Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sonal Gupta reports on the detection of massive methane releases from the Kitimat LNG facility which aren't included in normal monitoring or reporting. But Marin Scotten writes that the fossil gas industry is trying to issue propaganda to schools to push students to see continued pollution as inevitable. 

- Guillaume Calline discusses new opinion research showing that European electric vehicle owners are avoiding the anxiety from oil price shocks which has afflicted most ICE vehicle drivers. Nick Carey and Divya Rajagopal point out that Canada is ideally positioned to develop a manufacturing industry for Chinese EVs which can be exported to the U.S. once it's governed by a regime which is less hostile to clean transportation.  

- That said, Ajit Niranjan highlights a new analysis showing how vehicles of multiple types are expanding and creating avoidable hazards for everybody else on the road. And Jack Fitzgerald discusses the similar effect of increasing vehicle heights in the U.S. 

- Finally, Rebecca Solnit rightly points out the through line between the systematic abuse of women by Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and the Tate brothers. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ryan Cooper and David Dayen discuss how Donald Trump is managing to combine the worst abuses of every British monarch who helped contribute to revolts up to and including the American Revolution. Andrew Egger highlights the Trump regime's assault on free speech from anybody who doesn't trumpet his agenda (coupled with its normalization of violence and bigotry from supporters). And Andy Kroll writes about Russell Vought's tenure as acting shadow president, both in consolidating power and destroying any functional government which remained. 

- Meanwhile, David Climenhaga reports on the latest politicized review which the UCP has used to inject MAGA talking points into Alberta politics. 

- Antoine Trepanier reports on Mark Carney's refusal to live up to his promise of "elbows up" even as Trump continues to impose arbitrary tariffs which undermine any reason to think any negotiated agreement will last longer than Trump's next social media outburst. John Michael McGrath rightly wonders what the plan is for an auto sector which the Libs seem content to leave at the U.S.' mercy. And Amanda Follett Hosgood discusses the potential dangers from a U.S. government takeover of critical mineral interests in Canada (even as the Libs cheerlead for it).

- Ayurella Horn-Miller writes about new research documenting a connection between global warming and increased sugar consumption, providing yet another instance of public health dangers amplifying each other. 

- Finally, Simon Enoch notes that Canada Post would have plenty of options to provide better service for less cost if it weren't shackled by rules designed to protect corporate interests. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John Harwood discusses how Donald Trump's second term in office has been more harmful than even the most dire predictions anticipated. Donald Gutstein calls out Danielle Smith for promoting the twin U.S. interests of dirty energy and Alberta separation as her primary areas of activity. And Peter Zimonjic reports that Mark Carney is joining the corporate elites working on normalizing Trump's abuses, as he's removing a number of the targeted tariffs which had served as important pressure points against Trump's arbitrary actions.

- Meanwhile, for those looking for construction actions which Canada could and should be taking, Jon Milton and Nathaniel Denaro make the case for a vehicle production Crown corporation to ensure our existing industrial base isn't subject to the whims of the Trump administration and the U.S. automakers collaborating with it. And Brendan Haley points out the value of energy efficiency as a nation-building project. 

- Karl Nerenberg writes about Carney's immediate shift toward austerity and tax-cutting after he won power as the defender of a progressive Canada. Grant Robertson and Kathryn Blaze Baum report on the results of a federal investigation showing that existing reliance on algorithms to govern regulatory activity was a major cause of a deadly listeria outbreak - even as Carney seeks to replace even more government functions with AI vaporware. And Sophia Harris reports on the CRA's woeful lack of resources to answer public inquiries as well as ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. 

- Finally, David Coletto and Eddie Sheppard discuss new polling showing that an increasing number of Canadians are slipping into exonomic anxiety and precarity. 

Wednesday Evening Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Li Cohen discusses how the Earth has experienced 12 months of record heat in a row - but is on track to see today's extreme heat become a lower baseline for the decades to come. And Peter Crank points out how already-vulnerable people - including those living with mental illness - are particularly endangered as temperatures exceed what our infrastructure is intended to manage. 

- Meanwhile, Richard Heinberg writes about the challenges in trying to address the climate breakdown among other ongoing crises (particularly in the context of the elite assumption that problems have to be solved with markets and technology). And Matt Shipman explains how climate change will exacerbate air pollution. 

