
School lunches have always posed a huge challenge for us, particularly me. I am always at a loss as to what to put in Sacha's lunch each day he goes to kindergarten. When Sarah packs it, I'm pretty sure he has the healthiest lunch at the school, and he loves it. His favorite lunch food is cut up red peppers. Go figure. I am slowly learning from Sarah. But it is a good thing there are no short cuts available in our pantry, because I'd be pulling them out more often than I'd like.
But we are focused on this and make it a priority. What about other parents? Maybe they have healthy breakfasts at home and relatively healthy suppers, but lunch is where things can really go to hell. I've seen kids with lunches full of nothing but processed food products. Intelligent parents who cook healthy at home and who mean perfectly well and assume that what they are sending their child to school with is "healthy" end up doing just the opposite. So when I read the following excerpt from Outside the Box, I knew I had to share it. Because every parent of school-aged kids needs to read this to know, #1, how broken our system is and, #2, that it doesn't have to be that way. That we could raise our children in a more healthy food society. All it takes is demand.
1. Lunch time at a Canadian school
"The children are given twenty minutes in a crowded, noisy room to wolf down whatever their parents have packed for them. Elizabeth said that Aiden finds it stressful, so whenever it's possible for her to do so, she brings him home for lunch or at least tries to check in on him. I watched the other children as Elizabeth went to find her son. I saw a girl with a Thermos full of soup and a bag of Cheezies; a boy with a bottle of water, a ham and cheese sandwich on a white bun and a small container of Pringles chips; and another boy eating a slice of cold pizza. There were lots of juice boxes, chocolate milk and yogurt drinks. I saw two girls around seven or eight years old drinking Diet Coke, and a boy with a can of Sprite. Another boy had a processed cheese sandwich on whole wheat and a silver bag that he sucked at with a straw. I saw a few apples and one banana and quite a bit of fruit leather. I was surprised to see a girl eating spaghetti with tomato sauce from a Thermos and another eating a takeout Caesar salad in a clear, plastic container with a bottle of vitamin water. The children sat at long tables, some together and others trying to eat alone. There were two adult monitors...but the room was incredibly noisy and most of the children wouldn't sit down....
There was no coherence to the food, since the children all brought their own. Some of it was healthy-ish but there were a lot of food products and loads of actual junk food. But what bothered Elizabeth the most was that the children were so unruly..."
2. Lunch time at an Italian school
"In Italy all the schools, public and private, prepare a two-course lunch with vegetables for all the children. Some schools might offer dessert once a week, but most don't offer it at all. I went to Nico's school...to watch the children at lunch one day. Several classes at a time came to the mensa. The children sat around a table and each of them set their own place with a placemat, napkin, spoon, fork, and cup that they brought from home. The cook, a young man whom the children adore, rushed out with a big bowl of pasta with ragu...for each table. The teachers served the children and then themselves, and sat down to eat with their class. The teachers engaged in casual discussions with the children about whatever the children wanted to talk about. They also helped them to hold their forks properly, insisted that they wipe their hands and faces with their napkins and required them to stay in their seats throughout the meal. When they were finished eating their pasta, the cook brought a large pan of scrambled eggs with Parmesan and a bowl of green salad to each table. Each child took a plate with a little of each. He also offered them ortiche (nettles) that he had picked that morning from their terrace garden and cooked and dressed with olive oil, salt, and lemon, and also some fresh, giant cranberry beans to taste...Some of the children asked for more. There were pitchers of water on the table, along with bowls of freshly grated Parmesan. When they were finished, they were offered bread that had been delivered that morning from a nearby bakery....
The school does not accommodate picky eaters or vegetarians, though it will make allowance for genuine food allergies. There's no dessert, except during cherry season....There are no fruit juices and certainly no soft drinks, and the children don't expect them. When everyone is finished, which is usually after about half an hour to forty minutes, the children clear their places and go outside to play.
The standard form of lunch at this school is a first course of soup, risotto, or pasta and a second course of fish, meat, eggs or cheese and a vegetable. I've seen the children eat pumpkin risotto; sauteed zucchini flowers; meatballs made with ground chicken, Parmesan and lemon zest; and fish with tomatoes and capers....It's not only the food that is important, but the social skills the children pick up by sitting around the table with their peers and their teachers. They learn to take turns speaking, they learn to share, and they learn to pass the water pitcher. They learn to stay seated until everyone has finished their meal."
Read both and think about which you would prefer for your children. And then think about what it would take to make this a reality. Given the glacial pace at which regulatory change occurs in Canada, I have little hope this will come to fruition for my children. But I can hold out hope for my grandkids. Do you too?
