Friday, December 13, 2013

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Bob Hepburn writes that more Canadians approve of the idea of a guaranteed annual income than oppose it - even as the concept is all too frequently dismissed as politically unpalatable. And Stuart Trew points out that a majority of Canadians disagree with the corporate super-rights contained in the CETA and other trade agreements.

- But of course, blind support for corporate interests and opposition to a reasonable standard of living for all are neatly clustered in the Cons' caucus among other places. And Carol Goar writes that Con MPs used a Parliamentary study of inequality as yet another platform to parrot Stephen Harper's anti-social talking points.

- Nick Fillmore's Tyee series on Canadian banks is well worth a read - particularly the latest installment discussing how the U.S. financial model (which is of course seeping across the border) gives priority to derivatives over the banking functions which actually serve some useful purpose for the real economy.

- pogge politely suggests that if CSEC's current Con-appointed watchdog sees his job as countering public reporting of surveillance activities (rather than investigating the accuracy of those reports), then maybe it's time for a real watchdog.

- Finally, Vanda Schmokel writes about the developing pattern of mid-winter apartment evictions in Regina. And the Evict Scrooge campaign is calling attention to both the plight of the residents losing their homes when they can least afford it, and the general lack of accessible rental housing.


  1. Anonymous11:43 a.m.

    We do not need the yappy chihuahuas de la famille Plouffe as watchdogs. We need real watchdogs. The Newfoundland is a great watchdog: gentle, intelligent, loyal and strong, but when it faces a threat, it can be vicious. I have seen them in action. Those are the kind of watchdogs we need in Canada.

  2. Anonymous2:01 p.m.

    One big problem with GAI is that there are many living in poverty with mental disabilities and addicts. These people cannot manage their money and I don't see how this will help them. They need programs that have people there to help them get through the very basic things like paying rent, eating properly and spending their money smart. With the loss of all social programs because of GIA would be a disaster for many people. Just up welfare rates etc.

    1. I'm not sure more than a few extremists would see a GAI as eliminating the need for some additional social supports - particularly in cases involving mental health and/or addiction issues.

      But since those exact issues can make it difficult to hold down consistent income streams (either through employment or through maintaining qualification for social benefits), I'd think a GAI would be highly useful to provide the assurance that a person facing those challenges can afford the basic necessities - rather than having already-limited personal resources drained by the lack of income security.