- Pam Belluck reports on the recognition of the widespread and devastating effects of long COVID in a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Cate Swannell warns that in the midst of an ongoing pandemic, we're actually backsliding in our public health mechanisms necessary to monitor and contain similar outbreaks. And Mike Crawley reports on Doug Ford's decision to axe all wastewater monitoring in Ontario - depriving the province of the ability to track all kinds of infectious diseases. 

- Finally, Cory Doctorow discusses how one of the main purposes and effects of ubiquitous corporate surveillance is to use the information gathered to extract the highest prices possible from consumers. And Catalina Sanchez rightly argues that auto manufacturers shouldn't be selling off people's driving history to anybody who finds that data useful and profitable. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- John Donne Potter discusses how an increase in reinfections is exacerbating the risk of long COVID. And Mark Kekatos reports that numerous U.S. cities are looking at reimplementing mask mandates as their case loads spiral out of control in the course of the BA.5 COVID wave. 

- Meanwhile, Zak Vescera reports that the Saskatchewan Party is once again focused on turning health care into a profit centre for its donors rather than a vital service for people, this time by doubling down on their failed attempt to address surgical backlogs with private clinics. 

- Alistair Steele reports on the labour shortage arising out of the demographic shift which has been foreseeable for decades, but never dealt with meaningful plans for succession. And Sarah O'Connor discusses how the UK is choosing to exploit migrant labour to fill care positions rather than creating viable working conditions for its own workforce - which is of course a familiar phenomenon in Saskatchewan as well. 

- Umair Irfan discusses how the EU's devastating heat wave is merely a hint of what's to come. And Umair Haque writes that our political leaders have no plan other than to tell people to learn for themselves to live with an apocalypse. 

- Finally, Wayne Poole notes that the end of the combustion engine vehicle is in sight - but that's not stopping the car industry from looking to push the largest polluters they can in the meantime. 

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Katharine Hayhoe offers some suggestions as to how to reach people in talking about climate change. Karine Peloffy writes about the growing mobilization of support for real action to avert climate disaster, while Roy Culpeper comments on the importance of Canada participating in (and indeed leading) a global movement toward environmental justice. Alex Ballingall reports on Abacus' polling which found two-thirds of Canadian already favouring a Green New Deal funded by more revenue from the wealthiest few. And Dave Mills points out that GM's abandonment of Oshawa could be turned into a massive opportunity if its plant can be repurposed to build electric vehicles.

- Meanwhile, Amanda Stephen reports on the sustainable jobs which stand to be lost if Jason Kenney follows through on his threat to axe Energy Efficiency Alberta. And Sarah Lawrynuk reports on the efforts of librarians to preserve Alberta climate change data before Kenney's wrecking crew has a chance to destroy it.

- And as a reminder of what tends to happen once a know-nothing government is in full swing, Emma Paling reports on the shortfall being created in Ontario's health care system by Doug Ford's government, while Lauren Pelley highlights a billion dollars in direct cuts to public health. Fatima Syed points out the "pay-to-kill" scheme intended to allow developers to avoid accounting for risks to endangered species. Marieke Walsh focuses on Ford's refusal to offer any explanation at all for gutting Indigenous Affairs funding, while CBC News reports on a similar attack on library services. And to top it all off, Lucas Powers reports on Ford's plans to make it uniquely difficult for citizens to sue for the misfeasance and negligence which represent his signature governing style.

- All of which is to say that Tanya Talaga is absolutely right in noting that children plainly don't come first in the Ford PCs' plans - nor anybody aside from their cronies and their desire to distract the public from what actually matters.

- Finally, Jorge Barrera reports on the federal government's continued fight to avoid addressing the effects of its discrimination in funding child welfare. And Maura Forrest reports on the recognition by one case management judge of the apparent plan to avoid compensating residential school students until it's too late.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Linda McQuaig writes that Canada's federal government should look at buying the soon-to-be-vacated GM plant in Oshawa to begin production of electric vehicles. But Nav Persaud notes that even when the Trudeau Libs make promises about using government power and resources for the public good, they ultimately end up going along with the wishes of the corporate sector.

- E. Tammy Kim writes that instead of relying on corporations to address housing shortages, cities should ensure the actors who cause and profit from rising rents are taxed to cover the cost.