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
My Norwegian Dream
I've written here before about one thing Norway does very well: managing their sovereign wealth fund. But Norway does a lot else really well and this came to light in a recent discussion I had with my first year pharmacy student.
He was totally incredulous when I told him I am typically an NDP supporter in federal elections, and usually in provincial elections, although I will admit to voting PC this time around. He didn't understand how someone who is in a high tax bracket and is pro-business could also support the NDP, a party that many mistakenly assume is in bed with Communists. He then threw out a common refrain voiced by those who oppose the NDP. "You know if they ever came to power you can kiss half of your paycheque goodbye, right?"
It is a commonly held myth that democratic socialism means less disposable income. While it is true that, in general, nations governing by this dictum often have higher personal tax rates, that does not translate into less disposable income. If everyone throws a little more money into the pot and that is efficiently and intelligently used to pay for services for the entire population, a practice which often reduces the price of providing those services due to the impact of bulk purchasing power, then a larger portion of the remainder of the paycheque is available for wants, not needs.
But my student is an intelligent young lad so he deserved a well thought out response.
So here it is. I analyzed the most recent data from the OECD for the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. I analyzed disposable income per capita, government expenditure as a % of GDP, VAT rate (similar to GST; basically sales tax), total government tax revenue as a % of GDP, total personal tax wedge, Gini coefficient, Human Development Index, and various income tax figures after he made a comment about the impact of taxation on higher wage earners. I looked at the income tax rates of singles and married couples in the highest tax brackets, looking at the base rate, base rate plus social security contributions, and marginal rate, or the percentage in tax paid on the last $ of earned income. (If you are a sucker for punishment, feel free to ask me for the original data).
I wanted to see how each factor correlated with three other factors: disposable income per capita, Gini coefficient, and Human Development Index.
Disposable Income Per Capita most strongly correlates with the income tax level on singles and married couples in the highest earnings bracket. As well, as you can imagine, it correlates quite strongly with HDI, as the more money people have to themselves, the more developed a nation is likely to be. The other correlations are quite weak aside from a moderate correlation between disposable income and total government tax revenue. This may not be intuitive but when individuals pay more taxes, they are essentially being forced to save their money by spending it into a pool that is used to purchase services for the whole population. Thus, they have to pay out of pocket for fewer goods and services and thus a larger percentage of what they earn is disposable because their needs are taken care of by the tax pool. As an aside, the Gini coefficient correlates negatively with disposable income per capita, which makes sense, because as disposable income goes up, the Gini coefficient goes down, representing movement towards perfect equality. This stands to reason since the more free money people have to spend PER person, the less likely it is that all the earned income in that nation is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Right away, the data conflicts with the preconceptions of most Canadian conservatives. They would have you believe that if the government collects less taxes, we will all have more money in our pockets. I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but it doesn't appear that way, at least not in the 28 OECD nations I analyzed.
How about Gini coefficient? What makes a country equal? There is a very strong correlation between government expenditure as a % of GDP, total government tax revenue, and total personal tax. Again this stands to reason as the more is put in tax coffers and then spent on the population, the more likely is equality. This also holds for the tax rate paid by the highest wage earners. Also makes sense since the more tax we take from them, the more we spread the love throughout the country.
What about HDI? There are almost no strong correlations here EXCEPT the income tax rate on the highest wage earners, whether they be single or married. So it seems the more we tax the highest wage earners, the more developed our nation is. Even when I ran a regression analysis and took out the impact of all the other factors and looked at the impact of these rates alone, rate of income tax collected from highest wage earners in a country is still significantly positively correlated with HDI.
Now to top it all off. Where does the United States, that bastion of free market capitalism and the poster child for fiscal conservatives everywhere, stand in the rankings for the various factors? (Out of 28 OECD nations)
1. Disposable Income Per Capita: 3rd
2. Government Expenditure as % of GDP: 23rd
3. Tax Revenue as % of GDP: 27th
4. Total Personal Tax Wedge: 21st
5. Gini coefficient: 27th (it is only less unequal than Mexico)
6. 12th highest income tax rate for high earning singles
7. About middle of the pack for the other high earning tax figures
8. HDI: 4th
So, since the disposable income per capita is quite high, but the Gini coefficient is so high, it stands to reason that large amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. This drives the DIPC up but is not shared equally. For someone like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, that is fantastic news. But for the average Joe/Jane, not so great news.
