My feeling is that the US presidential process must be intentionally impenetrable. Otherwise why would it continue to be so complicated? We know that there are much more straightforward ways for parties to choose candidates.
Anyway, what I really find baffling about the presidential primary process is that it consistently favours the voters of certain states. For instance, if you happen to live in New Hampshire or Iowa you always have a chance to have your vote/caucus participation counted. Voters in other states will almost always find themselves voting, if they even choose to vote, in a primary process that is functionally meaningless.
I guess I'm curious why the parties and the voters in these states are seemingly Ok with this repeated disenfranchisement? Do parties not care that many of their supporters may never be able to vote in a meaningful primary because of their state of residence?
Also, don't the media entities in those states want to get in on all of that primary based advertising money that their counterparts in early primary states are pulling in?
The whole thing is definitely kind of weird.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
This is surprising
Just a few minutes ago I decided to find some census data from the US. I was mainly curious to see how much things had changed between the early 1980s and now.
While looking at the United States' Census' QuickFacts page I came across a few quick facts that surprised me.
First of all, who knew that the population grew by almost 10% over from 2000 and 2010? That seems like a pretty substantial growth rate.
Secondly, who had any idea that even with the aging baby boomer cohort and increasing life-spans that people over 65 only account for 13% of the population. This is all the more impressive/surprising when it is contrasted with the 24% of the population that is under 18. Who knew there were so many young'uns out there? Presumably this kind of population dynamic will mean a safe future for Social Security?
Finally, apparently only 85% of those over 25 have graduated from high school in the United States. This seems a little low to me, but what do I know.
While looking at the United States' Census' QuickFacts page I came across a few quick facts that surprised me.
First of all, who knew that the population grew by almost 10% over from 2000 and 2010? That seems like a pretty substantial growth rate.
Secondly, who had any idea that even with the aging baby boomer cohort and increasing life-spans that people over 65 only account for 13% of the population. This is all the more impressive/surprising when it is contrasted with the 24% of the population that is under 18. Who knew there were so many young'uns out there? Presumably this kind of population dynamic will mean a safe future for Social Security?
Finally, apparently only 85% of those over 25 have graduated from high school in the United States. This seems a little low to me, but what do I know.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A concept lacking a name
In Canada, as well as a few other Commonwealth countries, the term 'Crown corporation' is used to describe a set of entities owned by the state but run somewhat independently. Good examples of Crown corporation in Canada include things like CBC or Via Rail.
Not surprisingly given the inclusion of the word 'corporation' in the term, these entities are often means through which the state can participate in economic activities. In some instances these corporations almost look like their private counterparts while in other instances it is clear that they are government own entities.
So even though Crown corporations may be of provincial or federal origin, the term provides a sense of clarity about their origins and relationship to government.
When discussing similar entities I immediately encounter two problems. Firstly, if such entities can't be called 'Crown corporations' what can they be called? 'Government-own corporations' is an entirely unsatisfying name. And, secondly, because there is no unifying descriptor they don't seem to discussed in the same way. I know that I often forget how many government owned entities exist is the US because we almost never hear discussion of the entire class of entities in the way that we do in Canada.
I can't help but wonder how political discourse would change in the US if there was an easy and accessible way to talk about the class of entities which includes Amtrak, the USPS, and the FDIC, just to name a few.
(Maybe it doesn't matter, but I find it funny that Amtrak and the USPS use .com domains while the FDIC has a .gov domain.)
Not surprisingly given the inclusion of the word 'corporation' in the term, these entities are often means through which the state can participate in economic activities. In some instances these corporations almost look like their private counterparts while in other instances it is clear that they are government own entities.
So even though Crown corporations may be of provincial or federal origin, the term provides a sense of clarity about their origins and relationship to government.
When discussing similar entities I immediately encounter two problems. Firstly, if such entities can't be called 'Crown corporations' what can they be called? 'Government-own corporations' is an entirely unsatisfying name. And, secondly, because there is no unifying descriptor they don't seem to discussed in the same way. I know that I often forget how many government owned entities exist is the US because we almost never hear discussion of the entire class of entities in the way that we do in Canada.
I can't help but wonder how political discourse would change in the US if there was an easy and accessible way to talk about the class of entities which includes Amtrak, the USPS, and the FDIC, just to name a few.
(Maybe it doesn't matter, but I find it funny that Amtrak and the USPS use .com domains while the FDIC has a .gov domain.)
