Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Oliver Milman reports on the warning from climate scientists that humanity has already missed the window to limit global warming to the agreed target of 1.5 degrees Celsius - making the continued posturing and heel-dragging as a substitute for agreement on action all the more indefensible. Damian Carrington reports on a new assessment showing that numerous heat waves and other severe weather events experienced over the past few years would have been impossible before the climate breakdown. James Riordon points out new NASA data showing a sharp drop in global freshwater levels over the last decade. And Victoria Gill discusses Jane Goodall's warning that the Earth is already well into its sixth great extinction event even as we continue with exploitation and pollution as usual.

- Nesrine Malik discusses how an authoritarian turn in politics can be traced to the enshittification of society generally and social media in particular - together with the lack of a compelling response from any competing alternatives. And Robert Reich notes that the inevitable result is that a Trump kleptocracy will loot the public and make the underlying reality even worse.

- Josh Halliday reports on a new study showing that nearly a quarter of the UK's population - and over a third of children - are currently living in poverty. And Torsten Bell writes about the desperate need for decision-makers to better understand the plight of the working class. Which of course means the political class is firmly focused on ensuring the inheritors of massive agricultural operations don't pay any tax.

- Finally, Adam Piore reports on a new study showing that up to a quarter of American adults may be suffering from long COVID. And City St Georges, City of London finds that the growing list of COVID-19's effects on children includes a 16% increase in heart defects. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Umair Haque is rightly frustrated that we haven't learned and applied obvious lessons about how to fight COVID after two years, while also warning against any assumptions that the Omicron variant will go easy on us. Ian Bogost writes about the realization that due in large part to reckless government choices, we may never make it to a post-COVID future. But Nesrine Malik pushes us to keep fighting to limit the damage we do to the people around us. And CBC News interviews David Fisman about the role of improved masking in stopping the spread of a more contagious variant. 

- Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon talks to Colin Furness about the need to finally acknowledge - and act on - the reality that ventilation systems need to be upgraded to respond to an airborne pathogen. And Kathryn May reports that the federal government has delayed plans to push public employees back into common office spaces. 

- Matt Stoller discusses how the factors causing the U.S.' supply chain disruptions include warped corporate incentives which make it profitable for some companies to cause a cargo traffic jam.

- Paul Mason writes that the fall of Boris Johnson is the result of a toxic party ideology which is incapable of acting in the public interest.

- Brandon Doucet argues that it's long past time for Canadians to have truly universal health care, including public coverage for prescription drugs and dental care. And Alex Hemingway writes that fiscal responsibility means making positive investments in people's health and well-being - not imposing punitive austerity. 

- Finally, Patricia Callahan, James Bandler, Justin Elliott, Doris Burke and Jeff Ernsthausen trace how wealth concentrated in the Scripps, Mellon and Mars families in the early 20th century has turned into a twelve-figure pile of assets steered away from any tax responsibilities.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Lee Stevens writes that the coronavirus pandemic has exposed longstanding weaknesses in our social safety net which have caused large amounts of avoidable poverty:

A generation ago, our income support and social service programs were working (albeit not perfect) since it was possible to get a good job with just a high school diploma and support a family with the earnings from that job. But the economy of today is much different. Wages have stagnated while the cost of living has not; more people have a university education but are still having to assemble a range of temporary, contractual and freelance work just to make a living. Those full-time, long-term jobs are few and far between, leading to a rise in what is being referred to as shorter-term “gigs,” and our social safety net has not kept up. This has left many people without any type of income security, paid sick leave or labour protection — a disaster in a public health crisis.

Those who have worked all their lives and have suddenly found themselves dependent on government benefits are beginning to question their beliefs that “having a job” is the best social program. It’s a bitter pill to swallow when you “did all the right things,” finished school, secured a job (or jobs), only to realize that everything that you worked for has disappeared. And, while many of those people probably don’t see themselves as living in poverty, they are certainly in need, and it wasn’t because they made bad choices in life. The chasm between “those people” and the rest of us is becoming smaller, and that’s a little scary. So, it’s no surprise to see a sudden rise in citizen engagement and cries for a Just Recovery as systemic inequalities are becoming painfully clearer during COVID.

