Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Tinker Ready discusses how the decision to let COVID-19 spread unabated in the name of "business as usual" has lead to an entirely foreseeable spike in cases of long COVID. Accesswire notes that the carnage from COVID includes an increase in thyroid disorders. And new research from USC sheds some light on how delayed inflammation following infection can prove dangerous or even deadly, while Emma Partiot et al. study some of the molecular effects of COVID on the brain. 

- Brian Kateman argues that the ultimate effects of a climate breakdown are best depicted as involving massive suffering rather than a dead planet - though our experience with COVID should surely disabuse us of the notion that we'll be particularly motivated to avert that outcome. Steve Lorteau points out that the Canadian public is paying far more in subsidies to fossil fuel companies than in carbon taxes. And Natasha Bulowski looks at new polling confirming that the Canadian public is well aware of the need for a just transition to a clean economy - even as we're presented with a relentless stream of propaganda from petropoliticians and media outlets alike in the service of continued carbon pollution. 

- Liam O'Connor reports on Eric Cline's call for Saskatchewan to work on getting fair value for its potash, rather than windfall profits for multinational mining conglomerates as the highest and best use of natural resources. (And it's particularly remarkable to see even Jack Mintz recognize that corporate operators are set to take more than their fair share of the returns.) 

- Finally, John Hall's analysis of the false choice between corporatist parties in the UK has plenty of application to Canada's political scene as well. 

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Andrew Nikiforuk takes a look at two proposals to get to COVID Zero - including one from Canada and one from Germany.

- Mickey Djuric reports on Saskatchewan's deceptive COVID-19 reporting - which results in a public announcement that people have "recovered" no matter how severe their ongoing symptoms (or even when they die of the disease).

- Patrick White and Molly Hayes report on the increased number of calls to police and health providers raising mental health issues during the course of a poorly-managed pandemic. Zak Vescera reports on how COVID-19 is affecting people living in poverty. And Doug Cuthand discusses how COVID-19 has resulted in disproportionate harm to Indigenous people and people of colour.

- Meanwhile, in case there was any doubt that overt prejudice remains just as much an issue as systemic inequality, Jason Warick reports on the interference of a group of racists in a memorial service being held by Muslim students at the University of Saskatchewan. And Laura Sciarpelletti reports on the racist tirade of an anti-masker against workers at a Vietnamese restaurant. 

- But on the bright side, Megan Squire discusses the promising evidence suggesting the deplatforming purveyors of hate can significantly limit the harm done by the people seeking to push it. 

- Finally, Kim Siever writes about the glaring flaws in Jack Mintz' attempt to treat the COVID crash and stagnant incomes as symptoms of insufficient giveaways to the corporate sector. Dan Darrah interviews Greg Meeker about the Kenney UCP's hijacking of workers' pension funds to be used to prop up the fossil fuel sector. And Scott Schmidt discusses how Albertans are paying the price for buying the claim that it doesn't matter if they're governed by monkeys as long as they're from the party preferred by the business class.

New column day

Here, on how the spin behind the Trump administration's push for a massive tax giveaway to the rich has no basis in economic reality - and how Canada shouldn't be suckered into following suit.

For further reading...
- Michael Linden examines the overall effects of the Senate's version of tax reform legislation, with income levels under $50,000 in income all coming out with net losses (which are worse the lower a household's income). Lawrence Summers challenges the attempts to fabricate a case for regressive tax slashing. And Steven Greenhouse discusses how the Trump tax plan will exacerbate the worst problems the U.S. already faces.
- Jim Tankersley points out the unwillingness of businesses to take up an invitation to convert lower taxes into higher wages. And Tolure Olorunnipa notes that some CEOs are already acknowledging that they'll use any windfalls for share buybacks rather than productive activity.
- Paul Krugman has reviewed both the leprechaun economics that result in much of a tax cut being delivered offshore, and the Schroedinger's tax hike in which Republicans claim they'll avoid increasing the deficit by letting some tax cuts expire, yet somehow simultaneously extend those tax cuts.
- Cristobal Young discusses the fact that high-wealth individuals are relatively unlikely to move generally, and particularly aren't sensitive to progressive tax rates.
- And for the type of commentary aimed at forcing Canada to follow the U.S.' self-destructive lead by handing free money to the corporate sector, one need never look any further than Jack Mintz. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Paul Krugman calls out the U.S.' deficit scolds for continuing to invent a crisis to distract from the real problems with middling growth and high unemployment. And Bruce Johnstone singles out a few of the Cons' talking points which have somehow become conventional wisdom without having an iota of truth to them. But in case there was any doubt why the Cons aren't being exposed to their own patent wrongness, William Watson's (hardly people-friendly) column explains why - as Jack Mintz manages to qualify as the least corporate-biased member of a hand-picked budget advisory group.