Is there a better way? In my opinion, yes. Sure, if you want to make lots of money as a balls to the wall entrepreneur, you are best off in the States. But if you are just a regular Joe working in a profession or trade and trying to raise family, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to you. Which nation has the highest DIPC, highest HDI, and lowest Gini coefficient? Norway
Their DIPC is more than $5000 MORE than the US. So instead of the general population making peanuts but a few people making buckets of money, everyone makes a decent living. And they are not even that reckless with their tax and spend policies. They are only the 16th highest spending government, have the 5th highest tax revenue, and "burden" their citizens with the 14th highest total personal tax wedge.
Just to make their system more attractive they also elect their legislative representatives by proportional representation. And they get around the mess that could create in Canada by, believe it or not, working together. Weird right? How do they do this? Legislation that says their parliament CANNOT be dissolved in the four-year span between fixed-date elections. So if you can't agree on something, you are going to work together until you get it figured out. Because you are stuck with each other for four years. THAT is what we need to do in Canada.
Don't get me wrong. I love Canada. Always have, always will. But over the years the impression has been creeping across the border that we need to take all the power away from government and leave as much money in the pockets of wage earners as possible. This is thought to be the only way to true success and economic prosperity.
Nations like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark show us that there is another way. It is time we start taking some of their great ideas and working them into this amazing country we have to make it all the better. Who wouldn't love to see Canada one day sitting with the highest disposable income per capita, HDI rating, and income equality?
He was totally incredulous when I told him I am typically an NDP supporter in federal elections, and usually in provincial elections, although I will admit to voting PC this time around. He didn't understand how someone who is in a high tax bracket and is pro-business could also support the NDP, a party that many mistakenly assume is in bed with Communists. He then threw out a common refrain voiced by those who oppose the NDP. "You know if they ever came to power you can kiss half of your paycheque goodbye, right?"
It is a commonly held myth that democratic socialism means less disposable income. While it is true that, in general, nations governing by this dictum often have higher personal tax rates, that does not translate into less disposable income. If everyone throws a little more money into the pot and that is efficiently and intelligently used to pay for services for the entire population, a practice which often reduces the price of providing those services due to the impact of bulk purchasing power, then a larger portion of the remainder of the paycheque is available for wants, not needs.
But my student is an intelligent young lad so he deserved a well thought out response.
So here it is. I analyzed the most recent data from the OECD for the following countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States. I analyzed disposable income per capita, government expenditure as a % of GDP, VAT rate (similar to GST; basically sales tax), total government tax revenue as a % of GDP, total personal tax wedge, Gini coefficient, Human Development Index, and various income tax figures after he made a comment about the impact of taxation on higher wage earners. I looked at the income tax rates of singles and married couples in the highest tax brackets, looking at the base rate, base rate plus social security contributions, and marginal rate, or the percentage in tax paid on the last $ of earned income. (If you are a sucker for punishment, feel free to ask me for the original data).
I wanted to see how each factor correlated with three other factors: disposable income per capita, Gini coefficient, and Human Development Index.
Disposable Income Per Capita most strongly correlates with the income tax level on singles and married couples in the highest earnings bracket. As well, as you can imagine, it correlates quite strongly with HDI, as the more money people have to themselves, the more developed a nation is likely to be. The other correlations are quite weak aside from a moderate correlation between disposable income and total government tax revenue. This may not be intuitive but when individuals pay more taxes, they are essentially being forced to save their money by spending it into a pool that is used to purchase services for the whole population. Thus, they have to pay out of pocket for fewer goods and services and thus a larger percentage of what they earn is disposable because their needs are taken care of by the tax pool. As an aside, the Gini coefficient correlates negatively with disposable income per capita, which makes sense, because as disposable income goes up, the Gini coefficient goes down, representing movement towards perfect equality. This stands to reason since the more free money people have to spend PER person, the less likely it is that all the earned income in that nation is concentrated in the hands of a few.
Right away, the data conflicts with the preconceptions of most Canadian conservatives. They would have you believe that if the government collects less taxes, we will all have more money in our pockets. I hate to cloud the issue with facts, but it doesn't appear that way, at least not in the 28 OECD nations I analyzed.
How about Gini coefficient? What makes a country equal? There is a very strong correlation between government expenditure as a % of GDP, total government tax revenue, and total personal tax. Again this stands to reason as the more is put in tax coffers and then spent on the population, the more likely is equality. This also holds for the tax rate paid by the highest wage earners. Also makes sense since the more tax we take from them, the more we spread the love throughout the country.