- Ewa Krajewska, Veronica Sjolin and Teagan Markin write that there's no valid reason to use rhetoric about civil liberties to avoid life-saving mandatory masking rules. Victoria Gibson reports on the Ford government's plans to endanger public health by allowing people to be pushed out of their homes. And Marilyn Slett, Judith Sayers and Joe Alphonse call attention to the need for even basic precautions for Indigenous people in British Columbia.

- Scott Gilmore suggests responding to Donald Trump's anti-immigration policies - most recently including the cancellation of workers' visas - by ensuring that workers able to work remotely have an opportunity to live in Canada.

- Meanwhile, Ethan Cox notes the importance of ensuring that unscrupulous employers don't turn remote work into a means of slashing wages. And Meagan Day interviews Erin Hatton about the foundation of economic coercion underlying the capitalist relationship between employers and workers.

- Lily Batchelder highlights the need to make sure the rich and their heirs pay their fair share. And the New York Times' editorial board writes about the gap between a the concentration of wealth at the top, and the stagnation of wealth for everybody else.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig makes the case to nationalize the production of necessary medicines in Canada.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Holthaus calls out any attempt by the uber-wealthy to paper over their profits from climate destruction with "philanthropic" donations. And David Wallace-Wells notes that while a response to our climate crisis is possible using the resources of society as a whole, it's beyond the scope of any individual fortune.

- Bronwyn Oatley, Meghan Bell and Danial Hoyer highlight the need for an inheritance tax and wealth taxes to meet obvious social needs and to ensure that wealth and power don't continue to accumulate in the hands of a privileged few.

- Sophia Reuss discusses the parallels between the U.S.' debate over health care generally and Canada's continued need for pharmacare. And the Economist also takes note of the glaring gap in our health care system.

- Finally, Bob Weber reports on the justified fear by Alberta workers that Jason Kenney will gamble their pensions on doomed fossil fuel developments. And Alex Ballingall reports on the prospect that the federal government might underwrite the Coastal GasLink pipeline to ram it through Wet’suwet’en territory - even as word comes out that the project has been rejected by provincial regulators.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The L.A. Times' editorial board comments on the need for everybody to pitch in toward a just transition which preserves a habitable planet - including by moving away from reliance on fossil fuels. But Natalie Hanman interviews Naomi Klein about what instead looks to be the start of barbarism which dehumanizes the people facing the worst effects of a climate breakdown.

- Kelly Grant reports on a plan for Toronto's University Health Network to build affordable housing to address some of the causes of ill health - signalling the lack of supports available outside the health care system. And Richard Schneider laments how many mental health issues are addressed through criminal courts.

- Torsten Bell discusses how any proposal to eliminate the UK's inheritance tax would provide grossly disproportionate benefits to the wealthy - offering a reminder of how Canada is exacerbating intergenerational inequality by lacking one to begin with.

- Finally, John Ashton writes about the need for public activism across Alberta to challenge the Kenney UCP's plans for austerity and attacks on workers.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Alex Hemingway writes about the need for Canada's federal election to include a discussion about democratizing ownership and control of our economy. Nicole Aschoff notes that any discussion about industrial policy needs to include a serious analysis as to who benefits from economic development. And Tristan Hughes argues that the SNC Lavalin scandal represents only a tiny slice of the problem of government subservience to the corporate sector - and that we can't ignore the structural problems in favour of disputes over the scandal's specifics.

- Gamechangers points out how federal corporate tax cuts - like those in so many other jurisdictions - have failed to produce any promised returns for anybody outside the shareholder and executive classes. And Allan Lanthier notes that estate freezes represent one more mechanism for wealth to accumulate across generations without helping to fund the society which enables it.

- Mae Nam writes about the need for unions to push for better workplace conditions. And Kayla Blado rejects the claim that "self-care" is any substitute for collective action.

- Finally, Elizabeth McSheffrey reports on the systemic culture of cover-ups when it comes to health and safety dangers caused by the fossil fuel sector. Justin Nobel discusses how North Dakota's regulator helped an operator misreport the size of an oil spill by a factor of a million. The Canadian Press reports on the new Bonterra spill which has dumped oil into a creek feeding into the North Saskatchewan River and Edmonton's water supply. And Morgan Krakow reports on a cyanide spill which affected drinking water in Michigan for days before the public was made aware.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David Roberts writes about the developing recognition that we all bear responsibility for consumption emissions - though even better would be a focus on limiting emissions produced, consumed and exported alike. Daniel Masoliver examines some of the steps we can take as individuals to rein in our own emissions - though those pale in comparison to the scale of the problem originating with large polluters. And Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger point out the massive emissions emanating from the U.S.' military.