- David Cay Johnston discusses how California is thoroughly disproving the claim that high-end tax increases have any negative impact on growth, as the state is actually thriving after passing significant tax increases through a referendum. And David Climenhaga points to the astroturf groups lobbying for increased exploitation of temporary foreign workers as a prime example of how zombie lies are kept undead:

(I)t cannot be mere coincidence that in almost every case the main groups calling for more TFWs turn out to have a long history of anti-union advocacy. In some cases, before the TFW issue came along, their sole purpose was attacking the right of working people to bargain collectively.

This web of anti-union advocacy groups includes the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Restaurants Canada, the Workplace Democracy Institute of Canada, the Merit Contractors Association, “Working Canadians,” and the Canadian Labour Watch Association.

Even the mysterious National Citizens Coalition, the granddaddy of all Canadian far-right AstroTurf groups, once headed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, puts in a cameo appearance in this convoluted tale!

Each of these groups is not forthcoming about its finances and, it is reasonable to conclude given their purported mandates to represent to represent a different segment of the Canadian economy from “taxpayers,” to restaurant owners, to ordinary working stiffs who just want a little “freedom” in their workplace, is deceptive about its true objectives.
...
The links among this well-established network of anti-union agitators have been obvious for many years.

That the same players who hold the most virulently anti-union views and the most offensive opinions about the supposed shortcomings of Canadian workers should turn out to be the loudest advocates, and in some places the only advocates, for the TFW Program suggests the true agenda behind the vociferous TFW lobby.

It is quite apparent the goals of the Canadian Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, and the various trade associations involved are to weaken the bargaining power of Canadian families (including many of their own naïve members), keep wages low, keep all workers vulnerable and re-elect the Harper Government.

- Meanwhile, Bill Tieleman discusses how the B.C. Liberals are using their latest deliberately-provoked confrontation with teachers to try to push a for-profit education model.

- Abrahm Lustgarten reports that after being told that there are no risks whatsoever to fracking, U.S. residents are learning otherwise the hard way:

Over the past several decades, U.S. industries have injected more than 30 trillion gallons of toxic liquid deep into the earth, using broad expanses of the nation's geology as an invisible dumping ground.

No company would be allowed to pour such dangerous chemicals into the rivers or onto the soil. But until recently, scientists and environmental officials have assumed that deep layers of rock beneath the earth would safely entomb the waste for millennia.

There are growing signs they were mistaken.
....
The boom in oil and natural gas drilling is deepening the uncertainties, geologists acknowledge. Drilling produces copious amounts of waste, burdening regulators and demanding hundreds of additional disposal wells. Those wells — more holes punched in the ground — are changing the earth's geology, adding man-made fractures that allow water and waste to flow more freely.
...
A ProPublica review of well records, case histories and government summaries of more than 220,000 well inspections found that structural failures inside injection wells are routine. From late 2007 to late 2010, one well integrity violation was issued for every six deep injection wells examined — more than 17,000 violations nationally. More than 7,000 wells showed signs that their walls were leaking. Records also show wells are frequently operated in violation of safety regulations and under conditions that greatly increase the risk of fluid leakage and the threat of water contamination.

Structurally, a disposal well is the same as an oil or gas well. Tubes of concrete and steel extend anywhere from a few hundred feet to two miles into the earth. At the bottom, the well opens into a natural rock formation. There is no container. Waste simply seeps out, filling tiny spaces left between the grains in the rock like the gaps between stacked marbles.

- Finally, USA Today rightly questions why we allow big pharma to name its price for needed medications (even as we set up byzantine legal structures to protect the resulting profits).

