Year: 2013

Shoe Sizes

2013/09/19 / The Plaidneck

Canadian shoe sizes have changed.

All my adult life, I’ve taken a size 11. Size 11 in oxfords by a top Canadian maker (nolonger in business); size 11 in military oxfords (issued to me for use with a Pipe Band); size 11 in sports shoes (cleats for various sports; runners, walkers, trainers, etc); size 11 for work boots.

Recently, over a somewhat poorly remembered time period, because shoes last and I’m not chasing fashion anymore, things have changed. A size 11 seems OK until it’s been walked in for a while then it’s a bit too small.

I finally noticed that what is advertised in big print as an 11 is an “11 US”; a 10 ½ UK and 45 European. I went on line to check this out and found that the listing for Canadian size is now the same as the US.

Incidently size 11 UK which used to be the convention we followed. Who decided that our shoe sizes were to shrink to the US sizing and that produce advertising etc. should use this smaller size?

When we are celebrating the War of 1812 (where our winning part was to stay out of the United States) why are we cow-towing by giving up our shoe sizes and adopting the US? It isn’t the Free Trade agreement as Mexico uses an entirely different sizing system.

When a change is made, lets make the full change. Somewhere there has to be a shoe sizing convention that is based on the SI system of measurement. If we are to make a change:

1. Don’t ape the US
2. Don’t adopt a convention that has same numbers for something we learned as a different size
3. Make a real change. Find a sizing convention that is rational, means something other than an arbitrary number and is hopefully based on actual length (hopefully in SI units).

The Plaidneck

Stability ??

2013/08/21 / The Plaidneck

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Mohawk gentleman whose thoughts and observations I’ve come to appreciate. In that wide ranging conversation, he stated that the strength of their culture was/is strong women.

I already knew that the clan mothers were the voice of reason behind the Iroquois society and that families were built around these clans. The next step, independent women are the reason for their success took this conversation to gel.

Some observations:

1. In south Asia, where the mini loans were made famous, these loans were most often made to women. These women got a start, were for the most part successful, paid back the loans and brought prosperity and respect to their families.

2. In the poorer areas of Africa, it appears that true progress in raising the people from poverty occurs when women have enough wherewithal and say to adequately provide for their families.

3. In some of the more stable successful parts of western society (Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries and possibly Great Britain for example), women have/have had great influence.

4. There is research on families that the most successful in rearing balanced children come from parents who shared family decisions equally.

Is it possible that we in the more patriarchic societies have it wrong. Women aren’t just a secondary part of society to be kept at home but are the key to success.

Do women bring a different view of how things fit together? I truly don’t know but their inclusion has to bring forth ideas/philosophies worth considering.

I have a slightly pessimistic cousin who say that people are only governed by self interest and greed. Hopefully including women in all parts of society doesn’t become just pitting male vs female in a contest of who is better won’t work

There are examples out there. We should/have to balance views from both sides of the gender divide.

Growth and Demographics

2013/07/22 / The Plaidneck

Growth and Demographics

I’ve wondered why our gurus all tout growth. We are told that:
• we can borrow to defer paying for things now because growth will allow us to pay the interest plus the principal and maybe have something left in the future.
• we must grow or we are failing, and that
• without growth there is no prosperity.

Because of our “gurus” we assume:
• that savings will always grow.
• that there will be enough increases to pay for today’s debts.
• what was before (during a long population growth era) will always be even though things aren’t necessarily growing.
• we can keep growing

Is that necessarily so?

My son (www.keepcalm.ca) recognized that our fascination with growth was often based on the run up of population cause by the post war baby boom. He was one of those small classes in school that followed a run of large classes. He noticed the difference, took a look at those following him and recognized that growth wasn’t necessarily going to continue. He reasoned that demographics should be more of the discussion than it appeared to be. He advocates a minimalist approach and it looks like he was correct.

Without growth in population, why should our economic models be based solely on growth? Maybe we should develop an economic model that doesn’t rely on growth (and maybe the “boomers” should be required to pay much more of their own way).

Is constant growth really possible? A couple of events seemed to that it is not.

1. Fiction, but thought provoking: There was a Star Trek episode (I think the Next Generation) where the place being visited had recognized that slavishly advocating growth was pushing them towards disaster. Their solution was to keep up on things for well being (medicine etc.) but return to a more pastoral and static economy. They didn’t emphasize growth. Might have been a utopian slant but it was definitely something to think about.

2. Experimentation reported on a CBC radio show (Quirks and Quarks I believe). An experiment where a single cell organism was placed in a closed test tube of food. The organism(s) ate and divided once a minute. The amount of food was designed to be fully consumed in one hour. There were some questions – If 11:00 is the start of the experiment,
a. how much food would be left in 11:55 minutes? Something like 97%
b. how much food would be left at 11:59. 50%

But this is 50% growth. Wouldn’t slow growth be OK? What if things grow at 1% per year? That should be OK?

The unfortunate problem with growth is it isn’t straight line. It’s growth on growth. If the world’s population grows at only 1% per year:
• there will be 50% more of us (10.5 billion) in 2050 and
• more twice as much of us (15 billion) in 2085.

Finally, we seem to look at Canada as a vast empty land. True, but how much of what is empty is capable of supporting people? To support people, they have to be fed. Unfortunately we are filling up our farmland with housing and the non arable areas are left sparsely populated. Some of us rue the loss of species but we continue to invade and thus adversely alter their habitat. Natural calamities are much more disastrous because more of us are in their path.

Maybe our low birth rate and lack of population growth is really the right way to go.
Maybe it is time to make a concerted effort to develop an economy that doesn’t rely on “growth”

The Plaidneck