Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Marc Elias explores what it means to worry that "we're on our own" in the face of a fascist government and crumbling institutions - while noting that one of the most important tasks in building resistance is to ensure people don't give up the fight for democracy and solidarity. Brian Beutler makes the case to work on pro-social activity - particularly in contrast to engaging with the social media outlets which have been turned into propaganda mills by techbros. And Josh Marshall rightly notes that there's a massive opportunity to tap into existing public sentiment in opposing government by billionaires for billionaires. 

- A.R. Moxon writes that an economic system built on the principle of unconstrained growth and ruthless efficiency in extracting wealth regardless of the cost to human life can hardly expected to do anything but grind through the population without any compunction. Angel Munarriz writes about the "nationalist international" seeking to impose discriminatory authoritarianism on a country-by-country basis. David Howarth implores UK Labour to limit plutocratic domination of media and politics before it's too late. And Dale Smith warns about the need to beware of Pierre Poilievre's own plan to turn public policy over to the broligarchy. 

- Jon Ungoed-Thomas reports on the multinationals who are exercising discretion to let the value of UK  employees' pensions erode even while raking in massive profits. And David Climenhaga notes that  the UCP is looking to dismiss a readily-foreseeable report from the chief actuary of Canada saying that Alberta can't steal over half of the value of the Canada Pension Plan to funnel into dirty energy. 

- Jim Stanford writes about the high cost of not striking - as the failure of workers to stand up for each other produces a far worse outcome for the entire working class. And Adam King points out the Trudeau Libs' contempt for collective action - with its squelching of the Canada Post strike representing just the latest of many choices to prioritize management control over the interest of workers and the public. 

- Ashley Wan-Tzu Lo and Suman Kumar Mitra study the effect of urban design, and find that denser and more accessible environments improve mobility and social activity. And Ron Johnson discusses new research showing how biking to work is associated with a bevy of health benefits (including lower cancer rates). But Trevor Potts discusses how Doug Ford is determined to pour public money into highways while deliberately destroying bike and pedestrian infrastructure. 

- Finally, Paul Krugman writes about the U.S.' choice to cultivate gambling and other addictions in order to create profit centers at the expense of far greater social harms. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sarah Johnson reports on Unicef's warning that children will face far more extreme heatwaves and other dangerous weather events in the decades to come. And George Monbiot writes that the "solutions" being relied upon to respond to the climate crisis are rarely any more plausible than the spin of the most stubborn head-in-the-sand denialists. 

- Ben Stockton and Hajar Medah expose how McKinsey & Company has been working on keeping people hooked on fossil fuels. Amy Westervelt and Royce Kurmelovs examine how fossil fuel giants have always been preventing COP conferences from achieving any meaningful progress - even if they're far more brazen about controlling the agenda now. 

- Graham Thomson discusses the obvious dangers of putting a partisan operative and fossil fuel zealot in charge of Albertans' retirement savings. But Angela Amato reports on the gap between the CPP's net-zero promises and its choice to invest in dirty energy. 

- Jon Milton examines the background to the CUPW postal strike - and particularly the difference in goals between workers committed to public service, and an employer determined to do less in order to claim false economies.  

- Finally, The Disabled Ginger points out how a refusal to mask in health-care settings further endangers vulnerable patients. Heidi Ledford examines the rise of bird-flu infections in humans which are being largely ignored as a matter of public policy. And Lisa Schnirring reports that anti-vaxxers have managed to cause an outbreak of polio in Warsaw. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jeremy Hsu discusses how people massively underestimate the disproportionate climate damage done by the uber-wealthy. Mark Fawcett-Atkinson notes that the dirty energy industry is targeting women for a new round of disinformation and greenwashing. And Rebecca Hersher points out the consequences that flow from the climate breakdown - including severe mental health challenges caused as people lose their homes and valuables to extreme weather. 

- But Patrick Greenfield reports on a new analysis showing that governments are continuing to increase their handouts to the cause of environmental destruction. And David Climenhaga notes that after failing to distribute one federal handout that it demanded to put the public on the hook for the oil industry's messes, the UCP is now trying to seize Canadians' pensions to be funneled to its fossil fuel donors. 