- Marc Lee discusses the absurdity of trying to claim massive LNG developments as a credit rather than a cost in trying to avert a climate breakdown. And Paul Willcocks calls out Andrew Scheer's combination of magic asterisks, corporate giveaways and attempts to game emission credit systems masquerading as a climate plan.

- Katie Bach, Sarah Kalloch and Zeynep Ton point out how employers themselves benefit by treating workers with respect rather than contempt. And Michelle Cohen makes the case for employers to at least foot the bill for mandatory sick notes - though the more important question is the frequency with which they're required in the first place.

- CBC News reports on Hamilton's failure to take violent right-wing extremism seriously - as evidenced by the fact that police have been used to protect bigoted groups from peaceful activists. Martha Gill comments on the need for skepticism about supposed defences of free speech which amount to nothing more than attempts to ensure that ignorance and bigotry are allowed to be emitted unopposed. And Michael Coren offers a warning about Andrew Scheer's hatred and intolerance (however it's concealed while he seeks power).

- Finally, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman respond (PDF) to dubious questions about the effectiveness of wealth taxes in both increasing revenue and ensuring greater equality. And Byrd Pinkerton and Dylan Matthews question why deceased plutocrats are able to impose their will on the world from beyond the grave.

New column day

Here (via PressReader), on the U.S.' long-overdue conversation about progressive taxes on extreme incomes and wealth - and the need for Canada to follow suit.

For further reading...
- Matthew Yglesias has offered useful background on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez' high-end income tax proposal, Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax proposal, Bernie Sanders' estate tax plan, and the strong public support for the ideas. And Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman respond (PDF) to critics of wealth taxes generally, while Noah Smith compares the options.
- Lawrence Martin discusses the U.S.' newfound interest in ensuring the rich pay their fair share. Farhad Manjoo questions whether the level of wealth and inequality inherent in billionaire status can ever be justified.
- Paul Krugman comments on Howard Schultz' laughable attempt to manufacture a populist presidential campaign out of explicit class war on behalf of the uber-rich.
- Finally, Sam Friedman and Daniel Laurison offer a reminder of how wealth and privilege tend to be self-perpetuating. And Meagan Day points out how massive inheritances are particularly unjustifiable when far too many people face severely limited opportunities.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Ainslie Cruickshank reports on Grand Chief Stewart Phillip's call to prevent catastrophic climate change rather than devoting public money toward fossil fuel subsidies. And Eric Holthaus points out that the recent "hothouse Earth" report includes the recognition that it's not yet too late to return to climate stability with a meaningful push toward clean energy.

- But Emma McIntosh's report and David Climenhaga's post on climate change denialism within Jason Kenney's UCP offer a reminder that there are far too many people in and around the halls of power who won't even acknowledge the existence of a problem, let alone work toward a desperately-needed solution. And Alex Randall notes that neoliberal ideology has created extra barriers to concerted public action to solve climate change (or any other issue where the public interest comes into conflict with entrenched corporate power).

- Meanwhile, Zach Kaldveer examines how Donald Trump has pushed the U.S.' Environmental Protection Agency to take direction from corporations seeking free rein to pollute regardless of the resulting harm to the public.

- Don Pittis discusses some of the factors standing in the way of an inheritance tax in Canada - while noting that complaints seem to be largely based on a lack of awareness that other peer countries already have one.

- Finally, Rod Hick offers an overview of in-work poverty, while noting the need for far more work to assist people in escaping poverty traps.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- David Moscrop makes the case for a long-overdue inheritance tax in Canada:

Over time, if left unchecked, capitalism facilitates the pooling of wealth — cash, property, business ownership, investments — among a select few. This is as true in Canada as anywhere else. That pooling implies not just the concentration of wealth but also the concentration of authority, influence, proximity to decision-makers, and all the other tactical tools it takes to get things done the way you want them done.

That concentration of power ultimately undermines democracy. When a small elite hog the wealth and the power, the rest of the people are either marginalized or shut out altogether.

The most obscene way that wealth is made is through large-scale inheritance. Passing along wealth facilitates the concentration of resources in the hands of the few, generation over generation. In Canada, inheritance is a serious problem that prevents not just equal outcome but even equal opportunity.

