Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ewen Callaway writes about the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic - with both a high baseline of cases, and frequent "wavelets" in comparison to seasonal diseases as new variants develop and spread with little resistance. 

- Tina Yazdani and Meredith Bond report on the unsurprising revelation that privatized surgery costs far more than public-sector health care - while also recognizing the Ford PCs' determination to keep enriching private operators rather than funding care. And Raisa Patel reports on the Libs' refusal to act on the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's work to reduce drug prices. 

- Meanwhile, Mike de Souza discusses how the UCP has coordinated efforts to enrich fossil fuel operators while concealing the government meetings used to discuss them. And Cory Doctorow writes about the problems with the breakdown of strong institutions, particularly in transferring effective power to weak institutions which can easily be taken over by corrupt or extreme actors.  

- Paul Hannon discusses how inflation is "sticky" due to its connection to corporate price-fixing rather than other factors - representing a noteworthy step toward recognition of the obvious on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. 

- Finally, Michael Spratt calls out Pierre Poilievre's reality-deficient attempts to stoke fear over crime as an excuse to make nonsensical policy demands. 

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Antoine Genest-Grégoire, Luc Godbout and Jean-Herman Guay highlight how people are willing to pay more in taxes if they see the benefit to be derived from the revenue. But Laura Kruse notes that Jason Kenney is just one of the anti-social ideologues instead looking for excuses to slash both revenues and services.

- Bill McKibben writes about the need to start making our political choices based on a time frame of millennia, not merely the next election cycle. And Jillian Horton calls for health professionals to boost their advocacy for public policy which will reduce the illnesses which result in people needing to use the health care system.

- Zak Vescera reports on the pressure even the start of the second wave of COVID-19 is putting on Saskatchewan's public health system. And Bill Curry warns that Canada is one of the wealthier countries pushing to have the distribution of any eventual vaccine based on wealth rather than need.

- Jason Warick reports on the lack of drug treatment in Saskatchewan jails brought to light by the overdose death of Donald Blair. Nigel Maxwell reports on the needless difficulty people incarcerated in the Prince Albert Correctional Centre have communicating with their families due to obsolete equipment. And Murray Fallis writes about the need to end the particularly abusive use of solitary confinement, while Michael Spratt identifies it as a form of torture.

- Finally, Felix Salmon writes about the fall of Exxon's empire due to its ill-advised bet on a continuing oil boom. And Max Fawcett weighs in on the consolidation which will ensure that any dead-cat bounce for Alberta's oil sector will produce a minimal amount of employment.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Melanie Schmitz writes that Donald Trump's plan to hand giant tax goodies to the rich is opposed by nearly three quarters of Americans.

- CNBC reports on the skepticism among U.S. workers as to their future opportunities. And Jim Stanford offers a historical perspective on what's most recently been branded as the gig economy - but which only matches past abuses intended to limit workers' bargaining power and access to benefits.

- Meanwhile, Jessica Chin notes that Canadians are spending an unsustainable amount of their income on increasingly unaffordable housing, while Richard Partington points out increasing spending compared to earnings as another indication that workers are having to live beyond their means.

- Suzanne Fitzpatrick discusses the connection between childhood poverty and homelessness. And Clare Bonnyman writes that food insecurity has far more to do with insufficient income than with food in particular.

- Norman Farrell examines the effects of the B.C. Libs' preference for regulators who were ideologically opposed to their jobs. And Alec MacGillis takes a detailed look at the U.S.' Department of Housing and Urban Development as an example of a public agency crumbling due to the appointment of unqualified management for political purposes.

- Finally, Michael Spratt notes that the Libs seem to be back-tracking on their promise of evidence-based justice policy, and are instead using poll numbers as an excuse to retain mandatory minimum sentencing laws which serve no genuine purpose.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Both Edward Keenan and the Star's editorial board take note of Thomas Mulcair's plan for urban renewal, with particular emphasis on its appeal across party lines:

Speaking directly to Toronto city council and Mayor John Tory, who won election largely on the basis of his promised SmartTrack “surface subway,” Mulcair said he would be a partner on transit: “Together we will get the people of Toronto moving.”