- Cory Doctorow points out that the principle of "shareholder supremacy" is both meaningless on its face, and promulgated solely as a matter of self-serving supposition by those seeking to prioritize capital over well-being. 

- Jacky Wong interviews andrea bennett about how food can be made healthier both in terms of nutrition and lifestyle. And Nina Massey discusses how the replacement of ultra-processed foods can help reduce the risk of diabetes and other illnesses, while Sandee LaMotte reports on research showing how toxic chemicals in food preparation can cause substantial harm. 

- Finally, Abraham Fuks, John Bergeron and Stanley Kutcher lament the stagnation of funding for health research in Canada.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Oshan Jarow discusses Sapien Labs' work measuring mental health levels around the globe - and the resulting conclusion that "conveniences" including smartphones and ultra-processed foods may contribute to a lower level of mental wellness. And Michelle Gamage writes about the plummeting life expectancy of Indigenous people in British Columbia, along with the solutions based in ethics of care and community. 

- Julia-Simone Rutgers writes about the damage global warming is causing to the ice roads which have historically served as vital lifelines for Canada's North. And Arthur Zhang and Anna Kanduth discuss the readily-available options to shift Canada to a cleaner electrical grid and reduce our ongoing carbon pollution. 

- Meanwhile, Charles Rusnell reports on the lengths the UCP is going to to prevent Alberta from knowing how little support their is for their plan to hijack CPP funds to be handed to dirty energy operators. 

- Brittany Trang discusses a new study showing how nursing home operators are able to hide the majority of their profits in order to paper over higher prices and deteriorating care. And Cory Doctorow calls out the NHS' choice to pay massive amounts of money to corporate operators - and share of sensitive personal health information with them - rather than setting up secure open-source research databases. 

- David Moscrop offers a warning about Pierre Poilievre's intention to impose "ordered liberty", with the primary intention and effect of ensuring the freedom of those with more wealth and power to control and exploit anybody with less privilege. 

- Finally, Linda McQuaig makes the case for Canada to support and sign onto the G20's plan to ensure billionaires can't avoid paying taxes. 

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Chris Hedges discusses how the end of empire-based colonialism has only given way to an even more exploitative corporate version. And Cory Doctorow points out how surveillance capitalism inevitably turns its resources toward defrauding the people being monitored and manipulated. 

- Matthew Rosza interviews Michael Mann about the need to pair accurate information about the threat posed by climate change with discussion of how it's possible to take positive action. 

- Kevin Drum graphs the connection between lead contamination and murder rates in Washington DC. And Mira Rojanasakul reports on the rise of saltwater levels in New Orleans, with the foreseeable results including the salination of drinking water sources and the release of lead and other matter from pipes.  

- Bob Weber reports on new polling showing a strong majority of Albertans opposed to the UCP's attacks on renewable energy. And Gary Mason calls out Danielle Smith's plan to use Albertans' retirement savings as a slush for for the oil industry as a Brexit-style calamity in the making. 

- Finally, Emily Leedham reports on the Manitoba PCs' choice to offer only meaningless guesswork in place of any plan to ensure people have access to health care. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Thais Melquiades de Lima et al. study how the tonsils are a major site for COVID-19 persistence in children. And Penny Daflos reports on British Columbia's restoration of mask mandates in health facilities as the ongoing pandemic persistently fails to go away on its own. 

- Ricky Lanusse discusses how Antarctica is warming far faster than predicted, while Al Jazeera reports on the worsening loss of sea ice in particular. And Helena Horton reports on new data showing that Switzerland has lost a tenth of its glaciers in just the last two years, while Planet Snapshots points out the tipping points being reached based on the potential melting of Greenland's ice sheets. 

- Yet Stewart Lee warns that even as our living environment becomes more and more endangered, any discussion of environmental issues is being hijacked by the forces bent on our destruction.  

- Finally, Ricardo Acuna highlights how the UCP's attempt to steal Albertans' pensions to further enrich their oil buddies is based on assumptions that fall far short of passing the laugh test. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Sabrina Shankman discusses new research showing how the climate crisis will affect today's youth. And Bill McKibben highlights why we can't afford to delay in reining in catastrophic climate change.

