Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Stephanie Desmon interviews Ziyad Al-Aly about the reality that anybody infected with COVID-19 faces a substantial risk of heart problems as a result. And Moira Wyton examines what British Columbia could be doing to limit the spread of the Kraken sub-variant, while Paul Faulkner reports on Ian Watkinson's call for air cleaning units to reduce the transmission of respiratory infections in schools. 

- Meanwhile, F. Douglas Stephenson offers a reminder that the pharmaceutical industry has every incentive to see people get sick and require treatment, rather than acting responsibility to avoid the spread of disease. 

- Ari Natter reports on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's work examining whether gas stoves should be regulated due to their contribution to asthma and other respiratory ailments. And Oliver Milman notes that many U.S. cities are finally pushing back against the spread of parking lots which encourage vehicle use while disincentivizing any other form of transportation - even as Peter Walker observes that policies aimed at reducing avoidable vehicle traffic are met with a particularly virulent strain of conspiracy theory in response.  

- Finally, Vivian Unger discusses how an electoral system which awards absolute power based on a minority of votes can be expected to break down trust between the public and the politicians who are supposed to be serving it. 

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tracey Harrington McCoy reports on still more research showing significant brain changes caused by long COVID. Joseph Oliver writes that sick kids need people to mask up to alleviate the intolerable pressure on our health care system. And Anne Sosin, Lakshmi Ganapathi and Martha Lincoln note that the case for masking also includes averting the continued spread of RSV and influenza. 

- David Moscrop discusses how an economic system increasingly designed to extract every possible nickel and moment from the general public - and a political system all too willing to contribute to its development - are at the root of the crisis in public trust. And Ameil Joseph notes that it's impossible for governments or public institutions to bargain in good faith with their employees while engaging in propaganda campaigns against workers' ability to earn a reasonable living. 

- Elizabeth Kolbert tries to frame the story of climate change in a way that will push toward the action we need to avert an avoidable calamity, while Bill McGuire concludes that the COP climate conferences are proving useless to the task. 

- Finally, Lucas Sousa argues that it's long past time to replace first-past-the-post with a more representative electoral system. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Gary Mason writes that Saskatchewan and Alberta are tragically showing the rest of the country what a COVID-19 disaster looks like. CBC News reports on a predictable spike in COVID-19 following Saskatchewan's Thanksgiving weekend. And Zak Vescera uncovers the Moe government's choice to beg for medical help from their Republican allies even while they demurred on making requests for help which was already on offer from Canada's federal government. 

- Meanwhile, PressProgress reports on the callous efforts of British Columbia's business lobby to prevent workers from having to access to sick leave during the pandemic. 

- Pratyush Dayal reports on how the Moe government's needless undercutting of social programs has led to the buildup of tent cities in the province's cities just in time for winter. 

- Hamilton Nolan sees reason for hope in the U.S.' wave of strikes, while pointing out the importance of people participating rather than merely observing. And Michael Sainato reports on organizing by retail workers at Dollar General and other stores which have refused to recognize the contributions of essential workers. 

- Dave Cullen writes that we shouldn't let self-serving actors turn the urgency of the climate crisis into an excuse to push expensive and dangerous nuclear power when we have more affordable renewable alternatives. 

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses how a first-past-the-post electoral system magnifies and exacerbates regional divides. 

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John Michael McGrath makes the case for optimism about our potential to avoid further waves of COVID as long as COVID-19 vaccinations overtake the risk of community spread. Brian Platt reports on Nova Scotia's use of rapid testing to catch a substantial number of cases in its third wave (while far too many provinces continue to let rapid tests languish). And Kim Siever notes that Alberta's headline numbers primarily reflect a worrisome drop in testing overall. 

- David Moscrop notes that the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the problems with a first-past-the-post political system which doesn't require majority governments to be even remotely responsive to citizens between elections. Duncan Cameron writes that electing good people then failing to put pressure on them once in power is nowhere enough to ensure the kind of action we need to avert a climate breakdown. And Mitchell Thompson interviews Svend Robinson about the importance of the NDP providing a transformational option for voters and activists alike.