- Ivana Kottasova reports on a new study showing how the global environment can't handle the damage caused by the U.S.' increase in fossil fuel production and consumption. And Fatima Syed reports on Doug Ford's extension of anti-government dogma to the treatment of endangered species in Ontario.

- Meanwhile, Erika Shaker examines the predictable effects of Ford's plan to undermine student newspapers and organizations as part of a more general attack on post-secondary education, while Nora Loreto points out that it particularly stands to weaken students' voices in the general public. And Martin Regg Cohn views the false promise of tuition cuts as following in the PCs' buck-a-beer tradition of counterproductive, faux-populist policies.

- Claire Clancy reports on recent findings of Alberta's Elections Commissioner concluding that Rebel Media and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have broken election laws. And Elizabeth Thompson reports that a single guilty plea and small fine looks like it may close the door on any public knowledge of SNC Lavalin's system of illegal federal political donations to the Libs and Cons.

- Finally, Trish Hennessy discusses some trends to watch for - and positive change to pursue - in the year ahead.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- In the wake of GM's abandonment of Oshawa, David Olive suggests that it's time for Canada to work on developing its own signature automaker. Sara Mohtehedzadeh writes that the Oshawa closure should serve as a warning for anybody who believes that big business will provide secure employment, while John Michael McGrath highlights the closure following massive public bailouts as a prime example of the futility of corporate welfare. Julia Conley examines the broader impact of GM's multiple plant shutdowns even in the face of multiple government concessions and giveaways. And Gerard Di Trolio, David Bush and Doug Nesbitt write that the labour movement needs to ensure that it's fighting for sustainable jobs and a just transition to clean energy, rather than hoping to preserve operations which have a limited shelf life. 

- Meanwhile, PressProgress points out why we shouldn't take the Libs' word for it that everything is hunky-dory for Canadian workers.

- Marco Chown Oved reports that Toronto's real estate market is vulnerable to the same type of money laundering that looks to have run rampant in Vancouver. And Abby Young-Powell offers a reminder of what we should want from our housing system - including building affordable communities and lives, not only bare accommodations.

- Finally, Ingrid Peretz reports on the first major Canadian climate change lawsuit challenging an avoidable climate breakdown as a violation of rights.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Global Alliance for Tax Justice examines the most common tax evasion practices used to allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. And Desmond Cohen points out how our current estimates of inequality underestimate exactly how much is being hidden.

-  David Macdonald anticipates and criticizes the Bank of Canada's increased interest rates by pointing out that Canadians have already been sorely lacking for more increased wages. And Andrew Jackson argues for a higher minimum wage by pointing to our relatively low wages when compared to other developed countries.

- Meanwhile, UFCW highlights a report on how Guatemalan agricultural workers are being exploited in Quebec.

- Gillian Steward discusses the developing electric car industry - and the reality that no public policy can prevent fossil fuel-powered vehicles (and the oil and gas industry's profits connected to them) from taking a turn toward obsolescence within a decade.

- Finally, John Rapley warns against unwarranted belief in neoliberal economic dogma due to both its failure to explain actual economic outcomes, and its failure to take into account necessary interests and values:

For decades, neoliberal evangelists replied to such objections by saying it was incumbent on us all to adapt to the model, which was held to be immutable – one recalls Bill Clinton’s depiction of neoliberal globalisation, for instance, as a “force of nature”. And yet, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the consequent recession, there has been a turn against globalisation across much of the west. More broadly, there has been a wide repudiation of the “experts”, most notably in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum.

 

It would be tempting for anyone who belongs to the “expert” class, and to the priesthood of economics, to dismiss such behaviour as a clash between faith and facts, in which the facts are bound to win in the end. In truth, the clash was between two rival faiths – in effect, two distinct moral tales. So enamoured had the so-called experts become with their scientific authority that they blinded themselves to the fact that their own narrative of scientific progress was embedded in a moral tale. It happened to be a narrative that had a happy ending for those who told it, for it perpetuated the story of their own relatively comfortable position as the reward of life in a meritocratic society that blessed people for their skills and flexibility. That narrative made no room for the losers of this order, whose resentments were derided as being a reflection of their boorish and retrograde character – which is to say, their fundamental vice. The best this moral tale could offer everyone else was incremental adaptation to an order whose caste system had become calcified. For an audience yearning for a happy ending, this was bound to be a tale of woe.

