Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Kenyon Wallace reports on new modelling showing a real risk of yet another wave of COVID spread in Ontario - even as widespread immunity just a few months of remotely responsible government away. Julie Steenhuysen and Kate Kelland point out how an increasing number of variants is complicating the fight against COVID-19. And Marieke Walsh and Greg McArthur discuss how Canada's vaccination process has been set back due to our reliance on global supply chains.

- Chris Hedges writes about the multiple prominent examples of social murder in progress - with COVID-19 serving only as a particularly immediate and vivid example of the phenomenon which also defines the climate crisis and other avoidable crises of public health and welfare. And John Calvert discusses the people killed by Texas' reckless deregulation of vital infrastructure - along with the propensity of Canadian conservatives to push us in the same direction.  

- Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail's editorial board calls out Doug Ford for choosing to try to renormalize cash-for-access politics. And Darren Bernhardt reports on the Manitoba PCs' unprecedented power grab in seeking to ram a large number of dubious bills through the legislative process while keeping their contents secret from opposition parties and the public.

- Emmanuel Fulgence Drabo, Grace Eckel, Samuel Ross, Michael Brozic et al. are the latest to demonstrate that a Housing First system which provides residents with a secure home produces a substantial return on investment in social and economic terms.

- Finally, Richard Denniss writes that Australia's regulation of tech giants - which was met with an initial attempt at resistance followed by ultimate acceptance - demonstrates that we're not helpless in the face of the power of large corporations. And Adam Smith discusses the EU's latest move to empower the public by ensuring that consumer electronics are reasonably durable and can be repaired - rather than being part of a cycle of rapid planned obsolescence.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Stephen McBride offers some important lessons on austerity from government responses to the 2008 economic crisis.

- Zoe Drewett reports on the rising level of poverty in the UK. Andrew Jackson points out how the Libs' measuring stick for poverty seems aimed at doing the bare minimum, and stands to leave many people behind. And Dawn Foster interviews Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson about the damaging effects of inequality on our health and well-being:

The Inner Level, their long-awaited follow up published earlier this year, looks at the more personal, individual effects of inequality: how the social effects of the gap between rich and poor impact on people. “We’re talking about how inequality affects our intimate lives, our inner lives; our mental wellbeing, our relationships with friends and family,” Pickett says.

The Inner Level examines a society that has dealt with 10 years of austerity, and seen almost every family impacted by stagnant wages, increased job insecurity, swingeing cuts and changes to the benefits system and public services nationally and locally, as well as a surge in problems with mental health across society. “It takes a whole argument and evidence about the effects of inequality to a deeper and more intimate level. In The Spirit Level we were dealing with things about society ‘out there’ – the size of the prison population, homicide rates, obesity rates and so on. But this takes it into the sphere of our social fears and anxieties,” Wilkinson says. “Worries about self worth: all the things that make social contact sometimes seem rather awkward and stressful. Your fears about self presentation and so on are all exacerbated by inequality.”

The problems scrutinised in the book – self doubt, social anxiety, stress, and fear of how we are seen by others – have an impact on day-to-day emotions for individuals, but also a wider impact on relationships, our ability to build functioning communities, and the health and wellbeing of entire populations. These issues are massively exacerbated by inequality, and a belief in meritocracy means that any failure is deemed a personal failure, the book argues. “The reality is that inequality causes real suffering, regardless of how we choose to label such distress. Greater inequality heightens social threat and status anxiety, evoking feelings of shame which feed into our instincts for withdrawal, submission and subordination: when the social pyramid gets higher and steeper and status insecurity increases, there are widespread psychological costs.”

The stress of poverty also influences the cognitive development of babies and children. Measuring the levels of the stress hormone cortisol in infants found that poverty, and the amount of time spent in poverty, can hamper the mental development of children. Pickett and Wilkinson find that “family income is a more powerful determinant of cognitive development than being brought up by single parents, or maternal depression”, and that if children are enrolled in support services like Sure Start and their equivalents in other countries, some of the effects of poverty are offset, and children’s educational and psychological performance improves.
...
Wilkinson and Pickett cite extensive statistical evidence that unequal societies are responsible for less fulfilling personal lives, and in turn harm public health, scupper educational progress, increase crime and lower life expectancy. “We debunk some of the myths that people use to explain why [society] is willing to tolerate greater levels of inequality, namely that inequality is a natural result of our human nature, that we are competitive, individualistic and out for ourselves – that’s the way we are, it’s just human nature and nothing can be done about it,” Pickett says. “That is not the case. We also provide evidence to counter the argument that actually we’re living in a meritocracy, and that inequality is simply a case of the capable and talented moving up, and those who are less capable, less clever, moving down.”

- Daniel Tencer reports on Canada's place among the riskiest housing markets in the world when comparing current prices to long-term averages. 

- Andrew Parkin and Erich Hartmann discuss the need for a national pharmacare program to be fair to provinces who have already made the effort to ensure residents have needed access to medications. And Thomas Walkom follows up on the work of the Institute for Research on Public Policy in showing how a pharmacare system could be put together.