- But Damian Carrington reports on fossil fuel extraction projections which far exceed what we can afford, while Justin Lavoie notes that the Canada Pension Plan is betting on the fossil fuel sector being allowed to overshoot its emission targets. And Laura Kane reports on how the Trans Mountain pipeline has received hundreds of millions of dollars in public subsidies beyond the purchase price paid by the federal government.

- The News & Observer confirms that the utter failure of top-end tax cuts to help anybody but the richest few applies to North Carolina like every other jurisdiction.

- The BBC reports on UK Labour's plans to ensure that workers take back control of their economic direction. And Dawn Foster discusses the all-too-rare phenomenon of a political party running on a clear plan to improve people's lives.

- Finally, The Loop interviews Danyaal Raza about the predictable connection between privatized health care and longer wait times for all but the wealthiest few. And The Local points out how people's health suffers as a result of the lower tier of care offered in the prison system.

New column day

Here, on how Scott Moe has been left alone and isolated by the supposed "resistance". (Though I'll admit I underestimated his willingness to declare his unthinking support for anything suggested by Jason Kenney.)

For further reading...
- Jacques Poitras reported that Blaine Higgs' sensible response to the federal election has been to stop fighting carbon pricing and get to work on developing a plan for New Brunswick.  The Canadian Press reported on Brian Pallister's rejection of Western separatism - though he deserves to be called out for misleadingly implying that provinces can't already avoid the federal carbon price by having a climate plan of their own. And Robert Benzie and Rob Ferguson noted that even Doug Ford started toning down his posturing toward the federal government since the election.
- Dave Cournoyer puts Kenney's "autonomy panel" in historical context.
- Joel Dryden discusses what a province forgoing the Canada Pension Plan would actually look like, while David Climenhaga points out that any scheme to take existing money away from the CPP is on shaky ground. And the Canadian Press confirms that Kenney's talk about endangering his province's pension security is purely a matter of spite.
- Finally, Norm Farrell discusses how Alberta has been suffering for its decision to use resource revenue to avoid making rational plans for the future.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- George Monbiot discusses the dangers of treating our natural environment solely as something to be priced and commodified.

- The Mound of Sound comments on Stephen Leahy's work in crunching the numbers on the climate change impact of a Trans Mountain expansion. And Matt Scuffham and Rod Nickel report on Bill Morneau's apparent plan to divert Canada Pension Plan funds into forcing through a pipeline which can't find private investors.

- Nora Loreto writes about Canada's criminalization of dissent on the left. And Nathan Robinson argues that the right's perpetual persecution complex serves mostly to distract from the suppression of anti-establishment speech:

I want to suggest a hypothesis that may sound outlandish: What if the whole narrative is backwards? What if people who think they are voicing suppressed dangerous ideas are actually the ones suppressing the truly dangerous ideas? What if this effort to condemn the irrational excesses of political correctness is in part a way of avoiding having to engage with its arguments and listen carefully to its advocates? What if people who seem to be “challenging” a dissent-stifling power structure are actually defending one? Now, I’m not saying this is the case; I’m just asking some questions. But let’s, for a moment, because we are rational and skeptical, consider the possibility that the conservative narrative is totally upside-down. Let’s picture a topsy-turvy world in which Donald Trump is the president and left ideas are actually marginal. 
...
...I’m just asking us to imagine a strange world in which the interests of the wealthy mattered far more than the interests of the poor, and in which the good people got left behind while the bad people were honored and celebrated. But let’s stick with the idea, just a moment longer. In this kind of world, what would we make of people like the members of the “Intellectual Dark Web,” who insist that their ideas pose a challenge to the mainstream consensus? Well, first we’d have to look at the ideas themselves. But if those ideas turned out to coincide remarkably well with the interests of those who are already wealthy and powerful, and if those ideas seemed to downplay, deny, and evade all of the contrary evidence, we might begin to suspect that these Dissident Intellectuals should not, in fact, rightfully be considered dissidents. In this kind of world, the real dissidents would be the ones whose names we didn’t know, the ones who were trying to dredge up the truths nobody wanted to listen to, rather than the people whose faces and opinions were constantly in the newspapers. The dangerous ideas would be the ones that weren’t spoken from the White House and on cable news, because they actually indicted those institutions rather than benefiting them.