- Wanyee Li highlights how soaring housing prices in Vancouver have made it nearly impossible for middle- and working-class citizens to become homeowners. And Ryan Cooper points out the role social housing needs to play in building cohesive and functional cities.

- Nick Loenen discusses the value of an electoral system which encourages cooperation and genuine majoritarianism rather than artificially assigning absolute power to one leader with a minority of the total party vote.

- Meanwhile, in a prime example of how artificial majorities lead to abuses of centralized power, Mike de Souza exposes how the Libs allowed Kinder Morgan to raid the public treasury without keeping anybody informed of their plans. And David Sirota reports on Donald Trump's latest scheme to hand free money to banksters at public expense.

- Felice Frayer reports on a new study showing the connection between on-the-job injuries and opioid deaths.

- Finally, while the Saskatchewan Party tries to wish away its Global Transportation Hub scandal, Geoff Leo reminds us of just 20 of the outstanding questions about the fiasco while finding nobody willing to answer them.

[Edit: fixed typo.]

New column day

Here, examining David Macdonald's latest report on wealth concentration in Canada - and the availability of more ambitious solutions than what's been on offer in most recent political debates.

For further reading...
- The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis studies (PDF) how unearned income and wealth are similarly becoming more concentrated in the U.S.
- Christo Aivalis has pointed out how a more progressive tax system which focuses on wealth in particular can be one of the NDP's key promises to Canadian voters.
- Finally, among the voices who have proposed more widespread wealth taxes, Paul Buchheit has advocated for a focus on financial wealth, while Thomas Piketty has made the case for taking wealth generally.

[Edit: added link.]

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- David MacDonald studies the increasing concentration of wealth in Canada, while noting the need for wealth-based taxes (and particularly an inheritance tax) to start building a more fair society. And Alan Rappeport and Jim Tankersley report on the Trump administration's latest move in the wrong direction, as they plan to bypass normal legislative processes to lavish hundreds of billions of dollars on people who already own large amounts of capital.

- Allison Chandler points out research into the role the melting of the Arctic may be playing in causing heat waves around the globe. But Margaret McGregor, Stirling Bryan, Penny Brasher and Courtney Howard note that Canada is far behind the curve in assessing how climate change and other environmental factors affect public health.

- And not surprisingly, that conspicuous lack of curiosity tends to lead to avoidable environmental risks. On that front, Bob Weber reports on the potential acidification of a massive area around the oil sands, while Ainslie Cruickshank discusses the devastating effects a Trans Mountain dilbit spill could have on already-threatened salmon stocks in British Columbia.

- Jake Johnson highlights Bernie Sanders' observation that even Koch-funded antisocial propaganda accidentally confirms that publicly funded and provided health care is both better and more affordable. Alex Lawson and Stephanie Taylor make the case for at least a public option for prescription drug coverage. And CBC News reports on the risk that a manufacturer-based shortage of Epipens may threaten Canadian lives in the very near future.

- Finally, Andre Picard argues that instead of criminalizing drug users, we should be managing and reducing the harm resulting from all types of drugs.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Noah Smith writes that public resentment toward the U.S.' wealthiest few is based on a genuine (and justified) concern about an economic system rigged to exacerbate inequality across generations, not mere envy toward the people who have more:

(R)esentment of the super-rich is probably not simply envy. It likely has to do with notions of fairness. As economist N. Gregory Mankiw conjectured in a 2013 essay, people are more likely to begrudge vast fortunes if they feel the wealth wasn’t earned. Technology company founders may be rich, but they mostly got that way by creating new products or services that benefit many people’s lives — think PayPal or iPhones or Facebook. Similarly, rich athletes or entertainers used their talents to make life more enjoyable for millions of Americans.

But about 38 percent of American billionaires inherited at least a substantial part of their fortunes. These heirs and heiresses tend to be less in the public eye, but they hold vast sums nonetheless. Taxing these unearned billions seems like a great way to allay public concerns about the super-rich.

Economics provides both empirical and theoretical support for the idea of taxing inheritances at much higher rates, and making the tax much harder to avoid. Surveys find that informing people about wealth inequality makes them much more likely to support higher estate taxes, but only slightly more likely to support other forms of taxation. And economic theory suggests that taxing wealthy inheritors can increase economic efficiency if many of them are bad investors.