No wonder Tory declared himself “gratified and pleased” with Mulcair’s approach. Other elements of the NDP’s urban agenda include:

• Appointing a minister responsible for urban affairs — someone to advocate for cities in federal cabinet when key decisions are made.
• Delivering long-term, stable funding for affordable housing.
• Identifying, within the first 100 days of taking office, “worthy extensions” of social housing investments that are set to expire and highlighting new spending necessary to ease a crisis in affordable housing.
• Introducing $15-a-day child care nationwide, and funding 164,000 daycare spaces in the Greater Toronto Area alone. This should be of significant help to the 20,000 families in this city currently on waiting lists for affordable care.
• Accelerating immigration process-times so families can be reunited faster — an important consideration in Toronto, which serves as a magnet for newcomers to Canada.

These are all valuable initiatives. Mulcair is demonstrating a clear understanding of Toronto’s needs and has made addressing them a welcome priority.

- Meanwhile, Carmichael Outreach is offering a series of proposals to address Regina's shortage of affordable housing. But as Wanda Schmockel reports, developers are determined to avoid having a dime spent on those efforts when it could instead be funnelled toward new profit centres. 

- Michael Geist follows up on how C-51 stands to harm Canadians' privacy. And Democracy Watch calls attention to the complete lack of internal and public accountability within CSIS as another reason to be concerned about handing over unchecked powers.

- L. Ian MacDonald discusses the need to move beyond the Cons' primeval politics in talking about security and culture, while Michael Den Tandt notes that the Cons' goal is to have us soaking in fear. Tim Harper observes that the bigoted bozos who were once so desperately suppressed by the Cons' central command now represent the party's most prominent public faces. Michael Spratt writes that the Cons are wrong on both the law and the facts in their anti-niqab fearmongering. And John Cartwright highlights the role of organized labour in pushing back against prejudice and inequality.

- Finally, Richard Trumka points out that attacks on unions serve the sole purpose of suppressing wages and working conditions. Bryce Covert discusses how work is far from a guarantee that a family can escape from poverty. And Robert Reich observes that we shouldn't count on employment relationships or other work conditions returning to how they previously operated:

We need a new economic model.

The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.

Workers were consumers; consumers were workers. As paychecks rose, people had more money to buy all the things they and others produced — like Kodak cameras. That resulted in more jobs and even higher pay.

That virtuous cycle is now falling apart. A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.

Our underlying problem won’t be the number of jobs. It will be – it already is — the allocation of income and wealth.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Rosenberg writes about the high-priced effort to undermine public institutions and the collective good in the U.S. And Paul Krugman highlights how the Republicans' stubborn belief in the impossibly of good government (regardless of large amounts of evidence that such a thing is possible and desirable) has produced the U.S.' combination of waste and gridlock:

On issues that range from monetary policy to the control of infectious disease, a big chunk of America’s body politic holds views that are completely at odds with, and completely unmovable by, actual experience. And no matter the issue, it’s the same chunk. If you’ve gotten involved in any of these debates, you know that these people aren’t happy warriors; they’re red-faced angry, with special rage directed at know-it-alls who snootily point out that the facts don’t support their position.

The question, as I said at the beginning, is why. Why the dogmatism? Why the rage? And why do these issues go together, with the set of people insisting that climate change is a hoax pretty much the same as the set of people insisting that any attempt at providing universal health insurance must lead to disaster and tyranny?

Well, it strikes me that the immovable position in each of these cases is bound up with rejecting any role for government that serves the public interest. If you don’t want the government to impose controls or fees on polluters, you want to deny that there is any reason to limit emissions. If you don’t want the combination of regulation, mandates and subsidies that is needed to extend coverage to the uninsured, you want to deny that expanding coverage is even possible. And claims about the magical powers of tax cuts are often little more than a mask for the real agenda of crippling government by starving it of revenue.

And why this hatred of government in the public interest? Well, the political scientist Corey Robin argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually reactionaries. That is, they’re defenders of traditional hierarchy — the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even (or perhaps especially) when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure. I’m partial to that story, partly because it helps explain why climate science and health economics inspire so much rage.

- Meanwhile, Joe Oliver seems determined to sell the same Tea Party hand-me-down lines in Canada. And Michael Spratt discusses Peter MacKay's efforts to make sure that factual research doesn't get in the way of the Cons' tough-on-crime zealotry.