What about HDI? There are almost no strong correlations here EXCEPT the income tax rate on the highest wage earners, whether they be single or married. So it seems the more we tax the highest wage earners, the more developed our nation is. Even when I ran a regression analysis and took out the impact of all the other factors and looked at the impact of these rates alone, rate of income tax collected from highest wage earners in a country is still significantly positively correlated with HDI.
Now to top it all off. Where does the United States, that bastion of free market capitalism and the poster child for fiscal conservatives everywhere, stand in the rankings for the various factors? (Out of 28 OECD nations)
1. Disposable Income Per Capita: 3rd
2. Government Expenditure as % of GDP: 23rd
3. Tax Revenue as % of GDP: 27th
4. Total Personal Tax Wedge: 21st
5. Gini coefficient: 27th (it is only less unequal than Mexico)
6. 12th highest income tax rate for high earning singles
7. About middle of the pack for the other high earning tax figures
8. HDI: 4th
So, since the disposable income per capita is quite high, but the Gini coefficient is so high, it stands to reason that large amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of the population. This drives the DIPC up but is not shared equally. For someone like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, that is fantastic news. But for the average Joe/Jane, not so great news.
Is there a better way? In my opinion, yes. Sure, if you want to make lots of money as a balls to the wall entrepreneur, you are best off in the States. But if you are just a regular Joe working in a profession or trade and trying to raise family, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to you. Which nation has the highest DIPC, highest HDI, and lowest Gini coefficient? Norway
Their DIPC is more than $5000 MORE than the US. So instead of the general population making peanuts but a few people making buckets of money, everyone makes a decent living. And they are not even that reckless with their tax and spend policies. They are only the 16th highest spending government, have the 5th highest tax revenue, and "burden" their citizens with the 14th highest total personal tax wedge.
Just to make their system more attractive they also elect their legislative representatives by proportional representation. And they get around the mess that could create in Canada by, believe it or not, working together. Weird right? How do they do this? Legislation that says their parliament CANNOT be dissolved in the four-year span between fixed-date elections. So if you can't agree on something, you are going to work together until you get it figured out. Because you are stuck with each other for four years. THAT is what we need to do in Canada.
Don't get me wrong. I love Canada. Always have, always will. But over the years the impression has been creeping across the border that we need to take all the power away from government and leave as much money in the pockets of wage earners as possible. This is thought to be the only way to true success and economic prosperity.
Nations like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark show us that there is another way. It is time we start taking some of their great ideas and working them into this amazing country we have to make it all the better. Who wouldn't love to see Canada one day sitting with the highest disposable income per capita, HDI rating, and income equality?
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Holy crap how wrong was I?
If you recall my election prediction fun, it is quite obvious that I am terrible at predicting outcomes of elections. I was WAY off on my seat predictions, as was pretty much everyone else. And of the 10 bonus questions asked I only got 5 right. Fail.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Election Prediction Fun #2
Now this is more to show the uselessness of public opinion polls and seat projections. I will post the final polling results and seat projections from numerous sources, all of which were published here except the Forum poll which was published here.
First off, the popular vote percentages.
Now, for the even more shaky art of seat projections. These come from Forum, Threehundredeight, and Daveberta average pool responses.
Using the Hill & Knowlton Election Seat predictor tool, I've arrived at my own seat projections using the various poll firms voting intention data both on a whole Alberta basis and a regional basis. Both of these methods yield a slim Wildrose majority, varying in composition based on full province data or regional data.
Full province data yields the following:
Wildrose 47
PC 32
NDP 8
Other 0
Regional Data yields the following:
Wildrose 46
PC 29
NDP 10
Lib 2
However, of course, all of this information is based on decided voters. The undecided will determine the fate of our province. The H&K election predictor allows you to see the impact of votes swinging from one camp to another. Let's evaluate a few scenarios based on province-wide data.
1. Half of Liberal leaning voters vote PC to stop a Wildrose government from forming
Minority Wildrose government with 43 seats, PC 37, NDP 7
2. Half of all NDP leaning voters vote PC to stop a Wildrose government from forming
Wildrose majority with 44 seats, PC 41, NDP 2
3. Half of Liberal and half of NDP voters vote PC
PC majority at 45, Wildrose 40, NDP 2
4. 100% of Liberal voters toss their support behind the NDP
Still results in a Wildrose majority
5. NDPers listen to Raj Sherman and toss all their support behind him
Still a Wildrose majority
So you can see from this that there are only two scenarios where Wildrose does NOT form a majority government. Either Liberal voters swing in large numbers to the PCs, or both Liberal and NDP voters swing to the PCs.
