Wednesday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Adam Radwanski points out that Stephen Harper's latest round of Senate patronage figures to play into the NDP's hands as it looks to build public opposition to politics as usual:

If Mr. Harper was looking to signal once and for all that he’s abandoned his populist roots, he could scarcely have done better than Wednesday’s Senate appointments. Little more than two weeks ago, Josée Verner, Larry Smith and Fabian Manning were all rejected by voters in their ridings – the latter two after biding their time with supposedly temporary gigs in the Red Chamber. Now, all three will have the opportunity to serve in Parliament anyway, at what is theoretically a higher level, courtesy of the leader who only a few weeks ago was still extolling the virtues of an elected Senate.
...
(F)or the New Democrats, this is a dream issue – and not just because it distracts from their own post-election foibles. It will give Mr. Layton, who has argued that the Senate should be abolished altogether, an opportunity to continue positioning himself as the outsider standing up for ordinary Canadians against Ottawa’s culture of entitlement – a message that will be key to any future success east of Ontario.

The Conservatives spent much of the recent campaign enjoying the NDP’s surge, because it mostly came at the expense of the Liberals. But for all that Mr. Harper might relish the prospect of his only national opposition coming from a party firmly to the left of centre, he might enjoy it a little else if that party starts challenging him on what was once safe Conservative turf. A few more announcements like Wednesday’s, and that might start to be a real concern.

- John Geddes comments on how the NDP's strong labour base may play into its opposition strategy:

It’s the public impression Layton’s caucus creates that will largely determine if he can prevent the Liberals from reclaiming their traditional centrist political turf. Appearing to be too close to organized labour could be a liability for the NDP. After all, only a minority of working Canadians belong to a union, about 30 per cent last year, down from 38 per cent in 1981. Unionization rates are lower still in the private sector, making the influence of public sector unions in the NDP a potential issue. And that influence is substantial and looks to be growing, with the election of potential caucus heavyweights like Nycole Turmel, the former president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and Robert Chisholm, a former Atlantic regional director of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

The clout of these and other advocates for government unions could be significant in the coming battle over departmental budgets. Harper has vowed to find $4 billion a year in cuts to direct federal spending, not including transfers to the provinces and individuals. Dewar says the NDP is sure to oppose any job cuts proposed to achieve those reductions. But he argues the NDP is uniquely positioned to try to bring government unions into discussions about saving money without shrinking the bureaucracy. “We can actually talk to public sector unions,” he says, “about finding ways to innovate.” And doing more than merely combatting restraint at every turn, he adds, will be vital to solidifying the NDP’s election gains. “The stereotype,” Dewar says, “is that we’ll just oppose cuts and that’s it.”
...
He was scheduled to give his first speech since the election this week at a CLC convention in Vancouver. The event was planned long before the Tory minority fell and the election was on, but the symbolism is potent. He can’t afford to drop what Brian Topp, one of his key strategists—and executive director of the performers’ union ACTRA in Toronto—has described as Layton’s formula of “optimistic, sunny idealism” and “fiscally prudent pragmatism.” Those may not be themes traditionally used to rally a union audience. But as the politician who has just brought Canada’s labour movement closer than ever before to federal power, Layton is in a position to set his own tone.

- Dwayne Winseck highlights some of the myths behind the demand for more restrictive copyright laws:

The music industry is not in decline. In fact, the “total” music industry has grown from roughly $1.26-billion in 1998 to just over $1.4-billion today. Worldwide, the growth has been even more impressive, especially in the fast-growing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS).

But the reshuffling of new and old elements in the industry has not been kind to the traditional big four global record labels, EMI, Universal, Warner Music and Sony. A few massive concert promoters – Live Nation (Ticketmaster), AEG, etc. – also threaten to usurp their place at the centre of the music universe. Bands such as Radiohead, the Arctic Monkeys and Pearl Jam now go straight to audiences with their music, while picking up whatever slack ensues through concerts.
...
So, copyright reform? Absolutely.

Picking up where the last Parliament left off will deliver important advances with respect to user created content and limited liability for ISPs. However, the crackdown on users, attempts to turn ISPs into ‘gatekeepers’ on behalf of the music industry and permitting digital locks to trump people’s rights, will lead us down a bad path.

- Finally, Erin compares the relative effects of wages and profits in contributing to economic growth:

The key insight is that, since the relationship between profits and investment is relatively weak (a point often noted on this blog), the balance hinges on the significance of trade flows. Since net exports are zero for the world as a whole, the global economy is wage-led. Big economies like the Eurozone and United States are also wage-led. But small open economies tend to be profit-led because trade flows loom large.

Stockhammer’s analysis helps explain the generally poor performance of neoliberal “trickle down” economics for the world as a whole. It also sheds light on Europe’s economic policy paradox.

For individual European countries, it seems rational to pursue pro-capital policies to gain a competitive edge. But since the whole Eurozone is wage-led, member countries would enjoy more growth if they all pursued pro-labour policies.
...
The presentation also got me thinking about smaller economies (like Canada), for which the policy implications are less straightforward. Progressives should still support pro-labour policies to achieve a more equal distribution of income and we should not aspire to provoke a competitive “race to the bottom” by pursuing pro-capital policies.

However, simply boosting wages in a small open economy would not add to its growth. More domestic consumption could be more than offset by diminished export competitiveness (unless wages simultaneously rose elsewhere through international coordination).

To me, this analysis underscores the need for progressives to articulate alternative strategies to promote investment and exports, especially in smaller economies that may not be wage-led. Instead of accepting pro-capital policies across the board, we should advocate investment in public infrastructure and targeted support for actual private investment as well as policies focused on higher wages and income redistribution.