On choosing sides

There's been no lack of past commentary (from myself and others) on how income splitting is about as regressive a policy as one could possibly design - and I won't repeat it for the moment other than to say that the supposed "compromise" offered by Jack Mintz only goes a step further in ascribing zero value to a stay-at-home spouse.

But it is worth pointing out Lib MP John McKay's participation in yesterday's PR stunt - explained by the bizarre claim that the issue is one that we should "de-politicize" income distribution and tax policy.

Simply put, the issue represents about as stark a political choice as possible: do we agree or disagree with the concept of taking money out of the hands of the poor and redistributing it to wealthier households? And if people accept McKay'a dubious premise that a party can be progressive while trying to silence opposition to that worldview (which the Cons will be pushing with every political lever available to them), then we're doomed to lost the political battle.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Ian Lovett reports on the use of "capital appreciation bonds" in California to ensure that future generations pay an inflated price to private-sector developers for infrastructure today.

- Justin Ling's review of Joyce Murray's message about electoral non-competition pacts is well worth a read - but I'll particularly highlight this part:

Do you want Stephen Harper to be defeated in the next federal election?

Alright, we’re already off to a rocky start.

Politics of negation is dangerous, ugly, and unfortunately rears its ugly head very often in leadership campaigns.

“Elect me and I’ll stop [gay marriage/abortion/separatists/Toronto elitists]” has long between a rhetorical sledgehammer that’s good at getting gut reaction from ignorant people. Nothing more.

So when Joyce Murray asks me if I want Stephen Harper to be defeated, my immediate answer is ‘no’ — I want a government that, if possible, is more competent than our current one. Everyone should want that. Murray, like Trudeau or Garneau, should be making a case that she can do that. Not offering an Ocean’s Eleven caper on how to dupe the prime minister.

- But of course, there's loads of room for improvement on the government we're currently stuck with. And on that front, Steven Shrybman points out just the latest example in commenting on Harper's dubious assertion that his party's misleading robocalls weren't in breach of CRTC regulations, while Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault laments the fact that the Cons are trampling on access to information more and more as their stay in office drags on.

- Herbert Gans discusses how the U.S. media can contribute to genuine democratic debate far better than it currently does. And Rick Salutin laments the state of the CBC in having fallen into the same infotainment format as other broadcasters:

The gold standard for anchors was the U.S.’s Walter Cronkite. He was ready to stand up against the state and the flow and was solid as the bronze statue of the American revolutionary minuteman who stood “by the rude bridge that spanned the flood/ His flag to April’s breeze unfurled.” He had rhetoric and a voice to accompany it: “All things are as they were then except — You Are There.” When president Lyndon Johnson heard Cronkite turn against the Vietnam War, he said, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the country.” Compared to Cronkite, Mansbridge isn’t an icon, he’s a barometer.

He’s happily gone with the flow — and the pressure. CBC has become numero uno for crime stories, weather coverage (today’s snow), product launches, celebrities and awards gossip. None of this is new, or news, and CBC itself doesn’t contest the point. The penny story was another example but the one that probably propelled me into this anchor obit was their infinite overkill on the new BlackBerry. (To give CBC radio its due, Carol Off did an item about that on As It Happens.) Also, to be clear, the Z10 drowned in pseudo-journalism everywhere. That’s my point: why have a public broadcaster if it duplicates everybody else’s obsessions? Nor do I want to romanticize the old CBC news. It was pompous and often misleading. But at least it distorted stories I cared about.

- Finally, Murray Mandryk rightly recognizes the significance of Jack Mintz' report on Saskatchewan's incoherent potash royalty structure.

On dilemmas

No, it isn't much of a surprise that the Cons are desperate enough to have based their campaign's closing argument on a single false tweet.

But it'll be especially interesting to see what happens now that the calls they're directing to Jack Mintz aren't producing the desired outcome. Will this be the point where they finally have no choice but to admit to having been wrong? Or will they once again double down on repeating what they know to be incorrect - even as it only highlights the dishonest and delusional politics so many Canadians are eager to replace?

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted material for your weekend reading.

- Armine Yalnizyan discusses how free-market economic theory fails to take into account the realities of human (and other animal) behaviour:

Observing a group of chimpanzees she had trained to use currency to trade for food, Ms. Santos found monkeys don’t like to save. They often steal from one another and from the market “salesman”. And they display a tendency towards greed. Sound familiar?