- The CCPA's presentation to the federal finance committee highlights the importance of collecting more revenue from the rich to ensure needed services are available to everybody. 

-  Pat Armstrong, Hugh Armstrong, Dan Buchanan, Tony Dean, Gail Donner, Arthur Donner, Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, Alex Himelfarb and Steven Shrybman point out the importance of investing in long-term care for people rather than profits for donors. And Karl Nerenberg discusses how corporate landlords - with the active participation of far too many governments - are putting the price of housing far out of the reach of the people who need it.

- Finally, Christine Ro discusses how overwork is killing many people (even as many others are told there's no work available for them).

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Alex Hunsberger writes that the CERB may be a flashpoint in determining whether the cost of the coronavirus pandemic will be borne primarily by people who can afford it, or people who merely can't avoid it. Alison Pennington highlights how Australia's government - like so many others - has chosen to use the pandemic to reverse decades of progress for women. And Jamelle Bouie points out the importance of combating economic inequality in order to make any progress against systemic racism.

- Levon Sevunts reports on polling showing a majority of Canadians in support of a 30-hour work week. And Joe Jones looks to the activism of the 19th century as a precedent in pushing for reductions in working time.

- David Climenhaga writes about the need for Alberta to start providing support for research aimed at something more than propping up a dying oil and gas sector. And PressProgress highlights the Sask Party's trumpeting of an anti-worker oil lobbyist as the type of "entrepreneur" they see representing the province. 

- Graham Thomson discusses the cynical political calculations behind the UCP's push for government-controlled referenda. And Charles Rusnell reports on the UCP's gutting of any review of legislation which transferred total power into the hands of its cabinet.

- Finally, Josiah Mortimer notes that the UK's first-past-the-post system has resulted much of the country being written off for electoral purposes.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Rick Smith offers some reasons for hope in 2020 even in the face of a grim start to a new year. And Cory Doctorow writes about the need to start dreaming up, and giving effect to, alternatives to a corporate-driven economy and society which are endangering the future of humanity.

- Chris Maisano interviews Jonathan Rodden about the structural disadvantages facing progressive parties under distorted, winner-take-all electoral systems. And Ryan Grim examines how Bernie Sanders' campaign is empowering and supporting volunteers to reach a greater range of voters than traditional political methods.

- Scott Schmidt rightly argues that there's no value in the media reproducing false political talking points as facts in the name of balance - particularly when the UCP's communications strategy depends on it doing exactly that. And Jeremy Klaszus highlights how the UCP's constant attacks are designed to prevent people from seeing how they're being harmed by Jason Kenney and company. And Bob Barnetson writes about Kenney's ongoing war on workers.

- Meanwhile, with the Trump administration desperate to lie its way into a war with Iran, Nathan Robinson offers a handy guide to avoid being duped by pro-war propaganda.

- Finally, Kelsey Piper writes that Bill Gates has joined the ranks of the uber-wealthy who recognize the need to pay a more fair share toward the price of civilization.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Annie Lowrey highlights how low-income households are bearing the brunt of unequal inflation, as prices are increasing more quickly for their needs than for the luxuries bought by wealthier households.

- Paul Krugman comments on the delicate sensibilities of billionaires who refuse to accept even the slightest public discussion as to whether their obscene wealth is a desirable policy outcome. And Norm Farrell examines the role of corporate money across Canada's political scene.

- Gordon Laxer argues that the path toward national unity involves ensuring that all of Canada moves together toward a post-fossil fuel future. But Sharon Riley reports on the "deep state" lobbying which represents an increasingly large part of the efforts by oil companies to prevent any progress on that front.

- Meanwhile, Chris Turner discusses Canada's unique interaction between a strong environmental movement and an entrenched oil and gas sector. (And it may be worth noting how much time is being wasted on war rooms and secessionist rhetoric intended to try to deny or avoid the existence of the former.)

-  Kyle Bakx reports on the shutdown of Houston Oil & Gas - and the resulting liability for 1,300 orphan wells which will be left with the public.