- And finally, Rinaldo Wolcott and Naomi Klein discuss how Ontarians can prevent Trumpism from spreading into their provincial government by voting for the change they actually want.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses Canada's likely NAFTA decision between an even worse deal than exists now, and no deal at all - though it's worth recognizing that the latter choice shouldn't be seen as a problem. And Alex Panetta points out the Libs' total lack of transparency as to the effects of the options currently on the table.

- Trevor Hancock argues that the Canada Pension Plan should join other large public funds in making a move away from dependence on fossil fuel development.

- Meanwhile, Carl Meyer reports on a new study suggesting that Canada's primary tar sands operators may be sitting on $2 trillion in liability from carbon pollution alone. And Marco Chown Oved exposes half a billion dollars in tax avoidance by a single copper mining firm by claiming billions of dollars in profits through a Luxembourg subsidiary with one part-time employee.

- Tom Parkin discusses the need for improved protections against sexual harassment in federal workplaces. And Sabrina Nanji reports on the growing calls for effective anti-harassment rules in legislatures in particular, while Tim Harper points out the need for cultural change beyond legislation alone.

- Finally, Daniel Brown and Michael Lacy write that the Trudeau Libs are falling far short of what voters expected when it comes to justice reform. And Alex Boutilier points out that rather than fixing the abusive elements of Bill C-51, the Libs have actually expanded the unaccountable disruption of Canadians' activities without any meaningful oversight.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Noam Scheiber and Ben Casselman comment on the role of corporate consolidation in undermining pay and working conditions. And Meagan Day rebuts the claim that employers can be excused for ignoring not-yet-qualified pools of workers by pointing out that the same people once treated as unqualified are now being hired:

This relaxation of hiring standards is a stinging rebuke to right-wing economists, who for years assured us that the main reason for the stagnant post-recession employment rate was that workers themselves didn’t have the right stuff. Throughout the slow recovery, journalists from major papers made a cottage industry of finding CEOs complaining that their hiring searches were coming up empty. Conservative commentators chalked up high unemployment to a so-called “skills gap”: companies needed more qualified workers, they insisted, than were currently on offer.

But something wasn’t right. If companies really needed qualified workers, why weren’t they raising wages to attract them? Or why weren’t they lowering their qualification standards or offering training to less experienced new hires? If companies really did have jobs that desperately required filling, they would have been working harder to fill them. Some flagged this inconsistency early on. “The reason markets adjust,” wrote management professor Peter Cappelli in 2013, “is because the participants, in this case the employers, eventually learn that they either have to raise their pay or lower their expectations in order to get the workers they need.”

The right wing’s explanation for lagging unemployment rate was a classic supply-side argument. The trouble, the argument went, was that firms weren’t getting what they needed to flourish — in this case, an adequate supply of skilled labor. The Left countered with a demand-side perspective: The reason for high unemployment was that ordinary people, not companies, weren’t getting their needs met. If they had more money in their pockets, ordinary people would increase their spending, demand for goods and services would rise, and that would create more jobs. More jobs means lower unemployment, which means greater bargaining power for the already employed, who won’t have to worry about their position being undermined by vast reserves of cheap labor.

At the time, left economists pointed out that even as employers were supposedly yearning for acceptable candidates but unable to find them, wages weren’t rising. “If employers cannot get the workers they need,” wrote Dean Baker in 2013, “then they raise the wages they offer to pull workers away from other employers. This is how markets work.” The fact that this wasn’t happening, Baker and others argued, was evidence that there wasn’t a real labor shortage, and that the “skills gap” was just another name for corporate whining. Employers were putting up job ads, sure, but they were also being hyper-selective about who they hired — for instance, refusing people with criminal convictions — a good sign they weren’t really in need.

- Meanwhile, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood examines how decarbonization can and should take into account the needs of workers in regions currently reliant on fossil fuels.

- Daniel Tencer reports on Justin Trudeau's callous suggestion that workers robbed of their pensions by corporate greed should be satisfied with Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. (And it's particularly worth noting how those programs have been allowed to stagnate in order to leave room for exactly the type of private pensions then diverted to enrich executives and shareholders.)

