Just when you thought Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was a novel, not a warning, along comes Prof Peter Odell. 

According to the Guardian, he wants government to "take back" North Sea oil production.  More state control is needed, apparently, to ensure that the big oil companies work more in the national interest.

Apparently Prof Odell has advised the oil cartel, OPEC.  

The Guardian quotes Prof Odell thus "UK oil and gas production has been steadily declining since 1999. The reason is that the UK government, unlike those of most other countries, has abandoned oil and gas production to the private sector." 

Surely it's the private sector that keeps on finding new ways to extract more oil, thus ensuring that we get more of the stuff than the experts once forecast?  

Does anyone seriously think if the sort of quangocrats who run our exam system, for example, ran North Sea oil we'd be better off?

Is it any surprise that half a century after publication, Ayn Rand's tale of Floyd Ferris, Wesley Mooch and Wyatt oil keeps on ...

On February 25th Paul Tellier and David Emerson - two men whose understanding of Ottawa I have a tremendous amount of respect for - released The Fourth Report of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service. It is a document that is worth diving into as these reports will likely serve as reference points for (re)thinking on renewing government for the foreseeable future.

The Bad:

On the rough side, I have a single high-level comment: These reports are likely to be as close as we are going to get in Canada to Australia's Government 2.0 Taskforce (on which I served as part of the international reference group) or Britain's Cabinet Office Power of Information Taskforce Report (which would have been tremendous to have been involved in).

To be clear, this is not the fault of the committee. Its terms of reference appear to be much broader. This has to predictable consequences. First, relatively little time is dedicated to the general reorganizing of society being prompted by the now 40 year old internet revolution is only carving out a small role. The committee is thus not able to dive into any detail on how the changing role of information in society, on open data, ... read more >>

Over the past two decades, a series of trends have resulted in a chorus of voices in Congress, the media and the public concluding that the current federal contracting system is broken.  Between 1989 and 2000, Congress mandated deep cuts in the Defense acquisition workforce.  During the 1990s, the federal government shifted its contracting approach from one focused on buying supplies to one buying services, using new flexible contracting vehicles.  Beginning in 2000, federal contracting increased from $220 billion to over $530 billion in 2008, with no increase in contracting staff.  Finally, the focus on awarding this increased number contracts resulted in less focus on managing the contractual relationships.  This led to unethical actors exploiting the system.

Progress to Date. The Obama Administration issued a series of directives focusing on defense acquisition, an examination of the use of outsourcing of government work, the use of cost-reimbursement contracts, and insufficient competition.  It set a goal of cutting $40 billion in contracts.  It also increased investment in the contracting workforce, starting with Defense.

Key Challenges. ... read more >>

First China had a pop at Google.  Now it's the EU's turn to launch an attack on the world’s most successful internet information provider. 

Why is it undemocratic governments have such an attitude against Google?

Ironic, isn't it?  The EU launches an anti-trust investigation against Google, yet far more people in Europe will today freely "vote Google" with a mouse-click than ever had a say over Brussels. 

While the Eurocrats achieved their position of prominence over our lives by stealth and deception, Google got there by providing what we want. Google operates in a fiercely competitive online environment. She may be ubiquitous, but even with a successful brand and strategy, the barriers to entry and competition online are low.  Just ask Alta Vista or Yahoo.

I suspect that like Beijing officials, Brussels officials bully Google ultimately because they dislike what the business stands for.  Google makes possible the free flow of information, the democratisation of knowledge, cutting out the middleman, niche everything, mass (individual) ownership of the means of production, ...