- Finally, Nick Barlow discusses how an archaic first-past-the-post electoral system has contributed to the dysfunction in British politics.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Noah Smith comments that while we shouldn't necessarily try to adjust GDP for other necessary elements of individual and social well-being, we should avoid treating it as a catch-all measure in assessing policy choices:

GDP does have plenty of flaws, even as an economic indicator. First of all, it leaves out a lot of things that represent real value. When your dad washes the dishes, that represents value creation -- if the dishwashing took place in a restaurant, it would be compensated monetarily, but since it happens for free at home, it gets ignored. GDP also ignores the value of leisure -- if you pay $10 to see a movie in a theater, it gets counted in GDP, but if you have an equal amount of fun hanging out with your friends, that value isn't counted.

Beyond these deficiencies, there’s the broader fact that economic value isn’t the only kind of value. Japanese people, for instance, are on average poorer than Americans in purely material terms, but the very low crime, efficient urban design, and clean streets and buildings has real value that isn't counted in economic statistics. The U.S. and Canada, meanwhile, have an abundance of natural beauty and open space that adds little to GDP, while many European and Asian countries enjoy advantages in health and life expectancy that are also uncounted. These are the kind of things that Bhutan and New Zealand are trying to account for, some of which are also included in the United Nations’ Human Development Index. GDP also doesn’t account for inequality or other issues of distribution.

A third problem with GDP is that it’s not much more than a snapshot of the present. It represents the amount of economic value that’s produced this year, rather than the amount that can be produced sustainably during the coming decades or centuries. Chopping down rainforests, draining aquifers, exhausting topsoil and burning fossil-fuel that contributes to climate change all raise GDP, but don’t necessarily make humanity better off in the long run.
...
Instead of trying to update GDP to include sustainability, health, education, happiness, equality, leisure, and safety, leaders should monitor these things independently. Fortunately, there is every indication that most of them do this already.
...
So instead of trying to fix GDP, it's better to simply remember its limitations. It is not the one economic number to rule them all, but simply one of a broad set of indicators of a society’s success.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Simms highlights the damage done by neoclassicals economics built around unduly narrow standards for success together with grossly implausible assumptions about the relationship between people and corporate actors.

- Jeffrey Sachs writes that first-past-the-post voting systems represent one of the most important common denominators in the rise to power of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. And James Butler examines how Johnson looks to be handing unprecedented amounts of power to lobbyists looking to enrich their clients at the expense of the public.

- Dale Marshall rightly argues that Canada can't pass the buck when it comes to reining in greenhouse gas emissions. And Michael Segalov points out the need for governments to make public transit a more practical option if we want people to shift away from higher-emitting forms of transportation.

- Finally, Chuka Ejeckam argues that after decades of draconian drug policy which has placed disproportionate burdens on racial minorities, Canada's decriminalization process has been designed to ensure that the gains from a newly legal market are concentrated in already-privileged groups.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Kate Aronoff interviews Mariana Mazzucato about The Value of Everything, including some important discussion about the relationship between governments and markets:

Aronoff: You talk a lot about the power of the state in shaping markets. What does the idea that the government should only intervene to tweak markets get wrong?

Mazzucato: How we talk about governments and markets is very problematic. In traditional economic theory, governments are just fixing market failures. And I talk about governments—if they’re actually well organized—as different types of public institutions in society. I see them as co-creators of wealth. They co-create and co-shape markets, not just fix them. Regulation is even a problematic phrase, because it sounds like the market is just there and created by others, and the government is just there to regulate it and make it a bit more stable. Redefining markets is central to what I believe we should be doing, and that leads to very different types of policy.

Aronoff: Are there any places where you think the private sector simply shouldn’t play a role? What’s the balance?

Mazzucato: There are two issues. Whether it’s public or private ownership, a key problem is how public and private meet, right? So in the UK—take the railways. Forget for a minute whether they should be public or privately owned. If you are going to privatize them, you better get the contract right. In exchange for what he got in the contract to buy the public railway system, [Virgin CEO] Richard Branson—who bought the rails—should have been forced to promise that he would invest in the rail system and make it more efficient and more green. Whether it’s water or energy, companies should be made to invest profits in, for example, renewable energy, but also in methods that will improve the product itself and the value to the consumer. In the drive for outsourcing and privatization, these contracts have been written problematically.