Monday, May 30, 2011
Good thing they were in a 'free' country
In response to a recent court ruling that upheld the prohibition of "silent expressive dancing" at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. a number of people decided to hold a silent dance protest at the memorial.
The following videos show some of what happened to the dancers while they were at the memorial dancing.
[Embedded video]
[Embedded video]
Even if we accept that what these individuals were doing was disruptive and that the police service involved can prohibit them from doing it, was the force used really necessary?
Furthermore, if the reason for prohibiting dancing and other such activities is related to disturbing tranquility isn't it at least a little ironic that the resulting arrests surely did more to disturb the tranquility than silent dancers? Would Justin Bieber, or any other celebrity, be arrested for visiting the site and disturbing the tranquility of the monument when they are mobbed by adoring fans?
I understand why one might want to prohibit disruptive behaviours at this type of site (though I think such a goal is fundamentally questionable), but things have clearly gone to far when silent swaying can be deemed so disruptive that it merits arrest.
The following videos show some of what happened to the dancers while they were at the memorial dancing.
[Embedded video]
[Embedded video]
Even if we accept that what these individuals were doing was disruptive and that the police service involved can prohibit them from doing it, was the force used really necessary?
Furthermore, if the reason for prohibiting dancing and other such activities is related to disturbing tranquility isn't it at least a little ironic that the resulting arrests surely did more to disturb the tranquility than silent dancers? Would Justin Bieber, or any other celebrity, be arrested for visiting the site and disturbing the tranquility of the monument when they are mobbed by adoring fans?
I understand why one might want to prohibit disruptive behaviours at this type of site (though I think such a goal is fundamentally questionable), but things have clearly gone to far when silent swaying can be deemed so disruptive that it merits arrest.
Friday, December 31, 2010
My mind is being blown
I am currently completing a survey for the Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) about absentee voting and just having my mind blown by all of the information and services this program makes available to overseas US voters. I really wish I had know about even 25% of this stuff before I didn't get my fall absentee ballot in time.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Even more helpful government information or: How a missile of an unknown source hardly ruffled feathers
Yesterday in Los Angeles, according to a number of news sources (including Reuters), there seems to have been a mysterious rocket launch that is as of yet unexplained. It seems that military sources are claiming ignorance and an interest in figuring out what it was that took place.
An example from the Reuters' article of this kind of position is the following:
If you are interested in a video clip of some of the coverage and the footage of the missile you can check out the following embedded video.
[Embedded video]
The interesting question that this video is how NORAD knows that there is no threat if they don't know the source of the missile? Furthermore, if government sources really didn't know what the source of the missile was wouldn't it make sense for them to be a little more concerned? How is it possible that the smallest airline related incident can raise the threat level by a colour while presence of an unidentified missile near one of the US's largest city seems to do nothing to panic the Homeland Security types?
Fundamentally, this story, as it is presently being reported, makes no sense.
I suspect that this story is another instance in which the information provided to the public by the government is garbage. There is no way that such an incident could be of such little concern if the origin of the missile was really not known. That the issue is of little concern only makes sense only if the origin of the missile is known, which I suspect it must be given the lackadaisical response on the part of the government (unless they have somehow managed to completely mask their concern and the fact that the missile is of an unknown/hostile origin).
Anyway, no matter what actually happened, I think it is safe to assume that the public are being fed a line of crap on this one. The only thing more amazing than the fact that the public is likely being misled is the complicity of the media in the misleading.
An example from the Reuters' article of this kind of position is the following:
"So far we've come up empty with any explanation," Colonel David Lapan told reporters. "We're talking to other parts of the U.S. government. We're doing everything we can to try to figure out if anybody has any knowledge of what this event may have been."
If you are interested in a video clip of some of the coverage and the footage of the missile you can check out the following embedded video.
[Embedded video]
The interesting question that this video is how NORAD knows that there is no threat if they don't know the source of the missile? Furthermore, if government sources really didn't know what the source of the missile was wouldn't it make sense for them to be a little more concerned? How is it possible that the smallest airline related incident can raise the threat level by a colour while presence of an unidentified missile near one of the US's largest city seems to do nothing to panic the Homeland Security types?
Fundamentally, this story, as it is presently being reported, makes no sense.
I suspect that this story is another instance in which the information provided to the public by the government is garbage. There is no way that such an incident could be of such little concern if the origin of the missile was really not known. That the issue is of little concern only makes sense only if the origin of the missile is known, which I suspect it must be given the lackadaisical response on the part of the government (unless they have somehow managed to completely mask their concern and the fact that the missile is of an unknown/hostile origin).
