Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Robert Atkinson discusses the need for corporate tax policy to encourage economic development rather than profit-taking and share inflation. And Jim Hightower notes that it's an anti-democratic corporate mindset that led to the poisoning of Flint.

- Stephen Tapp offers some noteworthy ideas to ensure the public can meaningfully discuss our federal government's fiscal choices.

- Steven Chase finds that a majority of the public would prefer that Canada prioritize human rights over profits in deciding whether or not to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia. But in case anybody was under the illusion that the Libs were going to pay attention to either public opinion or their own promises, Robert Fife reports on their plans to extend and exacerbate Canada's combat operations in the Middle East.

- The Star rightly calls for an end to the Cons' legacy of secrecy. But there too, there's little reason to think the Libs are offering anything more than show and symbolism.

- Finally, Bruce Johnstone comments on the Saskatchewan Party's dishonesty when it comes to the state of Saskatchewan's economy and fiscal picture. And the provincial auditor's view that a big-money giveaway to land developers was "not a normal transaction" looks to reflect just one more set of shady choices.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rachel Bryce, Cristina Blanco Iglesias, Ashley Pullman and Anastasia Rogova examine the effect of inequality on education in Canada. And John McMurtry comments on the increasing hoarding of wealth and the lack of anything left over for the rest of us.

- Emily Badger highlights the "million dollar block" phenomenon showing that incarceration is just as systematically concentrated as extreme wealth (if of course in different places). 

- Dana Milbank traces the poisoning of Flint back to Rick Snyder's corporatist mindset. And Julia Lurie reports that Snyder was well aware of the dangers of the city's water long before publicly admitting anything - resulting in state employees receiving an alternate source of water while residents were left to ingest lead.

- Mychaylo Prystupa points out that the Libs' changes to pipeline review processes are still avoiding the downstream environmental effects of fossil fuels. And Stephen Rees notes that resource-based economic bets being made with large amounts of public money - including the B.C. Libs' push toward fracked liquid natural gas - are themselves doomed by market forces.

- Finally, Mark Hume reports that Environment Canada had effectively shut down enforcement activities under the direction of the Harper Cons. And Bill Curry reveals that much-trumpeted inspection plans to limit the abuse temporary foreign workers never actually got started.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne highlights how Kevin O'Leary's obliviousness to inequality makes him a relic. But Linda McQuaig notes that however distant O'Leary may be from the public, he's not that far removed from all too many Conservatives.

- Gerald Caplan points out that even a campaign where the Cons managed to earn the committed disapproval of up to 70% of the country doesn't seem to have led anybody to learn any lessons. And Michael Harris reacts to the Cons' sudden attempt to deny the existence of the record they were so desperately defending just months ago.

- Emily Badger responds to the poisoning of Flint by asking whether the U.S. would have accepted similar damage to more privileged segments of the population. And Rachel Browne observes that this weekend's shootings represented just the latest tragedy for La Loche - if the first to receive sustained outside attention.

- Al Jazeera reports on the alarming - and continuing - buildup of plastic waste which stands to outweigh all the fish in our oceans within a few decades.

- Finally, Marvin Shaffer is the latest to discuss why revenue-neutral carbon taxes only ensure that we don't take steps to mitigate the long-term damage done to our planet:

While we are already experiencing some impacts and costs of climate change, the most extensive and significant costs will be borne by future generations. So if we are going to pay a tax in recognition of the costs we are imposing on future generations, those payments shouldn’t be returned to us in the form of income or sales tax breaks.

Any reasonable notion of equity would demand that carbon tax revenues be directed to measures that benefit those who will be bearing the costs of what we do. They should be dedicated to measures that will help offset the emissions we are generating, prepare for and mitigate the climate change impacts we know we are causing, and support the research that ultimately will be needed to reduce the impacts and costs of what in all likelihood will be increasing concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere far beyond what our targets call for.

There are legitimate concerns about the inefficient use of earmarked funds. But that calls for vigilance in the manner in which funds are invested so that we do the best we can for the future generations. It doesn’t support the redirection of funds to the present generation at the expense of those who will bear the costs of what we do.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Edgardo Sepulveda writes about the role of the federal government in combating inequality - while noting that Canada has gone in the wrong direction over the past few decades. And Michal Rozworski points out that we're entirely accustomed to talking about economic development and distribution solely in terms of what benefits the elite:

Talking heads for and against talk about fiscal stimulus “shovels in the ground”, a kind of bastardized Keynesianism that ignores the loss of power on the part of the majority. As the elite discussion over the future of policy grabs the big economic headlines, we also learn that 78% of Ontario employers are breaking basic workplace rules and protections.

So while policy elites care about interest rates, your boss cares about the length of your lunch break or skimping on safety at work. It’s a neat package. Policy debates over “the economy” are important, but this basic, workplace-level injustice shows just why we have to rebuild power from the bottom up and how far there is to go.

When the options from the commentariat are “grin and bear it“, “help us get richer by driving up asset prices and your debt” or “give us fat contracts to build things”, it’s easy to lose track—and lose hope. Let’s remember that the economy isn’t some separate special part of the world, and especially not one that works by some special set of rules always rigged by elites against regular people. As we look set to join the club of global economies mired in stagnation and inequality, there is no point wasting time in getting started turning the economy around in our favour. Elites will keep trying to leave this bust better placed to get the most out of the next boom. We shouldn’t let them get away with it.

- Mike Moffatt suggests that a food rebate linked to GST/HST credits would represent both an important form of economic stimulus and a buffer against increased food prices. (And that's without getting into how it would also reduce inequality.)

- But Paul Willcocks exposes British Columbia's denial of rental assistance to some of its most vulnerable citizens as an example of how programs now are all too often designed to exclude the people who need help the most. And Andy Blatchford reports on the Parliamentary Budget Officer's conclusion that the Libs' upper-class tax shuffle will cost even more than their already-revised estimates.

- Yves Smith discusses the U.S. presidential campaign, with a focus on Hillary Clinton's tone-deaf appeals to Wall Street and to right-wing rhetoric in trying to fend off Bernie Sanders. And Glenn Greenwald sets out the seven stages of establishment backlash against progressive populism.

- Finally, John Nichols weighs in on the fallout from Flint's disastrous experience with "emergency" austerity.