On Friday, I wrote about the ability of comparitive statistics to be misleading. The National Post began a series of articles this past weekend, Swaddled in Nanny Nation. The first article speaks of the damage to Canadian consumers caused by government intervention in the marketplace, with comments aimed specifically at banking, air transport, telecommunications and agriculture.

One of the most flagrant ways Canadian industry is being coddled is through corporate subsidies.

The Saturday article points out billions in dollars in aid to Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier, GM and Ford.

Proponents of government subsidies argue that they create jobs, encourage research and development and spur economic growth. But often, the opposite happens.

Unintended consequences of artificial incentives.

This morning’s final installment of the Post series focusses on foreign investment restrictions in telecom: Not Upwardly Mobile. Writer Peter Nowak concludes:

The only way to solve a Canadian-created problem, therefore, is to bring foreigners in to fix it. Canadian politicians will first have to rid themselves of their cultural and economic xenophobia

A truly level playing field, with no handouts to try to pick winners, will work best for consumers and business alike. For sustainable competition, the lesson would appear to be that consumers will win if government will just get out of the way.

The National Post began a series of articles this past weekend, looking at how “Canada’s tangled subsidies and trade restrictions are stunting economic growth and cheating consumers.”

Saturday’s Post also had an article bemoaning the delays in implementing the national do-not-call list (DNCL).

Efforts to set up a long promised registry where consumers can declare their phone numbers off-limits to telemarketers have been delayed, in part by controversy over how to pay for it.

The do-not-call registry is an example of paternalistic government intervention. The legislation does nothing to stop the bad eggs from being bad, but the responsible telemarketers are at risk of being saddled with even higher costs, chasing more jobs off-shore where enforcement will be that much tougher.

Is the DNCL becoming another gun registry? Are we going to harm carrier call centre revenues and domestic call centre jobs?

Who will track the unintended consequences of what seemed to be well intentioned consumer-friendly legislation?

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Turkey has ordered ISPs to block access to YouTube, because of videos that are “allegedly insulting the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.”

It is another country asserting national sovereignty over the internet. Italy acted previously with respect to child pornography. Brazil had blocked YouTube, Denmark blocking AllofMP3.com. France and Germany have their own restrictions.

Paul Doany, head of Turk Telekom said:

We are not in the position of saying that what YouTube did was an insult, that it was right or wrong. A court decision was proposed to us, and we are doing what that court decision says.

Who should make these kinds of determinations for various types of content?

To what extent can countries exert sovereign authority over their portion of the internet? Should countries have that authority?

The 2007 Canadian Telecom Summit in June includes a session examining Illegal Content on the Internet.