So, given all this, and that a good 20% of those planning to vote are currently undecided, and of those, more are leaning toward the PCs, I am predicting a close Wildrose MINORITY government. After looking at all this I still stand beside my original predictions for the Daveberta election prediction pool posted here.
I will post how well all of these aligned with the actual results after the election as well as the results of my alternative election.
I know, you can't contain your excitement. It's okay. I totally understand.
First off, the popular vote percentages.
| Party | Leger | Think HQ | Campaign | Abacus | Forum | Average |
| Wildrose | 42 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41.2 |
| PC | 36 | 33 | 34 | 31 | 32 | 33.2 |
| NDP | 10 | 11 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 11.6 |
| Lib | 9 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 10 | 10.6 |
| Other | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.4 |
Now, for the even more shaky art of seat projections. These come from Forum, Threehundredeight, and Daveberta average pool responses.
| Party | Forum | THE | Daveberta | Average | |
| Wildrose | 62 | 45 | 42 | 49 | |
| PC | 19 | 37 | 37 | 32 | |
| NDP | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| Lib | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Using the Hill & Knowlton Election Seat predictor tool, I've arrived at my own seat projections using the various poll firms voting intention data both on a whole Alberta basis and a regional basis. Both of these methods yield a slim Wildrose majority, varying in composition based on full province data or regional data.
Full province data yields the following:
Wildrose 47
PC 32
NDP 8
Other 0
Regional Data yields the following:
Wildrose 46
PC 29
NDP 10
Lib 2
However, of course, all of this information is based on decided voters. The undecided will determine the fate of our province. The H&K election predictor allows you to see the impact of votes swinging from one camp to another. Let's evaluate a few scenarios based on province-wide data.
1. Half of Liberal leaning voters vote PC to stop a Wildrose government from forming
Minority Wildrose government with 43 seats, PC 37, NDP 7
2. Half of all NDP leaning voters vote PC to stop a Wildrose government from forming
Wildrose majority with 44 seats, PC 41, NDP 2
3. Half of Liberal and half of NDP voters vote PC
PC majority at 45, Wildrose 40, NDP 2
4. 100% of Liberal voters toss their support behind the NDP
Still results in a Wildrose majority
5. NDPers listen to Raj Sherman and toss all their support behind him
Still a Wildrose majority
So you can see from this that there are only two scenarios where Wildrose does NOT form a majority government. Either Liberal voters swing in large numbers to the PCs, or both Liberal and NDP voters swing to the PCs.
So, given all this, and that a good 20% of those planning to vote are currently undecided, and of those, more are leaning toward the PCs, I am predicting a close Wildrose MINORITY government. After looking at all this I still stand beside my original predictions for the Daveberta election prediction pool posted here.
I will post how well all of these aligned with the actual results after the election as well as the results of my alternative election.
I know, you can't contain your excitement. It's okay. I totally understand.
Election Prediction Fun #1
I know. It's an oxymoron. But some of us do consider elections to be fun. Hence, my reason for posting this. I have done various election predictions and will post the results below. After the election, I will see how terrible I did.
The Daveberta Election Pool
I entered an election pool over at Daveberta.ca. Not really for the prizes, which are nerdy politics books, but just for shits and giggles.
Here are my responses to his questions.
Number of MLAs elected by each party (total: 87 MLAs)
The Daveberta Election Pool
I entered an election pool over at Daveberta.ca. Not really for the prizes, which are nerdy politics books, but just for shits and giggles.
Here are my responses to his questions.
Number of MLAs elected by each party (total: 87 MLAs)
Alberta Party: 0
Liberal: 1
NDP: 5
PC: 40
Wildrose: 41
Other: 0
Liberal: 1
NDP: 5
PC: 40
Wildrose: 41
Other: 0
1. The constituency where the PC candidate will earn their highest percentage of the popular vote: Griffiths: Battle River-Wainwright
2. Will PC MLA Ted Morton be re-elected in Chestermere-Rockyview? No
3. Will Premier Alison Redford be re-elected in Calgary-Elbow? Yes
4. Will Liberal Party leader Raj Sherman be re-elected in Edmonton-Meadowlark? Yes
5. What will the highest vote percentage for the Alberta Party be in a riding? Lacombe-Ponoka
6. Will either Allan Hunsperger (“gays burn in hell”) or Ron Leech (“being white is an advantage”) win their seat? No
7. Who will be elected in Edmonton-Glenora? Ray Martin-NDP
8. Which party leaders will announce plans to resign within 48 hours of the vote? Redford
9. How many of the 3 senate positions will the Wildrose Party win? 0
10. Who will get more votes – Liberals or NDP? NDP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)