- Finally, Tim Harford discusses the strengths and weaknesses of a focus on self-reported happiness as the basis for policy development. And Andre Picard weighs in on the need to invest in social supports as the most effective means of improving health outcomes.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jesse Ferreras reports that Canada's supposed job growth has included almost nothing but part-time and precarious work. And Louis-Philippe Rochon points out how the influence of the financial sector has led to economic choices which serve nobody else's interests:

What makes governments hesitate to pursue policies they have been told would benefit the economy and the working class?

I am forced to conclude that these choices do not depend on economic factors, but rather on political ones, and in particular, the over-influence of finance and financial leaders in the political arena.

Full employment is possible, if governments chose to pursue it. Nothing stops government from adopting policies that would reduce the great inequalities in income by increasing marginal tax rates, adopting inheritance taxes and more.

Inevitably, however, these policies would hurt the financial elites who have become way too tangled up with the political class. It would also inevitably shift social power toward the working class and away from finance. 

- Jim Stanford writes that much of the dogma underlying corporate free trade deals is at long last being met with scrutiny. And Noah Smith comments on the constant - and unfair - assumption that public policy shouldn't even be considered as a means of improving people's lives absent some discrete market failure.

- Andrew MacLeod reveals the results of the B.C. Libs' attempt to dodge a modest boost to the Canada Pension Plan - showing that two-thirds of respondents favoured the expansion which the Clark government tried to undercut. 

- Jessica Elgot reports on Jeremy Corbyn's call for a maximum wage law in the UK. And the Guardian's panel response offers plenty of food for thought - particularly to the effect that where the problem to be addressed is the disproportionate accumulation of income and wealth, the right policy prescription is likely through taxes rather than regulation.

- Finally, Andrew Coyne discusses the radically difference models which give rise to varied views on a basic income, while noting that Hugh Segal's proposed pilot program will offer a useful study of a model which should appeal to all sides.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- John Quiggin argues that public services and corporate control don't mix - no matter how desperately the people seeking to exploit public money try to pretend otherwise:

Market-oriented reforms, particularly in the provision of human services like health, education and public safety, have begun with a working system and replaced it with a string of failed experiments.

Here are a few examples from recent news stories around the English-speaking world:

• The emergency closure of 17 Scottish schools due to safety concerns. These schools were built under the Private Finance Initiative, begun under Thatcher but greatly expanded by Blair and Gordon Brown.
• Crippling costs incurred by hospitals throughout the UK, again as a result of PFI, threatening insolvency for many hospital trusts.
• Private prisons operator Serco forced to repay bonuses in New Zealand.
• For-profit educator ITT closed down without notice, right at the beginning of a new semester, after being cut off from Pell grant funding due to allegations of misleading students. This is one of many such collapses.
• Following a damning report, the US Department of Justice announced it will no longer use private prisons.
• Charter schools (some openly for-profit, many others run as businesses) have been failing at a starting rate.
• The disastrous shift to for-profit vocational education in training, most notably in Victoria and more recently in NSW, where the number of students has halved in three years. The cost to the budget from unrepayable loans for bogus courses has been estimated at $1.2bn for 2015 alone.

...
Sooner or later the advocates of reform will have to answer the Edison-Blair question: “What works?” And what works is traditional public provision. Through all of these failed experiments, the public sector, much-maligned and chronically underfunded, has carried on with the hard work of educating young people, treating the sick and providing the vast range of services needed in a modern society, on a the basis of an ethic of service to the entire community, and not merely those who can pay for premium service.

- Similarly, Andre Picard discusses the importance of a stewardship model for medicine, rather than allowing health needs to be governed solely by profit motives. And Martin Regg Cohn points out how the social guarantees provided by the Canada Pension Plan are only increasing in importance as workplace pensions become less secure.

- Robin Sears notes that progressives need to acknowledge the importance of effective public management, rather than waving away legitimate criticisms of government spending. But I'll argue that at the very least, right-wing anti-government spin should also be met with some of the many examples of the even worse consequences of leaving key issues in private hands - whether through privatized programs, or through complete abandonment to the corporate sector.

- Jason Warick reports on Winona Wheeler's message that all Canadians need to take responsible for reconciliation with First Nations. Ashifa Kassam writes about Grand Chief Stewart Phillip's lack of interest in empty gestures. And David Akin reports that the Libs' first wave of housing announcements falls well short of meeting even the most immediate needs.