- Michael Harris writes that the Cons' election-year task is once again to push voters to forget the policies they actually support when they go to the polls - or at least to undermine their view of democracy to the point where they'll stay home. And Michael Den Tandt highlights the absurdity of the Cons running on their disastrous economic record.

- Danica Kirka reports on Oxfam's latest study on inequality showing that by next year, the global 1% may own more than half of the wealth on the planet. And the Guardian makes the case for immediate action to reverse the concentration of income and wealth, while recognizing how much work remains to be done in even defining the problem.

- Finally, Barry Eichengreen discusses the blanket of financial regulations which was shredded to ribbons in the name of easy profits over the last few decades - and the fact that restoring economic stability means more than simply undoing one set of cuts.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- The Tyee's recent series on important sources of inequality is well worth a read, as Emily Fister interviews Andrew Longhurst about precarious work and Sylvia Fuller about the role of motherhood.

- David Cole asks just how corrupt U.S. politics have become, while Frances O'Grady observes that U.K workers don't believe for a second that their employer can't afford to pay living wages. Robert Reich sees Detroit as a prime example of wealthy individuals shirking their responsibility to pay for the public goods they enjoy. And Joseph Stiglitz notes that gross imbalances in political influence result in markets and other institutions serving only the privileged few rather than the general public:

What we have been observing – wage stagnation and rising inequality, even as wealth increases – does not reflect the workings of a normal market economy, but of what I call “ersatz capitalism.” The problem may not be with how markets should or do work, but with our political system, which has failed to ensure that markets are competitive, and has designed rules that sustain distorted markets in which corporations and the rich can (and unfortunately do) exploit everyone else.

Markets, of course, do not exist in a vacuum. There have to be rules of the game, and these are established through political processes. High levels of economic inequality in countries like the US and, increasingly, those that have followed its economic model, lead to political inequality. In such a system, opportunities for economic advancement become unequal as well, reinforcing low levels of social mobility.

Thus, Piketty’s forecast of still higher levels of inequality does not reflect the inexorable laws of economics. Simple changes – including higher capital-gains and inheritance taxes, greater spending to broaden access to education, rigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws, corporate-governance reforms that circumscribe executive pay, and financial regulations that rein in banks’ ability to exploit the rest of society – would reduce inequality and increase equality of opportunity markedly.

If we get the rules of the game right, we might even be able to restore the rapid and shared economic growth that characterized the middle-class societies of the mid-twentieth century. The main question confronting us today is not really about capital in the twenty-first century. It is about democracy in the twenty-first century.

- On the bright side, people can generally recognize corruption where it exists, as Thomas Frank points out what happens when corporate scams are put to the test in court: a California jury refused to accept a prosecution argument that mortgage lenders cared whether loan applications were accurate (in a trial aimed only at punishing borrowers while painting banks as victims). But Yves Smith makes clear that the greediest of the greedy are only getting more insistent on securing perpetually larger rents over growth in equity.

- Alison writes that a botched war after he first tried to push Canadian troops to Iraq over public objections, Stephen Harper has finally managed to get that done - while scrupulously ignoring any of the lessons that should be obvious from the U.S.' previous disastrous stay. And Peter Bergman and David Sterman observe that the politicians shrieking about North Americans being recruited into foreign fighting forces are doing so without any basis in reality.

- Finally, Michael Spratt slams the Cons' counterproductive spin on crime:

How can a government so keen to combat lawlessness make such a botch of its own laws? How can a government composed of law-and-order types be so astoundingly ignorant of how the law actually works?

The answer seems obvious: This government doesn’t really care about fighting crime, about victims, about respecting our most fundamental law — the Constitution. What they do care about is politics — and for Stephen Harper, wrapping himself in his crime-fighter cape is a lot more important than passing laws that work, or make sense.

That the Conservatives are indifferent to the pursuit of justice is something demonstrated by their actions, not their words. They cut the Department of Justice’s research budget by $1.2 million. According to an internal government report, the Justice Department’s research budget was slashed just as an internal report for the deputy minister was warning its findings “may run contrary to government direction” and have “at times left the impression that research is undermining government decisions” and is not “aligned with government or departmental priorities.”

Why stop at suppressing the dissenting opinions of the experts when you can stifle them altogether?