- Finally, Bill Curry and Tom Cardoso report on the Libs' continued use of cash-for-access fund-raising events.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Damian Paletta and Josh Dawsey report that cash for access is the only way for anybody to raise issues with the U.S. Republicans' tax bills. And Ronald Brownstein views the tax debacle as conclusive evidence of the closing of Republican minds.

- Meanwhile, Mark Kingwell offers a needed rebuttal to the reactionary right's efforts to falsely criticize universities for exactly the type of closed-minded attitudes underlying its own movement:

Right-wing postmodernism flourishes by bulldozing dissent. The current occupant of the White House, and those leading rhetorical crusades in his shadow, are just late-model versions of real intellectual rot. It begins with thinking you can say whatever you want, because you have power and a Twitter or YouTube account. It ends with a comprehensive sense of entitlement that you can get away with anything.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," the current President said. Yes, he said that. He said that. It's a fact that he said it.

Universities are always easy targets. You can target this so-called useless course or that apparently trendy professor. You can mock new pronouns and novel ways of thinking. But here's what we mostly do: We insist that when people utter falsehoods and nonsense, or behave intolerably, they will be challenged, on the facts, with reasons and arguments.

It's indoctrination, sure – into critical thinking. Sorry if that upsets what you already believe. (Note: not in fact sorry.)

- Damian Carrington reports on the health effects of air pollution on fetal health. And Karl Nerenberg writes about the global connection between inequality and reproductive health.

- Ben Parfitt makes the case for an inquiry into B.C.'s fracking industry. And Paul Willcocks discusses why the Libs' Site C disaster needs to be shut down, not continued by John Horgan's government.

- Donna Borden comments on the need for low-income Canadians to have fair access to financial services. And Tamar Harris reports on a lawsuit against Rogers for breaking its promise not to subject participants in a low-income Internet service program to credit checks which could harm their credit scores.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes about the costs of Ontario's power privatization, as monopoly private providers have been able to exploit the regulatory system to claim illegitimate costs.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Michal Rozworski highlights how UK Labour's platform provides for a needed move toward the democratization of economic activity along with an end to gratuitous austerity. And a distinguished group of economists has signed on to support the plan.

- Charlie Skelton examines how this year's Bilderberg conference is making a mockery of issues of inclusion and fairness. And Scott Sinclair and Stuart Trew point out why there's no reason to think a free trade deal between a capital-focused Justin Trudeau and an authoritarian Chinese regime will do anything but serve corporate interests at the expense of the public.

- Meanwhile, G. Elijah Dann comments that Trudeau's legacy looks to be one of empty political theatre.

- Dean Beeby reports on the Canada Revenue Agency's calculation that the federal government lost $13.6 billion in uncollected domestic revenue in 2014 alone.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk writes that the Wall government's decision to shut down the Saskatchewan Transportation Company (among other budget cuts) looks to have caused a sea change in rural support. And the fact that the Saskatchewan Party is more focused on trying to justify continued cash-for-access fund-raisin than doing anything to benefit Saskatchewan's citizens figures to make it all the more difficult to reverse that trend.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Meagan Gilmore examines how an increased minimum wage is good for business.

- Hannah Aldridge offers some suggestions to keep a poverty reduction strategy on target. And Make Poverty History notes that Brian Pallister is offering a textbook example of how not to do it by ignoring his government's responsibility to update Manitoba's existing plan.

- The CP reports that Canada's cities are trying to push Justin Trudeau's Libs to stop stalling on funding for social housing. But Jordan Press and Andy Blatchford note that instead of tackling important social problems, Trudeau is focused on an infrastructure banks scheme designed to privatize profits while leaving risks in public hands.

- Laura Stone discusses how the Libs' supposed response to public outcry over cash-for-access fund-raising falls short of the mark. And Karen Howlett points out how disclosure of doctors' ties to pharmaceutical funding could have gone a long way toward preventing today's opioid epidemic.

- Finally, Joe Castaldo explains why people are so easily persuaded that financial bubbles are the new normal - while noting that Toronto and Vancouver's real estate markets look to have fooled far too many in recent years.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Jared Bernstein argues that the limited stimulus provided by tax cuts for the rich is far from worth the overall costs of exacerbating inequality and damaging public revenues:

I’m encountering progressives who are compelled to be at least somewhat supportive of wasteful, regressive tax cuts, like those proposed by Trump, or the ones I just wrote about in Kansas, that happen to spin off some positive fiscal impulse. While we’re closing in on full employment, there’s still slack in the job market, such FI could help absorb remaining slack.

That’s true, but there are two relevant questions: bang for the buck (multipliers), and the impacts of the cost of the tax cuts.

The Kansas cuts–particularly the zeroing out of the pass-through income–are instructive as these cuts have very low bang-for-buck in terms of jobs or incomes for middle and lower income folks. They just lower taxes for those who are already “highly liquid,” i.e., they’ve got a bunch of money already and giving them more shouldn’t be expected to boost spending (C) or investment (I) much. And since states must balance their budgets, they constrain G as well.

In terms of poor targeting, Trump-style cuts are similarly lame in terms of growth effects, as I discussed recently re the GW Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s. However, because they involve deficit spending–as I’m sure you’ve seen, the federal gov’t can run deficits–they will generate some positive FI, which we could use.