The failure of this grand narrative is not, however, a reason for students of economics to dispense with narratives altogether. Narratives will remain an inescapable part of the human sciences for the simple reason that they are inescapable for humans. It’s funny that so few economists get this, because businesses do. As the Nobel laureates George Akerlof and Robert Shiller write in their recent book, Phishing for Phools, marketers use them all the time, weaving stories in the hopes that we will place ourselves in them and be persuaded to buy what they are selling. Akerlof and Shiller contend that the idea that free markets work perfectly, and the idea that big government is the cause of so many of our problems, are part of a story that is actually misleading people into adjusting their behaviour in order to fit the plot. They thus believe storytelling is a “new variable” for economics, since “the mental frames that underlie people’s decisions” are shaped by the stories they tell themselves.

Economists arguably do their best work when they take the stories we have given them, and advise us on how we can help them to come true. Such agnosticism demands a humility that was lacking in economic orthodoxy in recent years.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- James Wilt writes that the PR campaign pushing pipelines is based largely on the false claim that the only other choice is to allow even more dangerous means of facilitating the burning of fossil fuels. And David Suzuki argues that the cost of addressing obvious environmental problems including climate change is only increasing as we delay acting on them.

- Jim Stanford notes that an intelligent response from Canada (as opposed to one based solely in free-trade dogma) could secure some advantages out of Donald Trump's expected trade policies.

- The CCPA's latest Monitor examines how tax reform is an essential piece in resolving fundamental economic problems.

- Kevin McKenna points out the efforts of Labour Councillor Matt Kerr to promote a basic income in the UK. And Debora Von Brenk reports on Ontario's move to start a conversation about rural poverty - which would seem to be well worth replicating in Saskatchewan.

- Finally, Doug Cuthand offers what seems to be a needed reminder that Canada's history goes back far beyond the 150-year mark being celebrated at great expense in 2017.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- David Blanchflower notes that there's virtually no dispute that the UK is headed into an economic downturn - meaning that there's also no excuse to hold off on fiscal relief for the public. And Brad DeLong points to a new study on the effectiveness of government spending in generating immediate economic growth well beyond the money actually spent.

- David Macdonald rightly recognizes a few important steps toward reducing poverty in Canada through broadly-available income supports.

- Jeff Guo highlights the connection between an increased workload and other job stressors, and overall health impacts on workers.

- Angella MacEwen and Laura Macdonald examine the Trans-Pacific Partnership's toxic effects on labour throughout the participating countries. And Greg Keenan reports on John Holmes and Jeffrey Carey's research showing how the TPP would harm Canada's auto sector.

- Finally, Joel French examines the massive amounts of public money being funneled into exclusionary private schools across Canada. And Morgan Modjeski reports that basic site elements including playgrounds have been left out of any design or funding for Saskatchewan schools - which both places the burden on individuals to fund-raise for community services, and effectively ensures disparity based on the wealth of a given neighbourhood.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Trevor Hancock writes that if we're going to designate anything as a public health emergency, poverty should top the list:

I was pleased to see the B.C. Ministry of Health use the powers of the provincial health officer to designate opioid drug overdose deaths a public-health emergency. But this is not the only, nor is it the largest, such emergency.

Of the likely candidates for designation as a public-health emergency, none seem as important as poverty, especially in B.C.
...
Personal experience and common sense, as well as a great deal of evidence, tell us that poverty results in poorer health. There is little doubt that inequalities in income translate to inequalities in health, which translate into additional health-care costs. It is time the B.C. government recognized that if opioid overdose deaths are an emergency, poverty is a far greater and more long-lasting emergency.

We need a concerted plan to reduce poverty and the health inequalities and economic impacts that result. Among other things, this plan needs to include a fair minimum wage, so people who work full time are not left in poverty, a level of social assistance that respects human dignity and a solid commitment to ensure that no child in B.C. grows up in poverty.

- Frances Ryan points out that major social issues like child poverty and the failures austerity have been driven out of the U.K.'s headlines as a result of the Brexit vote.
 
- Don Pittis writes that we shouldn't expect the public to put up with trade deals which undermine employment, while Daniel Kitts interviews Maude Barlow as to what type of agreement would actually be worth pursuing. And John Holmes and Jeffrey Carey take a look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership's fine print to see how it looks to undermine Canada's auto sector.