- Finally, Branko Milanovic theorizes that inequality tends to be cyclical based on past changes in the relative wealth associated with rent as opposed to labour. But while he offers some useful theories as to how inequality might be reduced in the future, there's plenty of need for public action to bring them about (particularly a political turn toward more progressive systems of taxes and benefits).

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Dani Rodrik comments on the need for a far more clear set of policy prescriptions for left-wing political parties to present as an alternative to laissez-faire corporate domination, while noting there's no lack of source material worth considering:

The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of “no alternatives.” Politicians on the left have less and less reason not to draw on “respectable” academic firepower in economics.

Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a programmatic economic response from the left. 

A crucial difference between the right and the left is that the right thrives on deepening divisions in society – “us” versus “them” – while the left, when successful, overcomes these cleavages through reforms that bridge them. Hence the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous. Absent such a response again, the field will be left wide open for populists and far-right groups, who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more frequent conflict.

- Meanwhile, Michael West offers offers an inside look at offshoring and other forms of corporate tax avoidance which have been used to keep businesses making a fair contribution to the society which makes their own success possible.

- Matthew Herder, Trudo Lemmens, Joel Lexchin, Barbara Mintzes and Tom Jefferson highlight the gross lack of transparency surrounding prescription drugs in Canada. And Leila Salehi makes the case for a national pharmacare program.

- Joseph Heath points out why it's nonsensical to try to turn the social insurance provided by the Canada Pension Plan into (yet another) individual retirement savings vehicle.

- Aarian Marshall writes that U.S. municipalities are being forced to let infrastructure decay for lack of any source of funding to maintain it. And Roger Harrabin examines how climate change stands to further harm the utilities we rely on.

- Finally, Ashifa Kassam discusses the need for Canada to confront our own racism past and present, rather than making any claim to superiority based on high-profile incidents in the U.S. and elsewhere. And Susana Mas reports that the Libs continue to drag their heels on even the most basic promises to First Nations, including the removal of their longstanding 2% funding cap.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Jeff Guo reports on Peter Lindert and Jeffrey Williamson's research showing how the U.S. went from standing out internationally for its relatively equal distribution of wealth, to being equally exceptional in its inequality:

In the Revolutionary era, inequality in America was dramatically lower than it was in England or the Netherlands, in part because of the abundant opportunity (enjoyed at the expense of the Native Americans), and in part because of the kinds of people who immigrated.

We get some impression of this from historical documents. George Washington predicted that the young nation would allow even the lower classes to prosper thanks to “the equal distribution of property, the great plenty of unoccupied lands, and the facility of procuring the means of subsistence.” In his chronicle of the young United States in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville famously said that “nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people.”

The new data not only confirms these anecdotal accounts, but it also puts the past in perspective. According to Lindert and Williamson’s calculations, today’s income inequality may be the highest the nation has ever known. 

“We went from one of the most egalitarian places in the world to one of the least,” Williamson said. “What happened?”

- Julius Grey and L.M. Casgrain discuss how economic inequality is harming Canadian democracy. And Thomas Walkom points out the inevitability that the public will eventually get fed up with being told there is no alternative to economic systems which leave them perpetually more vulnerable.

- But in case anybody was under the illusion that the Trudeau government has changed much of anything on that front, Jeremy Nuttall reports on how the Libs have stacked the parliamentary deck in favour of the continued exploitation of temporary foreign workers.

- Finally, Angella MacEwen examines the economic stimulus effects of a higher minimum wage. And Michael Mendelson, Sherri Torjman and Ken Battle study the effects of a bolstered Canada Pension Plan, while recognizing there's still room for improvement in ensuring a fair retirement income for all.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jeremy Smith argues that the Brexit vote result should serve as a compelling reminder of the dangers of neoliberalism. John Hood focuses on inequality in particular as a driving force behind the willingness of voters to leave the European Union, while Mike Carter points out the connection between economic and industrial decay and the vote.

- The Economist highlights the value of pre-school funding in ensuring that children from all economic backgrounds are able to fulfill their potential. 

- Reema Patel discusses the need to give citizens a direct role in setting economic policy - as well as one project designed to achieve that goal.

- Tom Parkin points out the vital role the labour movement played in fighting to strengthen the Canada Pension Plan. And Lana Payne comments that younger workers will gain the most from the CPP expansion.