Then the question is, should some areas be fully public? Well sure, those areas which are absolutely fundamental. I believe medicine is one of them. Essential medicine like vaccines are a human right. It’s very hard to apply the profit model there. Instead of companies just trying to charge a lot of money in order to recoup their cost, you could have the government set a prize for any company that wants to come in and produce this drug that will solve a certain disease, and lay out the metrics for evaluating whether that drug is what we’re looking for.

- Don Lenihan writes that climate change represents the ultimate example of an issue where obvious long-term needs are being ignored due to short-term political motivations on the part of voters and politicians alike.

- Chuka Ejeckam highlights how British Columbia's electoral reform referendum could be a first step toward change across Canada, while Andrew Coyne notes that London, ON's municipal election will offer a first example of ranked ballots in action. And Seth Klein offers his take on the three more proportional systems on the ballot.

- And finally, Martin Regg Cohn's criticism of Doug Ford's patronage highlights one of the main problems with first-past-the-post: when elections are seen primarily as a means of saying "no" to incumbents, it's all too easy to get stuck with an even worse alternative.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Katie Dangerfield reports on new research showing that carbon pricing can be an economic benefit, while unrestrained climate change would be disastrous. Bill Curry and Shawn McCarthy report that Scott Moe has eagerly lumped himself in with Doug Ford as Canada's most ignorant premiers, as the rest of the country's provincial leaders are still working toward meaningful climate policy. And David Climenhaga notes that the climate-denier coalition is relying purely on political bluster rather than any plausible constitutional argument.

- Noah Smith examines the impact of academic research funding, and finds that directing money toward universities which already have plenty of wealth and prestige makes for a poor use of research dollars.

- Edward Keenan exposes the utter failure of John Tory's privatization of fire inspections which left fire safety in Toronto in the hands of a fraud.

- Douglas Todd discusses how the polarization of first-past-the-post politics does far more to boost extremism than a more proportional system which tends to require that multiple viewpoints be addressed in a governing coalition. 

- Finally, CBC reports on the rightful outrage in response to the Saskatchewan Party's attempt to remove the Justice for Our Stolen Children camp through the courts.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andrew O'Hehir talks to Yanis Varoufakis about the impossibility of building shared prosperity on a foundation of consumer debt and financialization. And the Institute for Public Policy Research offers a discussion paper on the important equalizing role of organized labour - and the need for government to ensure that unions can serve the public interest.

- Meanwhile, Patrick Butler reports on the woeful state of adult social care in the wake of brutal cuts and an ideological insistence on the survival of only the fittest and luckiest.

- Elisabetta Bianchini reports on some of the Ontario voters lamenting the first-past-the-post system which has allowed Doug Ford to take an effectively unaccountable majority government over the objection of most of the province. And Mitch Potter muses that the result might open the door to electoral reform elsewhere.

- The Star discusses the need for Canada to start learning from - and reversing - its failures in respecting Indigenous people. And Emma Paling reports that some of the chiefs regularly used as props in support of the Trans Mountain expansion were coerced into signing on, rather than having any meaningful choice in the matter.

- Finally, Marc Lee points out that British Columbians paying more than ever for gas should trace the problem to oil-sector profit-taking, not modest steps to rein in greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Dylan Walsh interviews Jeffrey Pfeffer about his book Dying for a Paycheck, and the ways in which employer demands make people worse off:

Has this connection always been there, or has there been an evolution in workplace culture that got us to this point?

I think the connection as just described has always been there, because the physiology and etiology of disease have not really changed. But I would say that with all the evidence I’ve encountered — and it’s not perfect evidence — I’ve seen nothing inconsistent with the statement that the workplace has generally gotten worse.

Job engagement, according to Gallup, is low. Distrust in management, according to the Edelman trust index, is high. Job satisfaction, according to the Conference Board, is low and has been in continual decline. The gig economy is growing, economic insecurity is growing, and wage growth overall has stagnated. Fewer people are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than in the past, according to Kaiser Foundation surveys. And a strikingly high percentage of people, even those covered by insurance, say they forgo treatment and medications because of cost issues.