- James Wilt discusses how lobbying rules are easily evaded by the corporate interests whose influence over government is most problematic. And Mike De Souza reports on Jean Charest's secret meeting with the National Energy Board after he had been hired as a consultant by TransCanada as a glaring example.

- Finally, Christo Aivalis points out that the major issue in dispute between CUPW and Canada Post is the former's refusal to sell out future workers. And H.G. Watson outlines the issues being bargained while pointing out the need for the Trudeau Libs to rein in management run amok.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Krugman writes that we're far closer to a major energy transformation than many people realize - but that public policy decisions in the next few years may make all the difference in determining whether it materializes:

According to a recent report by the investment firm Lazard, the cost of electricity generation using wind power fell 61 percent from 2009 to 2015, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent. These numbers — which are in line with other estimates — show progress at rates we normally only expect to see for information technology. And they put the cost of renewable energy into a range where it’s competitive with fossil fuels.

Now, there are still some issues special to renewables, in particular problems of intermittency: consumers may want power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. But this issue seems to be of diminishing significance, partly thanks to improving storage technology, partly thanks to the realization that “demand response” — paying consumers to cut energy use during peak periods — can greatly reduce the problem.

...

I’d argue that the kind of progress now within reach could produce a tipping point, in the right direction. Once renewable energy becomes an obvious success and, yes, a powerful interest group, anti-environmentalism will start to lose its political grip. And an energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action.

Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen, with no political miracle necessary. But failure is also a very real possibility. Everything is hanging in the balance.

- Ian Welsh argues that the 2008 bank bailout - which effectively prioritized financial gambling over real economic development - is largely responsible for the lack of any real recovery afterward.

- Jim Stanford explains why Canada's auto sector in particular stands to suffer under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Shachi Kurl finds that Canadians in general are rightly concerned about what the TPP means for jobs.

- Finally, Laura Tribe comments that we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely to change the civil rights abuses pushed through in Bill C-51:

[Ralph] Goodale has said that reforms on C-51 won't likely be introduced until the fall at the earliest. Sadly, in the meantime, Canadians' rights are being violated everyday C-51 remains in place.
Oversight can't retroactively undo the damage that current legislation is doing. Each day, we're being subjected to excess surveillance. Our data is being shared without any checks and balances in place. There is no recourse for innocent Canadians.

C-51's overreaching powers are being normalized.

Many of the effects of this legislation won't be felt for years to come -- but in the meantime, we go on with our lives. Canadians remain on no-fly lists. Our private data is being collected. Information is being shared and compiled between government agencies. Rights are being violated. And all of this is happening without the oversight to ensure it's being done legally, effectively and safely.
...
It will take some time for public consultations, expert input, and analysis to determine the best policies and legislative solutions for Canada's security mechanisms. But we do know that right now, C-51 is quite simply incompatible with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why do we have to spend the best part of yet another year subject to laws that even the Liberals, the party ruling with an overwhelming majority, thinks are problematic?

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Roderick Benns interviews Michael Clague about his work on a basic income dating back nearly fifty years. And Glen Pearson's series of posts about a basic income is well worth a read.

- Meanwhile, Julia Belluz interviews Sir Michael Marmot about the connection between inequality and poor social health. And Gillian White writes about a lack of access to credit (and the resulting reliance on payday lenders) as just one of the many extra stresses facing people with lower incomes.

- Jamie Livingstone is optimistic that Scotland has hit a tipping point in reversing inequality. And Carol Goar looks for reason to hope in the fact that the Libs' new cabinet at least includes some responsibility for social justice issues - though Daniel James Wright points out that the pursestrings are being controlled by a rookie MP with strong corporate connections and little inclination toward progressive policy.

- Erin Obourn offers a survey of a few of the major problems with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And others are highlighting issues ranging from the entrenchment of temporary foreign workers, attacks on digital freedom including access to source code, limitations on personal privacy, damage to Canada's auto sector and the draconian enforcement of more harsh intellectual property provisions. 

- Finally, Paul Hanley weighs in on the Saskatchewan Party's appalling mismanagement surrounding the Boundary Dam coal plant.