Anyway, no matter what actually happened, I think it is safe to assume that the public are being fed a line of crap on this one. The only thing more amazing than the fact that the public is likely being misled is the complicity of the media in the misleading.
Monday, November 08, 2010
More helpful government information
Fast on the heels of the recent Statistics Canada information moratorium that I mentioned in the last post comes an issue with the opposite problem from the US.
The US Department of State (Hilary's stomping ground) makes public information for American (though the information is accessible to anyone) about countries worldwide. They recently released an update on their profile of Sweden, a known-to-be-relatively-safe Scandinavian country. The best/least useful part of the recent release relates to the potential for encountering terrorist activities in Sweden. They state that
Thanks guys, that information is really useful. Why couldn't you have just said something like "As safe or safer than the rest of Western Europe." By suggesting, even if only obliquely, that Sweden may be at risk of a terrorist attack the State Department undermines not only the usefulness of this report, but all other instances in which they pass on information about terrorist threat levels.
Making such a statement is akin to including safe handling instructions with shipments of NaCl (salt), they just encourage people to discount all such warnings as baseless. Given that there are situations in which such warnings (whether they be about terrorism or the dangers posed by chemicals) are important it is important that they not be de-valued and made a mockery of.
The US Department of State (Hilary's stomping ground) makes public information for American (though the information is accessible to anyone) about countries worldwide. They recently released an update on their profile of Sweden, a known-to-be-relatively-safe Scandinavian country. The best/least useful part of the recent release relates to the potential for encountering terrorist activities in Sweden. They state that
Sweden remains largely free of terrorist incidents. However, like other countries in the Schengen area, Sweden's open borders with its Western European neighbors allow the possibility of terrorist groups entering/exiting the country with anonymity. You should remain vigilant and exercise caution.
Thanks guys, that information is really useful. Why couldn't you have just said something like "As safe or safer than the rest of Western Europe." By suggesting, even if only obliquely, that Sweden may be at risk of a terrorist attack the State Department undermines not only the usefulness of this report, but all other instances in which they pass on information about terrorist threat levels.
Making such a statement is akin to including safe handling instructions with shipments of NaCl (salt), they just encourage people to discount all such warnings as baseless. Given that there are situations in which such warnings (whether they be about terrorism or the dangers posed by chemicals) are important it is important that they not be de-valued and made a mockery of.
Monday, July 05, 2010
I-Day +1
Last week a number of us noticed that one of the local grocery stores was selling cake mix and icing on a buy one get one free basis. Though I normally am inclined to prepare my cakes from scratch, for some reason I was tempted by this offer, the only thing that was missing was a justification to make the cake.
Seemingly out of nowhere Neil suggested that we might try celebrating Independence Day (a holiday I am not always inclined to celebrate), though particulars of the celebration were not immediately forthcoming. Almost as soon as this was suggested I thought of the aforementioned cake deal and suggested that I might make such a cake.
While we didn't quite manage to find time to engage in our celebratory activities yesterday, this afternoon I was able to bake the cake.
As you can see, the cake has been appropriately decorated to reflect that we missed the holiday proper by a day.
Hopefully the cake tastes better than it looks.
Seemingly out of nowhere Neil suggested that we might try celebrating Independence Day (a holiday I am not always inclined to celebrate), though particulars of the celebration were not immediately forthcoming. Almost as soon as this was suggested I thought of the aforementioned cake deal and suggested that I might make such a cake.
While we didn't quite manage to find time to engage in our celebratory activities yesterday, this afternoon I was able to bake the cake.
As you can see, the cake has been appropriately decorated to reflect that we missed the holiday proper by a day.
Hopefully the cake tastes better than it looks.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"We Earn It!"
While looking through yesterday's newspaper coverage of the 'historic vote' on healthcare reform in the United States I saw a photo of some protestors outside the Capitol. Some of the protestors had signs with the message "In America, We Don't Redistribute Wealth, We Earn It." This message frustrates me because it perpetuates a myth about the role of the government in the United States and its history as it relates to the redistribution of wealth in the US (the US government has been redistributing wealth since its founding). This message also implies other untruths, namely that all redistribution of wealth is inherently Marxist/Communist in intention and origin and certainly un-American in nature and essence.