There’s more, and it speaks profoundly to what makes rapidly expanding markets so prone to increasing risk. Confronted with complex decisions we make mistakes, panic and revert to basic instincts. One such instinct is a bias towards thinking in relative, not absolute terms. Another is a bias towards loss aversion.

Both lead to a simple and potentially disruptive truth: Humans don’t like to lose anything of value that they’ve obtained, and will actually take on more risky behavior with the object of value in a misguided attempt to save what they already had.

The research gives the lie to the notion that markets are rational. It sheds important light on ways to reduce risk and improve performance. And it suggests why markets tend towards greater concentration, an inherently unstable distribution of resources and power because it reinforces both greed and fear.

- Meanwhile, it's a day ending in "y". Which means that Erin has once again exposed a Jack Mintz tax-slashing screed as containing a typical combination of factual errors, questionable assumptions and non-disclosure.

- I've supported competing candidates in each of the last two municipal elections. But it's still a plus to see Fred Clipsham pursuing the NDP's nomination in Regina Qu'Appelle - particularly since the incumbent manages to stand out even among the Cons' invisible Saskatchewan MPs for sheer uselessness.

- Let's give due credit to the Sask Party for at least one form of democratic participation that's been excised from all other parties besides the NDP, as it actually saw a sitting MLA defeated in a nomination contest. Though that type of competition would have far more meaning if it wasn't limited to changing the individual responsible for defending policies not set by the party's membership.

- I don't dispute that it would be a plus to see usage statistics for SaskConnected - both to see how it's working now, and how it can be improved. But otherwise, David Seymour's attempt to sell the service off looks to be based on little more than the usual desire to hand free assets to the private sector rather than any valid reason why wireless Internet access can't practically be treated as a freely available public good.

- Finally, pogge nicely points out what's most frustrating about the current federal landscape:

This last extended break from blogging was originally prompted by illness but more recently I've simply had difficulty getting my enthusiasm for it back. Weighing in on the endless election speculation doesn't do a whole lot for me when I don't expect the outcome of an election to make a lot of difference in the direction the country takes. And I don't. When the rallying cry "Blogging for a Harper-free Canada" first surfaced a while back, my initial reaction was to ask myself why we should set the bar so low. I still think it's a good question.

And the likes of Thomas Walkom aren't helping matters by looking to keep the bar in position through the next election campaign.

Safe bet of the day

Jim Stanford's numbers showing that corporate tax slashing actually costs jobs compared to other alternatives will receive far less attention than the thoroughly dubious figures being circulated by tax-cutters.

Wednesday Morning Links

Content goes here.

- Erin takes on Jack Mintz' latest set of fact-free tax-cut cheerleading, this time by pointing to Mintz' own apparently-forgotten words about the optimal tax level:

He claims that the revenue loss will be “relatively small” or “relatively insignificant” without actually suggesting a dollar amount (pages 3 and 20). By comparison, the Department of Finance (see Table 3.5), the opposition parties, and even the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters estimate that this cut will reduce annual corporate tax revenues by $6 billion.

The “relatively small” claim has a footnote citing the 2007 Tax Competitiveness Report, also authored by Mintz. That report referenced “the tax-revenue-maximizing rate of 28 percent” (pages 0, 14 and 22).

The proposal Mintz now finds so odious is to roll back the federal rate to 18%. With a 10% provincial rate, that would mean a combined rate of 28%!

So, today’s report alleges that there is “little, if any, revenue cost” (page 20) to cutting well below what Mintz himself identified as the “tax-revenue-maximizing rate.” (Finance Canada and I think the revenue-maximizing rate is far above 28%.)

- And even better, Erin is at least getting a few lines in edgewise in CP's coverage of Mintz. Though four lines compared to at least as many full articles dedicated to Mintz is far less than what's needed to provide any semblance of balance to the discussion.

- Carol Goar criticizes the opacity of over a hundred billion dollars in tax breaks currently littering Canada's public policy:

(I)t would be salutary to scrap some (tax breaks). The trouble is neither MPs nor citizens have enough information to evaluate or debate them. Parliamentarians can’t hold the government to account for them. Taxpayers can’t ask that an outdated or inequitable tax expenditure be scrapped in order to preserve a valued program or service.