On uncosted liabilities

So even from the sketchy details made public so far, and even leaving aside the more general harm done by limiting government action and entrenching corporate monopolies, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will cost Canada:

• $4.3 billion in compensation to dairy, chicken and egg farmers
• Up to 20,000 lost jobs in the auto sector - meaning both lower revenues and higher costs for the affected communities [update: together with another $1 billion to paper over the damage]
• Job losses in other industries which are supposed to "adapt", again resulting in both higher costs and lower revenues
• A higher price for prescription drugs funded both publicly and privately

Naturally, none of those costs were taken into account in the budgets being relied on by any of Canada's political parties in developing their platforms. But now that we know they'll come with the TPP (while any supposed benefits tend to be longer-term to the extent they materialize at all), can we agree that any party open to ratifying the deal has to account for the price in its platform for the next four years?

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford discusses how the Trans-Pacific Partnership is renegotiating NAFTA - and taking away what little Canada salvaged in that deal. And Jared Bernstein highlights the TPP's impact on prescription drug costs.

- Rick Smith rightly challenges the effort some people have made to minimize the difference between Canada's political parties:

Though the constant spinning of basically unchanging polling results is annoying, I’m not sure it’s corrosive to the democratic process.  On the other hand, the notion that it doesn’t matter who we elect is not only factually inaccurate, it does Canadians a disservice.

Over the past nine years an important part of the Conservative project has been to reduce participation in elections: restricting Election Canada’s ability to do outreach and education; making it harder for students and others to vote; and an outright disenfranchising of entire groups like Canadian expats. Diminishing the importance of voting just feeds this trend.  In fact, the only people who benefit from electoral nihilism are Conservatives, who have a vested interest in turning people off politics thereby keeping them home on election night.

Pretending that all politicians and party platforms are the same or shades of gray is also unfair to the many progressive community leaders running in this – and other elections — who are trying their damndest to actually make a difference. 

- But sadly, Kelly McParland only adds to Smith's list of commentators glossing over the real differences to create a narrative of voters tuning out the election.

- David Keith writes that the most scandalous element of Bruce Carson's involvement with the Cons is the role he and his oil industry cronies have played in exacerbating climate change. And Charles Mandel reports on yet another research library the Cons set out to destroy - though the good news is that in this case, PIPSC managed to step in before the damage was complete.

- Finally, Jeremy Nuttall reports that the Cons are also putting a price on previously-available information about temporary foreign workers. PressProgress finds a Con candidate telling young workers they should work for free rather than thinking paid employment is an option. And Sid Ryan offers his take on what the labour movement needs to do to improving working and living conditions for everybody.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Haroon Siddiqui comments on the Cons' tall economic tales. And Steven Chase and Greg Keenan note that workers are rightly fighting back against the Cons' plan to sell out Canada's auto parts industry and its 80,000 jobs.

- Canadian Doctors for Medicare weighs in with its approval of the NDP's plan for a national pharmacare program. And to remind us why we need to deal with prescription drug costs as a matter of public policy rather than hoping they'll take care of themselves, Andrew Pollack reports on the appalling price tags being applied even to long-available drugs being taken over by new profiteers.

- Max Ehrenfruend points out some of the symptoms of the U.S.' economic inequality - as the less well-off are facing shorter life spans on both a relative and an absolute basis.

- Mychalo Prystupa reports on the Cons' continued contempt for the media (along with anybody else who might dare to hold them accountable for their actions). And Cory Doctorow offers his take on the Cons' war on knowledge.

- Finally, Michael Hollett responds to a misplaced "anybody but Conservative" message by pointing out that there's a clear best option for Canadian voters - as the NDP offers both the most progressive government in the short term, and the prospect of a more fair electoral system which will help the Greens and other parties to play a larger role in the future.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- PressProgress digs into the PBO's report on tax giveaways to look at what Canada has lost from the Cons' cuts to federal fiscal capacity - and how little has been gained as a trade-off:

(T)he Harper government, by starving the public coffers, is losing $43 billion that could be used to boost investments in axed services, build needed national programs, as well as balance the budget and pay down debt.
...
Finance Canada's own data suggests every $1 billion spent on corporate tax cuts generates a measly 3,310 jobs. Not very effective.

And the PBO's report indicates that median income taxpayers with kids (averaging between $42,450 and $56,505) would see between 2.8% to 2.9% increase in their after-tax income. But those tax savings can be quickly eaten up by increased costs that would otherwise be covered through public programs.