I look out at the workplace and I see stress, layoffs, longer hours, work-family conflict, enormous amounts of economic insecurity. I see a workplace that has become shockingly inhumane.

- Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati take note of the movement building to ensure reasonable balance between the compensation handed to top executives, and the wages paid to workers generally. And Dana Goldstein writes that Oklahoma's teachers may be the next to hit the picket lines in response to grossly inadequate pay.

- Paul Buchheit discusses how a modest tax on U.S. financial wealth could ensure a substantial basic income for everybody.

- CUPE highlights a new study showing how P3s have proven to be an unacceptable model for public infrastructure through painful experience in Europe. And Andrew Longhurst, Marcy Cohen and Margaret McGregor approve of British Columbia's plan to deal with surgical waiting times through effective investments in the public health care system.

- Finally, Make Votes Matter points out how the disproportionate effect of a few swing votes makes first-past-the-post electoral systems particularly vulnerable to manipulation and disinformation.

On warped incentives

CC offers one noteworthy takeaway from Jenni Byrne's attempt to deflect blame for the Cons' election loss:

Wherein Jenni Byrne openly admits that the CPC *needs* vote splitting to stay relevant. https://t.co/HrQDeH058x pic.twitter.com/BpUFBmezhz

— CC (@canadiancynic) February 8, 2016

But let's follow what this line of thought means for Canada's electoral system. Would any rational electoral system encourage a party to promote one of its competitors for the purpose of arranging the votes it can't win (particularly one which is further away on the political spectrum), rather than trying to earn support for itself?

To be clear, Byrne's type of calculation isn't necessarily limited to the Cons. But it surely speaks to the perverse incentives embedded in a first-past-the-post system - and offers us reason to think carefully about the goals we should want parties of any ideological background to pursue instead.

On double majorities

Nathan Cullen's proposal for party representation on the Parliamentary committee reviewing electoral reform has received plenty of attention. But it might actually go much further than advertised to validate the results of the committee's work and legitimize a more fair electoral system.

One can view Cullen's proposal as reflecting a proportional system for allocating committee seats. But it doesn't mean for a second that any change to Canada's electoral system would come about only based on that structure.

Whatever the committee comes up with will still have to be dealt with through legislation in a Parliament in which the Libs have a majority. And that means what Cullen has suggested would in fact serve to confirm the legitimacy of any new system under all plausible interpretations of the results generated by the current one.

By way of explanation, it's fairly clear that the range of options under serious consideration includes three primary types of electoral system. Two of them - first-past-the-post (to the extent it's seen as an option in light of the Libs' promise to scrap it) and ranked ballot - would both have resulted in Lib majorities based on 2015 voting patterns. (Of course, we don't have direct information about what voters' alternative preferences would have been in 2015. But if one ignores the simulated results prepared based on alternative data, that's not a problem capable of being remedied without conducting an election under a different system.)

That leaves the proportional representation option, where the first-choice preferences of Canadian voters would indeed result in exactly the representation proposed by Cullen. [Correction: double-checking the math, a pure proportional allocation of the seats would result in the Cons having one additional seat and the Greens not receiving one - which certainly looks to be a justifiable change to Cullen's proposal.]

And there could be a substantive complaint about legitimacy if what can be fairly criticized as a false majority under one system is used as the sole basis either for preserving that system, or for imposing another one.

Cullen's suggestion then responds to that concern. But I'll argue that it also implicitly answers the question of what more than a bare Parliamentary majority should be required to make electoral reform legitimate beyond reasonable complaint.

As I've noted before, it would be utter folly to demand unanimous support among all parties or MPs before any change could be implemented. But in assessing our electoral options, there's no reason to question the validity of a system which would be able to earn majority support in Parliament regardless of the structure in place at the time the election process is amended. (And similarly, there's no plausible basis to insist on retaining a system which can be replaced based on that multiple-majority support, no matter how much one party shrieks about wanting to preserve its advantages.)

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Libs will follow through on Cullen's proposal. But if they do, it should ensure both a more inclusive discussion of Canada's electoral system, and a more legitimate result.

[Edit: Fixed wording, and see correction above.]