This basic factual inaccuracy of the message is striking. Contrary to what is suggested by this sign, one of the activities that US governments (local, state, and federal) have engaged in most consistently over the 200-year plus history of the country is the redistribution of wealth through various forms of taxation. Whether the form of taxation is duty paid on goods, sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax the general effect is to transfer funds to the state (in its various forms). These funds may be used in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the payment of salaries of civil servants, the provision of a justice system, the provision of welfare services, or the maintenance of a military force. Schools, libraries, and the military (and the teachers, librarians, and soldiers that they employ) are institutions that have been particularly longstanding beneficiaries of this wealth.
The point is not that we need like such practices (or even accept the necessity of a government) but that we should at least understand that they are inherent, to a lesser or greater extent, to government (which requires some resources - even if they are only human). Even the most basic government, one that deals only with law making, the provision of a justice system, and the protection of its borders, requires some funds (raised through taxation), which it then distributes in fulfilling its duties. Whether we like it or not, governments acquire resources which they then redistribute.
Even funnier is that, arguably, the US was founded on claims relating to the support of Americans for redistribution of wealth. The phrase "no taxation without representation" did not suggest that the colonists did not accept taxation (and the consequent redistribution of wealth) but that they wanted a say in how this wealth was to be collected and redistributed. It was on this issue, the control of the redistribution of wealth, (among others) that the Revolutionary War was fought. And since before the introduction of the present American constitution American governments have been actively engaging in the hard-fought-for ability to redistribute wealth in accordance with the wishes of representatives elected by taxpayers
So to not understand that the US engages in the redistribution of wealth, and has since its founding, is to not understand either the history of the country or the functioning of modern government. To suggest it is un-American is another issue all together in that it suggests an ahistorical understanding of history that seems to associate this practice with other, less-well regarded (at least from the American perspective) political systems. The general systems to which these practices seem to be associated are the communist/Marxist systems that American governments have vilified (i.e. ‘the evil empire’ or the ‘red threat’) for years. Unfortunately, these connotations have meant that the public has not been able to engage in reasonable discussions about the redistribution of wealth in the US and the role that it has played since before the founding of the country.
To conclude, and to maybe take the point just a little too far; it might even be reasonable to argue that the redistribution of wealth is more American than apple pie in that the redistribution of wealth is so essential to the American state that without it there would not be an American state (or subsidies for the apple farmers).
This basic factual inaccuracy of the message is striking. Contrary to what is suggested by this sign, one of the activities that US governments (local, state, and federal) have engaged in most consistently over the 200-year plus history of the country is the redistribution of wealth through various forms of taxation. Whether the form of taxation is duty paid on goods, sales tax, income tax, or capital gains tax the general effect is to transfer funds to the state (in its various forms). These funds may be used in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the payment of salaries of civil servants, the provision of a justice system, the provision of welfare services, or the maintenance of a military force. Schools, libraries, and the military (and the teachers, librarians, and soldiers that they employ) are institutions that have been particularly longstanding beneficiaries of this wealth.
The point is not that we need like such practices (or even accept the necessity of a government) but that we should at least understand that they are inherent, to a lesser or greater extent, to government (which requires some resources - even if they are only human). Even the most basic government, one that deals only with law making, the provision of a justice system, and the protection of its borders, requires some funds (raised through taxation), which it then distributes in fulfilling its duties. Whether we like it or not, governments acquire resources which they then redistribute.
Even funnier is that, arguably, the US was founded on claims relating to the support of Americans for redistribution of wealth. The phrase "no taxation without representation" did not suggest that the colonists did not accept taxation (and the consequent redistribution of wealth) but that they wanted a say in how this wealth was to be collected and redistributed. It was on this issue, the control of the redistribution of wealth, (among others) that the Revolutionary War was fought. And since before the introduction of the present American constitution American governments have been actively engaging in the hard-fought-for ability to redistribute wealth in accordance with the wishes of representatives elected by taxpayers
So to not understand that the US engages in the redistribution of wealth, and has since its founding, is to not understand either the history of the country or the functioning of modern government. To suggest it is un-American is another issue all together in that it suggests an ahistorical understanding of history that seems to associate this practice with other, less-well regarded (at least from the American perspective) political systems. The general systems to which these practices seem to be associated are the communist/Marxist systems that American governments have vilified (i.e. ‘the evil empire’ or the ‘red threat’) for years. Unfortunately, these connotations have meant that the public has not been able to engage in reasonable discussions about the redistribution of wealth in the US and the role that it has played since before the founding of the country.