But at what cost? The opportunity costs are twofold. First, there’s the cost of tapping small versus larger multipliers: were team Trump to spend the money on infrastructure or target those with high consumption propensities, the FI would be stronger (btw, it should be noted that multipliers are smaller when the Fed’s raising rates, albeit slowly and by small increments, than when they’re lowering them).

Second, “permanent” tax cuts will mean a worsening of the revenue shortfall I’ve long worried about (the scare quotes are there because the R’s may build some BS cliff into their tax plan to accommodate arcane budget rules, but the intention is permanence). That will provide an excuse for whacking Medicaid, Medicare, Social Sec, and much other spending that’s important to the poor and middle-class. And yes, those folks are income constrained, so that part of ‘G’ gets spent and feeds back into growth.

- Danielle Ivory, Ben Protess and Griff Palmer point out how the public interest suffers when necessary infrastructure is turned into a corporate profit centre.

- Judith Lavoie discusses how the secrecy around the tar sands has made it nearly impossible for communities to plan for effective spill responses. And Genesee Keevil explores the truly unmitigated disaster that is the Yukon's Faro mine site as an example of what's left behind when a poorly-regulated resource extraction industry leaves the public with the bill to clean up behind it.

- Craig Offman and Nathan Vanderklippe report that the Libs' cash-for-access schemes look to include massive profits for the bundlers involved, as the asking price for face time with Justin Trudeau far exceeds the individual donation limit. And Dermod Travis discusses the big-money politics which the Clark Libs want to continue in British Columbia.

- Finally, Lana Payne writes about the need to push back against bullying politics in order to change them.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jonathan Sas highlights why we're best off having public services delivered by the public sector:

The three decades long bashing and diminishing of the redistributive capacities of the state has led to pronounced inequality, degraded infrastructure stock, and a blunted ability of government to respond to current societal challenges. Of course, this was what the right-wing wanted. We understand the attack on the public sector as part and parcel of a broader neoliberal economic program that has favored financial deregulation, the expansion of unfair trade and investment deals, the weakening of worker rights and, finally, a retrenchment of welfare state programs and public services.
In Canada, the neoliberal attack on the public sector has been used to justify austerity and to promote both the privatization of existing public assets as well as the private ownership and operation of future projects and assets through P3 agreements. We fundamentally disagree that the private sector is necessarily more efficient or more capable of owning, operating and delivering projects and services as P3 advocates, including some progressives, falsely claim.
...
...P3s have been shown to cost more, to leave the public without control of services and assets, and ultimately to saddle the public with the costs if and when a project doesn't work out.  It is for these reasons that we also support municipal moves to in-source or bring privatized services back in-house.
...
At this moment of deep political convulsion throughout the West, the fight against privatization is part of a broader struggle against the economic logic that has led to corrosive inequality and underpinned the bankrupt neoliberal economic paradigm. We must continue to dispel the myth that it is the private sector alone that drives innovation or that is capable of driving economic growth and dynamism. And we must fight to ensure that the public is equitably rewarded for the investments it makes.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress offers its take on CIBC's conclusion that Canadian jobs are
deteriorating in quality. And Thomas Piketty argues that we should focus more on ensuring a fair return for labour than on providing a basic income - though I'm not sure that his justifiable concerns about the cheap nature of existing basic income systems rules out the viability of a more generous version.

- Sean McElwee, Jesse H. Rhodes and Brian Schaffner examine the chasm between the donor class which owns U.S. politics, and the public which has to live with political decisions. And Andrew Coyne criticizes Justin Trudeau's sordid dealings with the big-money donors promised access for their cash.

- Finally, the Aurora Banner makes the case for the Libs to stop stalling on their clear promise of electoral reform, while Avvy Go notes that how we vote is just one piece of an inclusive political system. And Neil MacDonald discusses Trudeau's practice in government of emphasizing a positive face on the same old lack of accomplishment we're accustomed to seeing from his predecessors.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Citizens for Public Justice laments the Libs' and Cons' joint effort to vote down the NDP's push for a national anti-poverty strategy. And Sean Speer and Rob Gillezeau make the case for an improved Working Income Tax Benefit which should be palatable across the political spectrum.

- CBC reports that Saskatchewan students are lagging behind their peers in all Canadian provinces in science, reading and math - and it's worth noting that this represents just another example of an obsession with standardized testing failing even on its own terms.

- Meanwhile, SASKforward is offering citizens a chance to have their voices heard and amplified through a process other than the ones run by the Sask Party government and its corporate benefactors.

- Robert Fife and Steven Chase report that the Libs' cash-for-access fund-raisers have explicitly been pitched as allowing people who can afford a maximum donation to buy the ear of cabinet ministers. And even the Globe and Mail isn't buying the Libs' excuses.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses how the Libs' most recent survey represents nothing but a poorly-hidden effort to stifle electoral reform, while Fair Vote Canada offers a guide to avoid getting pushed toward the Libs' preference for non-proportional outcomes. And Rank and File interviews Charles Smith about labour's role in pushing for a more fair electoral system.