- Bruce Campbell writes that rail safety is still in desperate need of improvement three years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

- Finally, John Anderson questions why Netflix, YouTube and other online media platforms are being exempted from the obligations of other media entities operating in Canada.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Neil Irwin writes about the White House Council of Economic Advisers' study of employment policy which found that superior protections for workers (rather than the undermining of employment standards in the name of "flexibility") correlate to improved workforce participation.

- MaxSpeak discusses the value of universal social supports in contrast to means-tested programs which compromise the idea of a common interest - and warns of the dangers of pushing the latter at the expense of the former:

The fact is that the great, social-democratic systems of Europe are powered by mass consumption taxes that finance big spending programs. The most powerful, time-tested tool against inequality is universal social insurance, not means-tested benefits. The prominence of the latter in the U.S. welfare state is a bug, not a feature. Trading social insurance for means-testing is a concession to inequality. Sometimes such concessions can facilitate reasonable bargains for greater benefits, sometimes concessions are required in adversity. The problem is elevating such a device as a basic ideal.

A principled progressive would have welcomed discussion of Sanders’  proposals, rather than revert to bromides about fiscal austerity. The simple truth is that any universal benefit financed by progressive taxation will retain a net, progressive redistributive impact. This is not an economic theory; it’s arithmetic. Nobody has suggested that Sanders’ tax proposals are not progressive. Of course the practicality of any proposal is fair game, but that was not the basis for most criticism. Instead we had ostensibly liberal Democratic Party politicians upholding the tenets of neoliberalism.

- Fortunately, at least one of Canada's major social programs is now set to be expanded and improved thanks to the federal-provincial agreement to boost the Canada Pension Plan.

- Michael Hiltzik suggests that prescription drug costs can be expected to drop if manufacturers are simply required to account for their pricing.

- Judith Lavoie discusses a push by Canadian health care providers to end the use of coal power. And Charles Mandel points out the Canadian connection between big coal and climate change denialism.

- Finally, Katrina Vanden Heuvel comments on the importance of freedom of the press to challenge all forms of concentrated power. And Jordon Cooper points out that any place of power or privilege can and should be used to help the many people excluded from those positions.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Andrew Leach's after-the-fact addendum to his review of Alberta's climate change policy offers an important reminder as to the costs of inaction on climate change - and the message is one which applies equally to other jurisdictions which are seen as climate laggards:

Our emissions do not simply come from our large industries—almost everything else we do has greenhouse gas emissions impacts, whether it’s driving our cars and trucks, heating our homes, or purchasing goods delivered here by plane, truck or train. Reducing emissions in Alberta will not be easy—we don’t have a magic wand, and if cost-effective, lower-emissions substitutes were available in all cases today, we wouldn’t be facing this problem. But, not reducing emissions in Alberta is also potentially very costly. We’ve already seen policies and actions aimed at our resource sector whether through the rejection of pipelines, the application of low carbon fuel standards, or challenges to companies investing here from their shareholders or from sustainable investors. If Alberta chooses not to act, those costs won’t go away. And, we’re part of a federation, and our federation has committed to an ambitious target to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions. There will be costs if Alberta is not a constructive partner in those efforts—continued market access challenges or unfavourable policy design. Those costs may be difficult to quantify, but that doesn’t mean they’re not real. Finally, of course, we know that emissions impose costs on others around the world—if we use the most recent estimates, we are each imposing on average $2,800 to $4,500 worth of costs on current and future global citizens every year with our emissions, and many of these impacts affect some of the poorest countries on earth.
...
(T)he business-as-usual case that a modeller might use to assess the costs of these actions does not exist for Alberta. We see today increasing pressure on firms to mitigate carbon risk, increasing pressure on governments to achieve their Paris commitments, and increasing focus on Alberta as a symbol of inaction on climate change. We do not see how a comparison to a case where Alberta can continue to find viable markets for its products and see investment return to the oil sands in the absence of credible action on greenhouse gases exists. What would likely exist as an alternative is a world where Alberta faces increasingly discriminatory and punitive policies and barriers to trade both from within and from outside Canada, and where firms face mounting shareholder and institutional investor pressure not to invest in Alberta. The costs of these are speculative, and more difficult to quantify, but we are confident that they far and away exceed the cumulative costs of the actions we’ve recommend. 