To conclude, and to maybe take the point just a little too far; it might even be reasonable to argue that the redistribution of wealth is more American than apple pie in that the redistribution of wealth is so essential to the American state that without it there would not be an American state (or subsidies for the apple farmers).
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The Land of Freedom
A few years ago, because of some great and important slight, there was a movement in the US to re-name all things with the word 'French' in their name. 'French' was replaced with the word 'freedom.' Though on its face, this seems rather petty and childish, in reality it was quite masterful and a very advanced PR technique. The only problem with this plan was that it was lacking creative energy and burned out after changing 'french fries' to 'freedom fries' and 'french toast' to 'freedom toast.' We shouldn't have stopped there when there are so many more phrases that could be modified to really drive home the point about French cowardice (especially after we saved their asses in WWII).
I have come up with a few more terms that I think we should modify so that we can really drive the point home.
'French bread' should become 'freedom bread.'
'French wine' should be come 'freedom wine.'
'French kisses' should be 'freedom kisses.' (I don't know about you, but I know I don't feel free until there is at least a little bit of tongue).
In a similar vein, 'French ticklers' should become 'freedom tickers.'
On maps we should replace 'France' with 'Freedom' and then refer to the country formerly known as 'France' as 'freedom' or 'the land of freedom,' and if I know freedom-mens this will really get under their skin.
One of the most important changes is to turn 'French class' into 'freedom class.' No longer will people speak 'French,' now they will speak 'freedom.' Some might even have a freedom accent, presumably this is likely if freedom is their mother tongue.
A little more controversially, I think we should change 'French-Canadian' to 'Freedom-Canadian.'
Let's not forget that we need to modify the 'French Foreign Legion' so that it is the 'Freedom Foreign Legion.'
Most importantly, 'Frenchy's' should become 'Freedomy's.'
Some of you may think that it is a little odd that we might want to associate our most prized value with everything associated with the group we are trying to slight. Though the logic is not necessarily intuitive, it really does make sense. Through osmosis the French will eventually learn to value 'freedom' and understand that instead of making their own decisions and standing up to a more powerful state that they should actually do what they are told (don't they know what's best for them?). Only by associating 'freedom' to all things 'French' will the residents of France ever come to truly understand what 'freedom' means in our modern world (hopefully people in the US don't make the reverse association and connection all things French with freedom).
Surely we should now redouble our efforts to make up for lost time. Only through vigilance and continued effort will we ever be able to make sufficient progress on this front.
I have come up with a few more terms that I think we should modify so that we can really drive the point home.
'French bread' should become 'freedom bread.'
'French wine' should be come 'freedom wine.'
'French kisses' should be 'freedom kisses.' (I don't know about you, but I know I don't feel free until there is at least a little bit of tongue).
In a similar vein, 'French ticklers' should become 'freedom tickers.'
On maps we should replace 'France' with 'Freedom' and then refer to the country formerly known as 'France' as 'freedom' or 'the land of freedom,' and if I know freedom-mens this will really get under their skin.
One of the most important changes is to turn 'French class' into 'freedom class.' No longer will people speak 'French,' now they will speak 'freedom.' Some might even have a freedom accent, presumably this is likely if freedom is their mother tongue.
A little more controversially, I think we should change 'French-Canadian' to 'Freedom-Canadian.'
Let's not forget that we need to modify the 'French Foreign Legion' so that it is the 'Freedom Foreign Legion.'
Most importantly, 'Frenchy's' should become 'Freedomy's.'
Some of you may think that it is a little odd that we might want to associate our most prized value with everything associated with the group we are trying to slight. Though the logic is not necessarily intuitive, it really does make sense. Through osmosis the French will eventually learn to value 'freedom' and understand that instead of making their own decisions and standing up to a more powerful state that they should actually do what they are told (don't they know what's best for them?). Only by associating 'freedom' to all things 'French' will the residents of France ever come to truly understand what 'freedom' means in our modern world (hopefully people in the US don't make the reverse association and connection all things French with freedom).
Surely we should now redouble our efforts to make up for lost time. Only through vigilance and continued effort will we ever be able to make sufficient progress on this front.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
So You Juggle Mighty Young Joe?
Yesterday, while looking through the list of databases that Dalhousie provides I came across one called 'Street Terms,' which is maintained by the US Office of National Drug Control Policy. It seems that this resource, I don't think I would actually call it a database, provides drug related terminology and definitions. (To access the content you need to scroll down to the bottom of the page, they also provide a PDF version of the content).