So one idea to address popular anger over the dramatic success of a few super-rich individuals is to stop them from passing most of those fortunes on to their children. That won’t take the Elon Musks and the Mark Zuckerbergs out of the news, but it will reassure Americans that most of their crazy-rich countrymen made their own money through hard work and talent, not just the luck of having rich parents.

- George Eaton discusses the combination of popular support which is leading toward increasing public ownership of the UK's public services. And David Zarnett reports on the Wynne government's giveaway of a profitable casino for pennies on the dollar - representing just one more example of how the public loses out when neoliberal government focus on privatization over competent management.

- Adam Litwin, Ariel Avgar and Edmund Becker study (PDF) how the outsourcing of cleaning services in hospitals leads to the increased spread of infectious diseases.

- Bernard Goldstein comments on another of the Trump administration's moves to prevent regulators from doing their jobs, this time by making a policy of rejecting some of the best available environmental studies.

- Finally, following up on this week's column, Samir Shaheen-Hussain points out another policy choice which results in children being deprived of family support when it's needed most, as air ambulances refuse to allow parents to accompany Inuit children to receive care.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Sean Farrell reports on a new OECD study recommending the application of inheritance taxes to reduce wealth inequality.

- And Harry Quilter-Pinner discusses Finland's confirmation that the obvious solution to homelessness - providing housing to people who need it - is also the best.

- Nicole Goodkind analyzes how the Trump Republican tax scam has served entirely to enrich the already-wealthy. And Paul Krugman charts Paul Ryan's political progression from economic snake-oil salesman to fascist enabler - while noting that it mirrors that of the Republican party as a whole.

- Ethan Cox highlights how Kinder Morgan is shaking down Canada in trying to have the Trans Mountain expansion rubber-stamped (and paid for by the public to boot). Jennifer Ditchburn offers a reminder that any discussion of the constitutional implications of Trans Mountain needs to account for the Indigenous rights which have been edited out of most mainstream discussion, while Rachel Gilmore reports on Perry Bellegarde's warning about First Nations being left out of any new decision-making process. And Alyssa O'Dell writes about the wave of activism to protect land and water in British Columbia - and the hundreds of arrests so far in response.

- Finally, Joe Romm reports on new research showing that some of the most drastic anticipated consequences of climate change are materializing a century earlier than expected.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses how the Republicans' tax scam is designed for the sole purpose of further enriching their already-wealthy donors, while Theodoric Meyer notes that it also stands to make loads of money for lobbyists.

- Jagmeet Singh makes the case for Canada to work on a tax system which is more fair to citizens - making for a far more constructive contribution than Susan Delacourt's effort to stoke anti-tax sentiment for little apparent reason. And Patrick Collinson comments on the need for a tax system which ensures that inheritances don't exacerbate existing inequality:

Firstly, let’s call a halt to the nonsense that the money goes to kids, or to young adults needing a hand up the property ladder. The average age at which someone receives an inheritance is 61. These people are certainly not “kids” – indeed, many of the recipients of unearned inheritances (largely created by property inflation, not personal endeavour) will be grandparents themselves.

Now let’s look at who receives the money. The report reveals how it doesn’t really go to those who need a leg-up – it goes to those who already have assets. Resolution looked at the millennial generation – generally those seen as reaching their late teens and early 20s after 2000 – and found that the ones who haven’t got on the property ladder are likely to be those whose parents also never made it. In contrast, 83% of millennials who have bought their homes have parents who also bought their own homes.

You can see where inheritance is going. What it does is simply entrench inequality and make the divide between the housing haves and have-nots wider.
...
Social mobility risks grinding to a near halt, making it much more difficult to become wealthy from one’s own endeavours. Society will, more than ever, be run for the benefit of a trustafarian gerontocracy of the 60-plus who inherited property, not a society where entrepreneurial vigour counts.

- Owen Jones points out the combination of skyrocketing prices and declining service in the UK's rail industry as just another example of the consequences of ideological privatization.

- Aditya Chakrabortty discusses how the UK's social programs have been cut and rendered impossible to navigate in order to divert money to the Conservatives' tax slashing.

- Finally, Elizabeth Schulze examines Finland's basic income experiment after a year, and finds that the main question being raised is whether to go further in extending income security.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Paul Krugman rightly points out that it's to be expected that Republican establishment figures would line up behind Donald Trump since he shares their top priority of handing still more money to the richest few. And Emine Saner highlights how strong inheritance taxes would help connect children of privilege to the society around them.