It’s wrong that these tax preferences are not part of pre-budget consultations. They have an important bearing on the cost of government and the size of the deficit.

It is regrettable that Canadians have to rely to guesstimates and pocket-calculator figures. But what is most disturbing is that a multi-billion component of the nation’s finances is off-limits to the people who pay Canada’s bills.

- Finally, Terence Corcoran, it's time to step away from the Kool-Aid. (Or else provide some evidence for the stunning assertion that innovation has been universally "repressed" since time immemorial.)

On representative samples

We may have to send up a Weir Signal for a more thorough debunking of Jack Mintz' latest call for handouts to the corporate sector. But to see what we're dealing with, let's take a closer look at just one paragraph:

Again, the recent economic literature has provided a new perspective on corporate tax revenue and rate reductions, suggesting that revenue losses are minimal, especially when a country has a high corporate income tax rate by international standards.

Of course, this comes only paragraphs after Mintz notes that Canada's current rates are at or below the levels of countries like Japan, Australia and New Zealand which are cited as "international standards" for comparison. So if there is a point where rates might be reduced without too much fiscal pain, that point would have long since passed.

Moreover, Mintz' statement suggests that trying to lead the race to the bottom produces diminishing returns. Yet somehow Mintz considers that reason to hurry up our pace.

Multinationals easily shift their profits to low-tax jurisdictions with financial transactions and transfer pricing.

Or in the case of a substantial number of multinationals in Canada based on our location, the result of tax breaks in Canada is that they simply pay more tax in the U.S. instead.

But if one were concerned about financial shenanigans and transfer pricing, there are ideas around to deal with such problems. Who wants to bet that Mintz will lead the charge in rejecting them?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the correct observation that Canada collects as much corporate income tax revenue today as it did earlier when rates were much higher.

If by "correct", one means "patently false". But then, accuracy never seems to be much of a concern when it comes to handing money to the corporate sector.

So take the rest of Mintz' column with the appropriate mine's worth of salt.

On savings plans

Andrew Jackson rightly points out that while the Cons and far too many of their provincial counterparts are resisting any move to ensure universal pension security through the CPP and public supplements, the position that it's enough to tinker with voluntary savings plans isn't shared by economists:

The third main argument against (CPP expansion) is the “nanny state” argument – individuals should bear responsibility for their own fate. In point of fact, many of the experts give short shrift to this one and agree that individuals left to their own devices tend to save far too little, and also invest very badly and at high cost. Kesselman argued that the state will have to pay in the final analysis and that an expanded CPP will reduce future GIS expenditures and create room for user fees on the elderly for their health care and other needs. There seems to be a lot of support for opt out schemes and larger pools of investment savings than RRSPs, on the basis that leaving individuals on their own just doesn’t work. It is unclear to say the least why mandatory inclusion is the acceptable basis of private employer pension plans but is unacceptable when it comes to expanding CPP.

As Jackson notes, the group of economists broadly agreeing that the "nanny state" argument is utter nonsense was organized by Jack Mintz - the same, conservative-friendly figure whose own report is being relied on as much of the excuse for doing nothing. So to the extent even Mintz' group of attendees sees no point in wasting time with half measures, it's probably safe to say that voluntary plans aren't much worth discussing.

With that in mind, the real public policy question to be decided seems to be less whether the CPP is the best vehicle to improve pension income compared to voluntary schemes or high-income-friendly deductions, and more whether we should simply do nothing at all on the assumption that there's no problem to be solved. And that debate looks to offer ideal ground for the position that Canadians should expect more security than they're currently offered.

Shill baby shill

We're probably not far from broken record territory here. But as long as Andrew Steele and his ilk want to keep repeating zombie lies, I suppose someone has to give them their due rebuttal. So for those who missed it the first time:

Even leaving aside problems with his assumptions, Jack Mintz' much-bandied-about "591,000 jobs" number incorporates other tax changes along with the HST. On this ground alone, anybody saying "the HST will create 591,000 jobs" can be dismissed as either not knowing what they're talking about or lying through their teeth.

On zombie numbers

Apparently Andrew Steele was right about one thing, as Jack Mintz' inflated and misleading job number has been parroted nonstop by HST backers from the moment it was first released (even by those who should know better). So let's quickly recap the main problems with Mintz' report, as well as pointing out how it's completely incompatible with one of the main pro-HST talking points.