Some of these are remarkably amusing. For instance, apparently 'juggle' means to sell drugs while 'mighty young joe' refers to depressants. I am pretty sure that you can use any of them in a sentence as I did, I can't imagine that there are regional variations or community specific terms (if there were they surely would have been noted in the source).
My first thought was how this could possibly be up to date. I would imagine that almost as soon as such data could be collected, compiled, and published that it would be out of date. How long is 'mighty young joe' really going to be used to refer to depressants? Providing a static list like this seems to be a little bit less than useful. It seems a much better tool might be the development of some kind of user moderated list that members of the law enforcement and prevention/counseling communities could access and update on a regular basis. The simple slowness of the current approach surely impacts its effectiveness.
Anyway, check it out so that you can be up to speed with the latest in drug related terminology.
Some of these are remarkably amusing. For instance, apparently 'juggle' means to sell drugs while 'mighty young joe' refers to depressants. I am pretty sure that you can use any of them in a sentence as I did, I can't imagine that there are regional variations or community specific terms (if there were they surely would have been noted in the source).
My first thought was how this could possibly be up to date. I would imagine that almost as soon as such data could be collected, compiled, and published that it would be out of date. How long is 'mighty young joe' really going to be used to refer to depressants? Providing a static list like this seems to be a little bit less than useful. It seems a much better tool might be the development of some kind of user moderated list that members of the law enforcement and prevention/counseling communities could access and update on a regular basis. The simple slowness of the current approach surely impacts its effectiveness.
Anyway, check it out so that you can be up to speed with the latest in drug related terminology.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Royal Bank, the US Government and the almighty dollar
Yesterday I briefly heard about Canadian dual citizens who had their American funds bank accounts closed by Royal Bank. It was suggested that the customers only found out afterwards. Furthermore, it is being reported that US government policy is the impetus for this activity, though I can’t quite understand why any reasonable person or institution would follow along (partly because none of the stories I have read have given any details about the US policies).
Mainly I am not quite sure why the US cares about this practice right now so much that they are causing banks to take this action. Many foreign nationals have been using US currency for years, without the consent of the US government. I would guess that many individuals will continue to do so in the future, even with the implementation of this crack down. Additionally, I am not quite sure how a country can control what happens to its currency once it leaves its borders. If Royal Bank, or any other bank for that matter, would like to offer accounts in foreign currencies it would seem to be up to the bank and the institution issuing their charter, not the country from which the currency originates (though maybe the international and inter-connected nature of the current banking system has caused this to change).
It would be interesting to know if the same rules are being followed in the US. In many ways I would find it hard to believe that the US is able to disallow dual citizens (people who are full US citizens) access to banking services, even if they wouldn’t want them to access these services. It seems somewhat hypocritical to expect more from banks located in foreign nations, though I guess they can boss these banks around without worrying about the constitutionality of the whole thing.
It seems that there is also an element of sloppy reporting in all of this. It was not initially reported that not all dual citizens were not having their US funds accounts shut down. The implication was that it was affecting everyone, something that is clearly not the case (as I haven’t had mine shut down). In stories that came out today it was reported that individuals would be able to have these accounts if they could demonstrate that they resided in Canada (a potentially temporary and possibly meaningless measure).
Mainly I am not quite sure why the US cares about this practice right now so much that they are causing banks to take this action. Many foreign nationals have been using US currency for years, without the consent of the US government. I would guess that many individuals will continue to do so in the future, even with the implementation of this crack down. Additionally, I am not quite sure how a country can control what happens to its currency once it leaves its borders. If Royal Bank, or any other bank for that matter, would like to offer accounts in foreign currencies it would seem to be up to the bank and the institution issuing their charter, not the country from which the currency originates (though maybe the international and inter-connected nature of the current banking system has caused this to change).
It would be interesting to know if the same rules are being followed in the US. In many ways I would find it hard to believe that the US is able to disallow dual citizens (people who are full US citizens) access to banking services, even if they wouldn’t want them to access these services. It seems somewhat hypocritical to expect more from banks located in foreign nations, though I guess they can boss these banks around without worrying about the constitutionality of the whole thing.
It seems that there is also an element of sloppy reporting in all of this. It was not initially reported that not all dual citizens were not having their US funds accounts shut down. The implication was that it was affecting everyone, something that is clearly not the case (as I haven’t had mine shut down). In stories that came out today it was reported that individuals would be able to have these accounts if they could demonstrate that they resided in Canada (a potentially temporary and possibly meaningless measure).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)