- Meanwhile, Neil Gross comments on the decline of the U.S. union movement as a contributing factor to the rise of the xenophobic right.

- Kendall Worth makes his case for a basic income. And Ursula Huws discusses the need for our social safety to adapt to an economic where people are expected to get by without secure, full-time employment:

For workers hovering precariously on the edge of survival trying to patch together a livelihood from multiple jobs, never sure when the next piece of work or income will show up, a benefits system in which the only categories are “employed” or “seeking work” is of little help. At the same time, daytime television programmes such as Saints and Scroungers, Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole, and Benefits Street drive home the message that there is no middle ground: you are either a hardworking taxpayer, or a lazy scrounger. In times of austerity, when governments aim to save money wherever they can, this is a convenient message. But the reality is not so simple.
...
We should go back to the drawing board and develop a system that provides basic security and dignity for all while still allowing for work to be organised flexibly. One possible solution is to give everybody a basic income – a guaranteed minimum income for everyone, available as a right. This would raise the standard of living and reduce poverty among the most vulnerable, but would also allow workers to move flexibly in and out of paid work, education and care work without being subjected to the expensive, demeaning and dysfunctional inquisitorial procedures of the current benefits system that sees only the largely exclusionary categories of “work” and “claiming benefits”.

- Shaurya Taran points out a stark example of the costs of homelessness - and asks why we're absorbing both the health and human costs rather than providing needed housing.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail reminds us not to overreact to the barely-existent risk of harm from terrorism in Canada. And Murtaza Hussain points out that the example of Aaron Driver looks to have been based on a lack of psychiatric care and other social supports for a single individual, rather than any meaningful type of organization.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Mark Karlin interviews Richard Wolff about the relationship between unfettered capitalism and poverty:

How is poverty an inevitable by-product of capitalism? Doesn't this make all these charitable drives "to eliminate poverty" disingenuous because it cannot be eliminated in a capitalistic system?
 
Poverty has always accompanied capitalism (as Thomas Piketty's work documents yet again). As an economic system, it has proven to be as successful in producing wealth at one pole as it is in producing poverty at the other. Periodic "rediscoveries of" and campaigns against poverty have not changed that. Capitalism's defenders, having long promoted the system as the means to overcome both absolute and relative poverty (i.e. to be an equalizing system), now change their tune. They either abandon equality as a social good or goal or else try to avoid discussing poverty altogether.

Why do you see another economic implosion, as we saw in 2008, as inevitable under the current capitalistic economic order in the US?

While "inevitable" is not a word or concept I use, my sense of what has happened in and to the US economy sees reason to believe another 2008-like implosion is quite likely. The reason is this: no real changes have been made in US or global capitalism. Corporate capitalism proved strong enough and its critics weak enough to enable the imposition of austerities as the chief policy response everywhere. So the speeding train of capitalism is "back on track," resuming its rush toward stone walls of excess debt, stagnant mass incomes, capital relocating overseas, etc. The too-big-to-fail and the too-unequal-to-be-sustained have only become bigger and more unequal.

- Beat the Press rightly notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership serves primarily as protectionism for the rich rather than a means of freeing anything. And LOLGOP argues that Donald Trump offers about the most compelling example possible as to the value of inheritance taxes to prevent previous generations from locking in wealth and power.

- Jon Sanderson discusses how economic deprivation in turn tends to foment distrust and prejudice. And the Vancouver Sun editorial board highlights the need to do more to ensure an adequate supply of housing, while Chris Seto raises the question of what happens to children who rely on school nutrition programs when school is out for the summer.

- Jordan Press reports on a 2015 presentation by federal civil servants of the social and economic benefits of multicultural inclusion - which of course didn't stop the Cons from choosing xenophobia instead in an effort to cling to power. 

- Finally, Bruce Campion-Smith reports on the Libs' scheme to sell off Canada's airports for short-term funding, while Brent Patterson points out just a few of the more glaring problems with that plan. And PressProgress notes that if given its druthers, the Fraser Institute would go as far as to privatize Canada Day.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Andrew Jackson discusses how large inheritance and accumulated capital lead to gross economic and social distortions:

Inheritances are quite heavily concentrated among the most affluent families and thus compound income and wealth inequality over time.