For example, tax credits for children cost Canadians $2.74 billion. But a month or two of childcare in Ontario is equal to the total after-tax savings from these tax credits, while an affordable national childcare program would cost less to implement -- and saves families thousands of dollars.

- Of course, one would hope to be able to point to the difference between the Harper Cons' actions and the principles most prized by Canadians. But as Sean Holman points out, the Cons are also going out of their way to make sure that policymakers don't have access to accurate data about Canadians' values:

As a result of a lack of federal government funding, Canada wasn’t included in the most recent World Values Survey — one of the few means we have of knowing what our values are, how we differ from people in other countries and whether those values have changed over time.

The survey — which uses individual, face-to-face interviews rather than phone calls — has happened six times over the past 33 years, with the most recent being conducted in 59 different countries. Respondents answer a questionnaire that measures nearly 250 indicators covering everything from someone’s feelings about race to their political leanings.
...
Past surveys have also told us 64 percent of Canadians in 2005 would have agreed or strongly agreed to an increase in taxes if the extra money was used to prevent environmental pollution — an (sic) seven point increase over 2000.
...
Findings such as these are valuable for everyone from journalists and researchers to politicians and everyday voters — potentially leading to stories, studies and policy-changes. But Canadians won’t know if those values or any others changed between 2010-14 because our country — which has been part of the survey since 2000 — wasn’t included in its most recent wave, the results of which were released late last month.

- Meanwhile, Mike De Souza reports on the Cons' edict that environmental scientists stay silent about environmental science. And Devon Black writes about the Cons' archaic, position-based negotiating strategy - though I'd argue they've consistently shown themselves determine to pursue a philosophy of "getting to 'Yes, Master'" rather than "getting to Yes".

- Geoff Leo confirms the less-than-surprising conclusion that complaint-based regulatory systems aren't doing anything at all to preserve the rights of temporary foreign workers who can be deported for complaining. And Cathie highlights why we can't expect the Cons to fix a mess based on their own combination of toxic anti-worker ideology and incompetent management.

- And finally, Jim Stanford studies the effect of CETA on Canada's auto sector, and finds that once again the Cons' trade plans will make matters worse for major industries.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ed Broadbent comments on both the growing problem of inequality, and the one institution which can do something about it:

Canada is not doing better. From 1982 until 2004, almost all growth in family income went to the top 20 per cent, with much of that going to the top 1 per cent, while the bottom 60 per cent saw no growth at all. The increase in inequality in Canada since the mid-1990s has been the fourth highest in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

But does this matter? Yes, the evidence is in, and the conclusion is clear: Inequality does matter. In terms of social outcomes, more equal societies do better for everyone, not just for the poor, in almost every respect: health outcomes, life expectancy, level of trust in society, equality of opportunity and upward social mobility. A recent study showed that if Americans want to experience the American Dream of upward mobility, they should pack up and move to Sweden. They would have to leave the most unequal democracy and move to the most equal.

Contrary to the mythology propagated by so many, the actual degree of inequality in advanced democracies has little to do with the so-called forces of globalization or shifts related to technological change. It’s largely the result of government action or inaction. Globalization affects all countries. But, from the mid-1970s, the share of income of the top 1 per cent in Canada, the U.S. and Britain rose rapidly, while there was little change in France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. As recently highlighted by the World Bank, Brazil and other Latin American countries have become significantly more equal over the past decade.

Once again, the evidence is clear: Whether countries become more or less equal depends largely on government policies. Government can reduce or exacerbate the market trends producing inequality.

- And there's at least some evidence that voters will choose the party which recognizes inequality as a problem, as Eric Boehlert discusses how the Republicans' closed information system and associated disdain for mere working Americans led to massive election losses:

Republicans won't because they're intimidated by the right-wing media's power. That's why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie quickly got on the phone  with Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch after Murdoch tweeted that Christie, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and his bipartisan appearances with Obama, needed to re-endorse Romney or "take the blame" for the president's re-election.

Murdoch: Jump! Republicans: How high?

That unhealthy relationship is the reason why, when it comes to the simple question of whether America is divided between "makers and takers," and if the 62 million Americans who voted for Obama represent a decaying nation of moochers in search of handouts, there's a wide gulf within the conservative movement. The right-wing media consider the claim to be a central tenet, while Republican leaders think saying it out loud is completely batty and a prescription for an electoral losing streak.