The much-bandied-about "591,000 jobs" number:
- incorporates other tax changes along with the HST. On this ground alone, anybody saying "the HST will create 591,000 jobs" can be dismissed as either not knowing what they're talking about or lying through their teeth;
- doesn't take into account negative job impacts from the increased taxes on individuals;
- relies on assumptions about marginal tax rates which completely ignore the reality that reductions in one jurisdiction such as Ontario may simply result in a corporation paying more tax elsewhere;
- ignores existing policies such as research tax incentives and municipal tax benefits which affect the amount of investment made by the private sector; and
- ignores the fact that a focus on capital investment may actually reduce employment in some cases (by encouraging the relative use of capital as opposed to labour).

But let's add another major problem to the mix. Mintz' numbers assume that all of the benefit of tax harmonization will flow directly to businesses, counting every dollar of PST elimination as applying to a reduction in corporate marginal effective tax rates. That would appear to be completely incompatible with the oft-cited claim that businesses will in fact pass along any amount of their PST savings to consumers, as money which doesn't stay in corporate hands surely wouldn't figure to alter investment decisions.

In sum, there's no reason to let pro-HST voices double-count the supposed benefits of harmonization. If they want to claim that any corporate tax reductions will be passed along to consumers, then that has to be taken into account in any wishcasting as to how much money corporations will have at their disposal to invest; or conversely, anybody trumpeting Mintz' jobs number can be assumed to believe that not a red cent of any tax savings will actually be passed along to consumers. And the fact that the pro-HST side has thus far been based on so many utterly inconsistent claims would tend to signal that they'll be reluctant to face up to the realities once that choice is put in front of them.

On clunkers

Now that the first snarky response to Andrew Steele's latest HST sales pitch is out of the way, let's deal with the more substantive problem with Steele's most recent posts. Steele tries to rely on a report by the University of Calgary's Jack Mintz as demonstrating that the HST (along with a number of other moves by the McGuinty government) will create 591,000 "net new jobs" over the next decade, and argues that the report will fundamentally change the terms of Ontario's debate over the HST.

Let's leave aside for the moment that Steele's first post on the subject falsely tried to attribute that entire amount of theoretical job growth to the HST alone. Even looking solely at what Mintz' report actually says rather than the spin Steele is so eager to place on it, there's simply no basis for taking its numbers seriously: while Mintz' highly specific number speaks of "net new jobs", it doesn't actually take into account any of the costs of the HST or other associated policies to provide a "net" picture.

To start with, Mintz utterly fails to take into account how factors other than theoretical investment through global capital markets might affect Ontario's economy. Even other backers of the HST acknowledge that it'll result in higher costs for consumers, which is bound to create a cost in jobs in the meantime as well as undercutting the supposed gains in incomes. But Mintz cuts that out of the picture in order to focus solely on corporate investment.

And there are problems with that unduly narrow focus as well. Others have pointed out that corporate tax cuts like those included in Mintz' study may simply change the recipient of the same corporate tax amounts, rather than providing even a theoretical increase in economic activity.

But again, Mintz doesn't mention that as a factor, looking solely at the nominal "marginal effective tax rate" payable to Ontario rather than the amount which American companies in particular would actually pay. Which makes for a particularly glaring omission given both Ontario's interdependence with U.S. markets, and Mintz' attempt to paint changes by multijurisdictional businesses as one of the main benefits of reducing marginal tax rates.

In effect, Mintz' job estimate is the equivalent of a clueless would-be businessperson excitedly declaring "Eureka! If we sell 5,000 widgets for $200 apiece, we'll make a million dollars in net profit!". And the fact that it takes such an obviously distorted study to make the HST look good has to seriously call into question whether there's any benefit to be had for anybody but corporations looking to boost their share of public wealth.

Mind you, Steele tries to paint Mintz as the "Cadillac of Canadian public policy and economics" in hopes that nobody will look too closely at what he's actually done. But it may bear pointing out that businesses which actually put reliance on brands like Cadillac over creating quality products haven't exactly fared well for themselves - and indeed have contributed to Ontario's downfall in the first place.

Update: Erin points out a few more problems with Mintz' report.