Inheritances continue to play a significant role in the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the richest Canadians. Forbes Magazine rankings of billionaires show that the ten richest Canadian families include at least four heads of families whose fortunes were at least partly inherited: those of David Thomson, James and Arthur Irving, and Galen Weston.

Wealth, especially financial wealth, is highly concentrated in Canada and produces a significant source of income and economic well-being for the rich which is not earned in the same sense as income from wages and salaries. At a minimum, inequality of financial wealth greatly reinforces inequality of income.

This is hard to justify on the normative grounds used by liberals to justify economic inequality, namely that individual rewards reflect the productive contributions of individuals. Accordingly, it is not “unfair” to consider taxation of inheritances and large accumulations of wealth.

- Leiliani Farha weighs in on the inescapable connection between inequality and homelessness of all types. And PressProgress highlights Derek Fildebrandt's attempt to minimize discussion of any social issues whatsoever.

- Marc Lee offers his take on what happened at the first ministers' meeting on climate change in Vancouver, while John Paul Tasker reports that the federal Libs' plan on making sure carbon pricing is in place regardless of any provincial obstruction. And Joseph Heath explains why Brad Wall's position to the contrary can only be explained by fealty to corporate backers over sound governance:

(W)e all know that the current price of carbon – zero – is too low. You don’t have to know how high it should be to know that $0 is not the correct price. (Actually, in practice it’s less that zero, because of the various ways in which fossil fuel production is subsidized.) So in order to get a properly structured market, and to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage that hydrocarbons enjoy over other energy sources in the current market, one needs to put a price on carbon. What will be the effects of raising the price? Who knows? The beauty of the market is that we don’t have to know. What we do know is that raising the price will improve the allocation of resources and increase welfare.
...
Wall’s support of the “free market” is not the sort of ideological conviction that arises from a sober assessment of the virtues of private enterprise, but more like a set of ideas picked up on the golf course, from hobnobbing with CEOs. It is essentially class politics, not responsible governance.

- Meanwhile, Eric Holthaus points out that at least on a temporary basis, we've already reached the two-degree threshold seen as the point of no return for climate change.

- Finally, CUPW makes the case for postal banking as both an important social service and a source of public revenue.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Eric Reguly opines that the best way to ensure that banks (and other businesses) operate under the law is to make sure that individual executives are held accountable for failing to do so:

(I)f fines and the odd firing are no deterrent to bad bank behaviour, what is? The obvious answer is shareholder rage. The trouble is, shareholders are not enraged. They have not grabbed pitchforks and torches and stormed CEOs’ houses when the multibillion-dollar fines are paid to secure settlements. Instead, they meekly accept the fines as if they are a cost of doing business, a sleaze tax, if you like.

In some cases, the bank shares actually rise when the fines are announced. The reason? Because in each of the settlements, the fines could have been far worse and, in no case, have the penalties threatened to put the banks out of business. The era of destroying terminally vice-ridden companies is, apparently, long gone. The last time that happened was in 2002, when Arthur Andersen, one of the Big Five accounting firms, was convicted of obstruction of justice for shredding documents in the Enron case. Some 85,000 employees eventually lost their jobs. Regulators and the governments that employ them no longer have the appetite for collateral damage in the form of massive job destruction.
...
Unless senior executives are put on criminal trial or, at a minimum, marched out the door in shame, shorn of their lavish bonuses and corporate golf-club memberships, the rotten culture of the banks will not change. Why would it? The traders in the currency scandal who worked for HSBC, Citi, UBS and other biggies decided that the chances of them getting caught were minimal and kept going. And if they were to get caught, it would be the bank – that is, the shareholders – not them, who would be on the hook for fines worth fortunes.

The bank fines are getting so big and frequent that you can be forgiven for suspecting a mutually beneficial racket is in progress. The banks pay big fines for settlements that leave their businesses and executive ranks largely intact. The regulators typically pocket some of the fines and pad out government treasuries. Shareholders are the main losers. To break this absurd cycle, and to encourage banks to operate morally, a little prison time would do the trick.

- And Bessma Momani reports on both the unfortunate reality that governments haven't made the effort to cooperate in ensuring that corporate income is taxed at all, and the tentative steps being taken by the G20 to correct that gross loophole.