 

So yes, those are conspicuous handcuffs the GOP is wearing: Fox News has hijacked the party's communications apparatus and is pushing the type of paranoid, blame-the-voter rhetoric that loses elections, and the type of rhetoric Romney's now being blamed for. But the GOP can't turn it off. In fact, most Republicans can't even work up enough courage to ask Fox News to turn down the volume.

- Of course, part of avoiding that type of destructive closed loop involves a willingness to look at policy on something other than a wholly tribal basis. And on that front, I'll note that while the Cons' announcement that they're following the U.S.' lead in regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles is only a minor gain, it's certainly better than the alternative of Canada serving as a dumping ground for the least efficient vehicles being manufactured for the North American market - which would be the case if our standards dropped substantially below the U.S.'. And opponents of the Cons' general neglect for the environmental will do nothing but damage by echoing and reinforcing the still-farcical "tax on everything" message in response.

- Which isn't to say we should be anything but horrified by the Cons' economic strategy of "resource boom forever!". And Geoff Dembicki rightly points out just one more counterproductive result of that focus - as we're losing out on a rapidly-expanding global market for clean technology due to a government which insists on pushing dirty alternatives.

- Finally, while I'm skeptical of Chris Turner's take on future electoral cooperation schemes, I'll heartily endorse his argument as to why Calgary Centre is the last riding anybody should be pointing to in calling for them.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Pratap Chatterjee discusses our new age of robber barons - and how the wealthiest CEOs get out of paying any tax at all on massive sums of money:

The Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington DC thinktank, says that a chunk of the money Ellison spent buying Lanai should have paid for elementary school teachers and clean energy jobs, instead of fulfilling the billionaire CEO's vacation fantasies. That's one conclusion of their new report, "The CEO Hands in Uncle Sam's Pocket: How Our Tax Dollars Subsidize Exorbitant Executive Pay", which points out that Oracle took advantage of a 1993 loophole in tax law to designate $76m of Ellison's income as "performance-related pay", which allowed him to avoid paying any taxes on the money.

Dozens of US CEOs have cashed in on this major tax incentive at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of $9.7bn last year. Statistics provided by National Priorities Project suggest that the same amount of money could have paid for 142,625 elementary school teachers, or healthcare for 4.96 million low-income children.

"At a time of austerity, it's beyond absurd that billions of our tax dollars are pouring into executive pockets," says Sarah Anderson, a report co-author.

- Meanwhile, Erin Weir points out that Vale's choice not to proceed with a potash mine in Kronau only highlights the fact that corporate decision-making has far more to do with other factors than with provincial giveaways - serving as all the more reason for Saskatchewan to ensure it gets fair value for our potash.

- And Jim Stanford notes that the key to growth in our auto sector involves public policy which actually values industrial development, not further attacks on employees:

Imagine, purely for discussion, that labour costs were reduced in Canada. Right now, with a very strong dollar, total nominal labour costs (including benefits) at the three companies average about $3 per hour more than in the U.S. (Real wages, adjusted for higher Canadian prices, are actually lower here.) Suppose that gap was eliminated and costs fell by $3 per hour. Would that usher in a new era of automotive prosperity?

It takes an average of 29 hours of in-house shop-floor labour to manufacture one vehicle (including engine, transmission and final assembly). A $3 hourly saving therefore translates into an $87 reduction in the cost of a car. That’s not even enough to pay for deluxe floor mats in your new sedan, let alone underwrite the future success of an entire industry.

Meanwhile, the all-important policy context in Canada is currently making things worse, not better, for the auto industry. For example, the Harper government is aggressively pursuing free-trade deals that would eliminate tariffs on imports from three different auto-exporting powerhouses: the aforementioned Germany, Japan and South Korea. That would undermine the competitive position of domestic-made vehicles by about $2,000 per unit – outweighing our hypothetical labour savings by a 20-to-1 ratio. Similarly, the continuing flight of the loonie eats up any labour savings as fast as they can be tallied; indeed, the loonie’s 5-cent rise since June alone has added $3 per hour to Canada’s apparent hourly cost.

It seems almost pointless to even worry about labour costs when the broader policy framework that is so essential for industrial success is glaringly absent.

- Finally, Dene Moore reports on how the Harper Cons have gutted the exact review process which they plan to rely on as validating the construction of pipelines wherever Enbridge chooses to place them.