- Meanwhile, Larry Buhl reports on widespread wage theft by the U.S.' oil industry.

- Rejean Hebert makes the case for publicly-funded home care and long term care to avoid the need to use our hospital care system to address disabilities and chronic conditions.

- Charles Smith points out the dangerous (if consistent) precedent set by the Saskatchewan Party's refusal to fund the contract it negotiated with Saskatchewan's teachers.

- Finally, Martin Regg Cohn traces the path toward an expanded Canada Pension Plan. And Mark Hancock writes that an improved CPP needs to produce a more secure retirement for everybody, rather than being whittled down to nothing by exceptions and carve-outs.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin argues that we need to say no to any more trade agreements designed to privilege corporations at the expense of the public. Will Martin reports on the IMF's long-overdue recognition of the failures of neoliberalism, while pointing out that there's still a long way to go in ensuring that recognition is reflected in its wider policy. And Benjamin Dangl notes that we shouldn't ignore the fact that the economic violence of neoliberalism has often been accompanied by political violence needed to force unwanted policies on citizens.

- Meanwhile, Barb Pacholik discusses the Saskatchewan Party's choice to single out Saskatchewan's less wealthy residents for punishment, while doing nothing to increase public revenues or otherwise bring in more money from people who can afford it.

- Andrew Jackson explains why employers would be far better off supporting a stronger Canada Pension Plan, rather than facing the double whammy of future retirees both requiring alternative social supports and having limited spending power.

- David Hughes studies the effects of new pipelines and finds that they figure to be both needless at current or foreseeable oil production levels, and useless in influencing the return on oil actually produced. And Joe Romm argues that while peak oil supply may not be an imminent issue, peak oil demand may not be far away due to the growth of renewable alternatives.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses the Libs' belated acknowledgment that the NDP had the right idea in ensuring that any electoral reform has multi-party support while limiting the ability of one obstructionist opposition party to refuse any fairer system. And Democratic Audit explores how majoritarian systems are far more prone to gerrymandering and other abuse than proportional ones.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Greg Jericho is the latest to weigh in on the false promises of neoliberalism:

An article in the IMF’s latest issue of is journal Finance and Development notes that “instead of delivering growth, some neoliberal policies have increased inequality” and jeopardised “durable” growth.

The authors note that there actually scant proof that the standard policies of encouraging foreign investment and reducing deficits and debt levels has improved economic growth.

They found that it’s tough to actually establish “the benefits in terms of increased growth” from these polices but that the costs from “increased inequality are prominent”. Even worse for those who desire economic growth above all else, they found that the “increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth.”

The authors note that their study of economies found that “austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand – and thus worsen employment and unemployment”.

And as I have noted (repeatedly) lack of demand is a massive issue for our economy. Right now Malcolm Turnbull would have you believe that it is an absolute given that more foreign investment and lower taxation and government spending will deliver economic growth. The reality is such belief is based on a model that struggles to deliver proof that is actually works and which crucially ignores factors such as inequality that can actually undermine their goal of economic growth.

- David Calnitsky writes that a basic income would ensure a reasonable standard of living for everybody without the stigma that comes with a patchy social safety net. Teuila Fuatai discusses how Employment Insurance has been designed to cover perpetually fewer workers over the past few decades, leaving more and more without any fallback at all. And the Star's editorial board calls for Canada Pension Plan reform to ensure all workers have enough for a secure retirement.

- Pamela Cowan reports on the desperate - and thus far ignored - need for improved mental health services in Saskatchewan. And the U.S.' Council of Economic Advisers summarizes how mental health and other social factors affect incarceration rates.

- Noah Zon points out that the reinstatement of the long-form census is just the start of collecting the additional data we need to assess and meet Canada's social needs. And Anna Stanley writes about the continued discrimination against First Nations built into our federal fiscal framework.

- Finally, Paul Dechene points out how the Saskatchewan Party has in fact imposed somewhat of carbon price through their obsession with carbon capture and storage - only without any of the actual emission reductions which are supposed to accompany any sane pricing policy. And Andrew Nikiforuk comments on the alarming pollution emanating from the oil sands.