- Josh Bivens highlights the fact that tax cuts and other giveaways to employers haven't done - and can't be expected to do - anything to improve wages:

Mr. Leonhardt pointed out the dismal wage trends for the vast majority of American workers in recent decades and how it would be a heavy policy lift to reverse them. This seems right to me. But then he wrote:

“Washington could definitely do more to help growth: better infrastructure, a less burdensome tax code, a less wasteful health care system, more bargaining power for workers and, above all, stronger schools and colleges, to lift the skills of the nation’s work force.”

As they might say on “Seinfeld,” you can’t “yada yada“ more bargaining power for workers. It’s the most important part of the story.

The root of the U.S. wage problem (which is, in turn, the root of America’s inequality problem) is that most workers aren’t seeing their wages keep pace with overall productivity growth. The policies on Mr. Leonhardt’s list are worthy, but most would not reliably close this gap between productivity and pay. Boosting the bargaining power of workers would.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Jackson suggests that employers need to bear the cost of building their future workforce rather than letting hundreds of billions of dollars sit idle. And Chuck Collins proposes a combination of inheritance tax revenue, and an educational opportunity fund to ensure greater equality both between and within generations.

- The Hamilton Spectator laments the woeful state of child care in Canada.

- And finally, David Miller writes that refusing to do anything about climate change is no longer an option.

Thursday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your day.

- Common Dreams discusses the prevalence of inherited wealth among the U.S.' richest individuals (as pointed out by a report by United for a Fair Economy):

Forbes claims that their list of the 400 richest people is 'the definitive scorecard of wealth' in the United States, but UFE rebuffs that assertion, saying that the narrative of wealth and achievement pushed by Forbes ignores the other side of the coin— namely, that the opportunity to build wealth is not equally or broadly shared in contempory society.

According to the report:

• The net worth of the Forbes 400 grew fifteen-fold between the launch of the list in 1982 and 2011, while wealth stagnated for the average U.S. household.
• The racial wealth divide is starkly apparent from the overwhelming whiteness of the list. The 2011 Forbes 400 had only one African American member.
• Women accounted for just 10% of the 2011 list, and of the women on the list nearly 90% inherited their fortunes.

In addition, the report points out that (and the new 2012 list from Forbes shows continuation of this trend) the rich in 2011 got richer as the poor got poorer. The growing wealth inequality, the report says, is not due to any inherent brilliance or dynamism of the wealthy, but because of carefully crafted policy and legislative reforms enacted by government at the behest of the these same individuals.

Two examples cited by the report which directly impact the ability of the rich to retain and pass along their enormous assets:

• Tax rates on capital gains have been slashed, which especially benefits members of the Forbes list. The richest 0.1% receive half of all net increases in capital gains.
• Drastic cuts to the federal estate tax passed in the Bush tax cuts and the 2010 Obama tax deal allow the Forbes 400 to pass on more of their massive fortunes to their heirs, contributing to the growth of inequality and entrenching a class of super-wealthy heirs.

- Thomas Walkom weighs in on the anticipated effects of the CETA - noting that the problems with the deal go far beyond billions in giveaways to big pharma, while the supposed gains are tiny even based on the Cons' blind faith in the almighty market:

As the Council of Canadians has pointed out, CETA also promises to go far beyond tariff reduction. The Europeans want to prevent provinces and municipalities from favouring local business.

If as expected they get their way, this would wipe out Ontario’s remaining bus and train manufacturing capacity — and play havoc with Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green-industry strategy.

As well, Europe’s demand for greater patent protection is sure to raise the price of drugs. One study cited by Jacobs calculates the annual extra cost to Ontarians at $1.2 billion.

Why then has Canada chosen to take this path? The federal government’s answers are not convincing.

Ottawa cites a 2008 study it helped finance, which calculates the usual gains to trade predicted by economic theory. But such gains won’t be massive. In this case, the federal study says, they would amount to less than one percentage point of Canada’s gross domestic product, or about $12 billion.

If, as the Harper government assumes, all of this extra money were used to hire Canadians, then the deal would create 80,000 new jobs nationwide — which would help, if not solve, the problems faced by the 1.4 million who are currently out of work.

But Canadians know from grim experience that in the real world businesses don’t always spend their extra profits on domestic job creation.

- SOS Crowns points out that plenty of rural Saskatchewan communities will be losing broadband Internet access from SaskTel due to the latest anti-Crown edict from the Sask Party.

- Finally, Rick Mercer rants about the Cons' latest omnibus monstrosity in the making: