On defectors

For the most part, discussions as to how to respond to Donald Trump's various threats ranking from tariffs to annexation have focused on the contrast between a population (PDF) and set of political leaders mostly united to oppose them, and Danielle Smith's place as the main figure publicly looking to sell out Canadian solidarity for the sole benefit of the oil sector.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can safely presume the list of parties willing to undermine Canada's position is limited to the UCP. And the other ones worth worrying about are (mostly) more conspicuous by their silence than any public statements so far.

By way of background, let's note that there's a long history of debates as to questions of sovereignty vis-a-vis the U.S. And the traditional camps have generally involved public support for Canada's self-determination, lined up against business interests seeking a combination of market access, deregulation and general erosion of democratic decision-making.

The former set of voices have been the most prominent in responding to Trump so far, helping to give the impression of near-unanimity. But the latter have become accustomed to getting their way over a period of decades. And main business group which led the charge for corporate free trade in the past has been conspicuously silent in objecting meaningfully to Trump's posturing, with its public messaging going out of its way to defer to Trump and his apologists, while also flogging the tired hobby horse of mythical interprovincial trade barriers.

At most, the business lobby has shown some willingness to participate in voluntary consultation processes which may play a role in developing direct responses to Trump. 

But both inside and outside those groups, there's a significant risk that corporate voices will be pushing a radically different set of priorities than the ones assumed to be agreed to be those of any Team Canada. And the usual conflict between corporate priorities and popular ones may be even more stark than usual based on the U.S.' slide into corporate-dominated politics and gangsterism in government. 

Trump's obvious plans to make cronyism the main factor in his administration's decision-making will tempt those focused on short-term profits to sell out the rest of us to get on his good side. And laissez-faire ideologues may be perfectly happy to tie us as tightly as possible to a system where unlimited corporate money in politics has led to a SCOTUS-driven prohibition against effective regulation.

As a result, we can't take for granted that the corporate sector is on board with the Canadian public's desire to maintain our independence. And we'll need to both keep an eye out for, and be prepared to apply immediate pressure against, any businesses who are looking to play both sides - or worse yet, pledge their loyalty to team Trump. 

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Bruce Arthur examines what the spread of the Omicron COVID variant figures to mean for Ontario. Rachel Emmanuel reports on the National Advisory Committee on Immunization's recommendation that all Canadian adults receive COVID booster shots. Alex Putterman examines how the need is exacerbated by the Omicron variant, while Josh Marshall points out that the gap in effect between vaccination and prior infection is only growing. And Anita Sreedhar and Anand Gopal write about the breakdown in social awareness which is resulting in large groups in the U.S. (and substantial ones in Canada as well) remaining unvaccinated with no regard for the danger to themselves and others.

- Meanwhile, Nicole Ireland reports on how patients and health care workers alike are feeling the effects of a health system bearing unmanageable burdens due to Scott Moe's fourth wave in Saskatchewan.

- Max Fawcett discusses why right-wingers fear allowing young people to vote on their own future - and why responsible political actors shouldn't let the reactionaries have their way. And Stella Levantesi and Giulio Corsi document how fossil fuel industry's latest set of scare tactics in their decades-old crusade to stifle climate action.

- Matt Gurney notes that we can't afford to let our future political choices be constrained by past expectations which don't fit into an evolving world at large - though it's worth noting that the expectation of a fossil fuel-based economy is likely the most important one currently limiting the perceived range of options in Canadian politics. 

- Finally, Kyla Tienhaara notes that two lawsuits arising out of Keystone XL signal how corporate trade agreements allow the ghosts of past trade negotiations to impose unacceptable costs on future democratic decision-making. And Jiwon Choi et al. trace how NAFTA produced first massive job losses in vulnerable U.S. counties, and then a shift in voting patterns away from the Democrats.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Michael Smart compares Canada's fiscal response to the COVID crisis to the reaction to previous recessions - finding that benefits for people are being cut back to normal levels in the midst of an ongoing pandemic, while corporate profits continue to soar. And David Dayen writes that while employers bleat about labour shortages based on their refusal to offer more than starvation wages, what's actually proven scarce in the U.S. attention to the needs of people.

- Meanwhile, Corrie Schneider discusses the importance of having sufficient support to avoid forcing women to choose between abuse and poverty. 

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board asks whether Canada's provincial governments have learned any lessons from removing public health restrictions too soon - though it's difficult to be optimistic at this point. And Chris Kai and P R Sanjai examine India's stark example of the human cost of prematurely declaring victory over COVID-19.

- Luke Malpass reports on New Zealand's introduction of Fair Pay Agreements to ensure that wage floors can be bargained on an industry-wide basis.

- Finally, Cathy Holtslander highlights how the updated NAFTA has sold out some of what little scope Canada had to protect agriculture - and how the U.S. is pressing its advantage to try to deregulate the seed market to ensure both lesser consumer protections and the ability to squeeze farmers on price.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Anand Giridharadas writes that with Bernie Sanders in position to win the Democratic nomination for president, the U.S.' election will answer the question of whether the country belongs to billionaires or to everybody else. 

- Emily Bazelon discusses how the Trump administration's choice to stop enforcing labour law is making life even worse for American workers. And Jim Stanford writes that the employers complaining about a "skills gap" as an excuse for stagnant wages are responsible for setting up precarious jobs and failing to invest in their own employees.

- Kenneth Jackson reports on the federal government's failure to even track how many First Nations children are apprehended from their homes.

- Danyaal Raza writes about the dangers to Canada's universal health care system arising from the corporate-backed attempt to turn for-profit medicine into a constitutional principle.

- PressProgress highlights how Doug Ford's combination of mandatory online course credits and ballooning class sizes figures to make education entirely unmanageable.

- Finally, Mike Blanchfield reports on the Libs' acceptance of some transparency for future trade deals in order to secure the quick passage of the new version of NAFTA.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Heesu Lee reports on Greenpeace's estimate that air pollution costs the world nearly $3 trillion every year. And Damien Cave writes that this year's wildfires have permanently changed Australia as people knew it.

- Meanwhile, Alice Bell warns against trusting oil barons when it comes to developing policy to combat climate breakdown. Ian Austen talks to Christopher Flavelle about divestment - including the fear people have of speaking out due to the petronationalism emanating from Alberta and elsewhere. And Paul Dechene traces how Regina managed to invite a climate denialist to keynote a sustainability conference.

- Alex Boyd recognizes the historical significance in Indigenous protests in support of Wet’suwet’en sovereignty over its land targeting railways across the country. And Doug Cuthand weighs in on the importance of First Nations standing up for their land.

- Owen Jones writes about the dangers of treating a university education as a commodity to be delivered by the most precarious workforce possible.

- Rod Myer discusses how the rise of the gig economy is endangering the very concept of retirement, while Euan Black notes that older workers are facing consistent age discrimination even as they're told retirement isn't an option. And Omar Mosleh wonders whether the job action at Co-op's Regina refinery will represent a watershed moment for Canada's labour movement.

- Finally, Joel Lexchin writes that among the other compelling reasons to develop a national pharmacare program, it may be necessary merely to counterbalance the increases in drug costs arising out of the Libs' trade concessions.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Andrew Jackson highlights how the Libs' signature tax baubles are accomplishing little while costing significantly more than projected. And Karen Stewart joins the ranks of the wealthy looking to pay more of their fair share in taxes - emphasizing in particular the need to adequately mobilize against a climate breakdown.

- David Roberts discusses the importance of social tipping points in ending the harm carbon pollution is doing to our planet. Sophia Reuss reviews the new book by Kate Aronoff, Alyssa Battistoni, Daniel Aldana Cohen and Thea Riofrancos on the potential for a Green New Deal (and the need to fight for it). John Geddes notes that the climate crisis can't be addressed by individuals without governments leading the way. Bentley Allan argues for Canada to pursue a green industrial policy. And David Suzuki makes the case for the federal government to focus on electric buses in its next budget.

- Meanwhile, Noah Kaufman rightly calls out the right's excuses for inaction by pointing out that vague allusions to innovation aren't the least bit helpful in combating the climate crisis.

- And James McCarten takes note of the glaring lack of any climate language in the new NAFTA which the Libs are determined to push through without meaningful review or debate.

- Finally, Mia Rabson reports that the Libs have managed to confirm the obvious point that plastic waste harms the environment - meaning that they have one less excuse for continued inaction on single-use plastics.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Krugman writes that the most frightening aspect of the U.S. Republicans is the party's commitment to climate destruction for political gain:

My sense is that right-wingers believe, probably correctly, that there’s a sort of halo effect surrounding any form of public action. Once you accept that we need policies to protect the environment, you’re more likely to accept the idea that we should have policies to ensure access to health care, child care, and more. So the government must be prevented from doing anything good, lest it legitimize a broader progressive agenda.

Still, whatever the short-term political incentives, it takes a special kind of depravity to respond to those incentives by denying facts, embracing insane conspiracy theories and putting the very future of civilization at risk.

Unfortunately, that kind of depravity isn’t just present in the modern Republican Party, it has effectively taken over the whole institution. There used to be at least some Republicans with principles; as recently as 2008 Senator John McCain co-sponsored serious climate-change legislation. But those people have either experienced total moral collapse (hello, Senator Graham) or left the party.

The truth is that even now I don’t fully understand how things got this bad. But the reality is clear: Modern Republicans are irredeemable, devoid of principle or shame. And there is, as I said, no reason to believe that this will change even if Trump is defeated next year.

- Meanwhile, the Red Deer Advocate reports on the Blackfalds school dance which was shut down due to a petro-parent's threats against any climate-related education. Geoff Dembicki examines how Imperial Oil fits among the oil giants which has spent decades denying its own scientific research about climate change. And Carl Meyer reports on the federal environment and sustainable-development commissioner's finding of a lack of coordination on environmental policy.

- Charles Mudede offers a reminder of the large number of U.S. workers making far less than a living wage. And Heidi Shierholz and David Cooper report on the Trump administration's plans to drastically increase the size of that group by facilitating the abuse of a reduced minimum wage for workers who may receive tips. 

- Scott Sinclair examines the effects of the new NAFTA, with marginal gains for workers far outweighed by dangers to the environment.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute charts the plummeting taxes applied to Canada's wealthiest people and corporations - even as we're told that basic needs such as housing, food and medicine are beyond the means of the federal government which has engaged in decades of giveaways to the rich.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Justin Fisher laments the fact that we're still talking about first steps toward combating a climate crisis after decades of understanding the problem. Jake Woodier points out that Brexit has been the UK's recent distraction from the most important issue facing humanity. And Joseph Stiglitz is the latest to compare a Green New Deal to avert climate breakdown with the scale and urgency of a wartime mobilization:

When the US was attacked during the second world war no one asked, “Can we afford to fight the war?” It was an existential matter. We could not afford not to fight it. The same goes for the climate crisis. Here, we are already experiencing the direct costs of ignoring the issue – in recent years the country has lost almost 2% of GDP in weather-related disasters, which include floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. The cost to our health from climate-related diseases is just being tabulated, but it, too, will run into the tens of billions of dollars – not to mention the as-yet-uncounted number of lives lost. We will pay for climate breakdown one way or another, so it makes sense to spend money now to reduce emissions rather than wait until later to pay a lot more for the consequences – not just from weather but also from rising sea levels. It’s a cliche, but it’s true: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

The war on the climate emergency, if correctly waged, would actually be good for the economy – just as the second world war set the stage for America’s golden economic era , with the fastest rate of growth in its history amidst shared prosperity. The Green New Deal would stimulate demand, ensuring that all available resources were used; and the transition to the green economy would likely usher in a new boom. Trump’s focus on the industries of the past, like coal, is strangling the much more sensible move to wind and solar power. More jobs by far will be created in renewable energy than will be lost in coal.
...
The mobilization efforts of the second world war transformed our society. We went from an agricultural economy and a largely rural society to a manufacturing economy and a largely urban society. The temporary liberation of women as they entered the labor force so the country could meet its war needs had long-term effects. This is the advocates’ ambition, a not unrealistic one, for the Green New Deal.

There is absolutely no reason the innovative and green economy of the 21st century has to follow the economic and social models of the 20th-century manufacturing economy based on fossil fuels, just as there was no reason that that economy had to follow the economic and social models of the agrarian and rural economies of earlier centuries.

- But if we needed a reminder of the ease with which serious dangers to the public get ignored or forgotten, Benjamin Kentish notes that tens of thousands of Britons still live in buildings covered in the same material which caused the spread of the devastating Grenfell Tower fire.

- Rafferty Baker reports on research showing how harm reduction steps are reducing the still-alarming number of deaths caused by opioids. And Barbara Krantz points out that as serious as the opioid crisis is, far more people die due to alcohol - even as Canada's right makes it a core policy to try to push people to drink more.

- Trade Justice Network Canada discusses how the new NAFTA is anything but progressive - no matter what talking points the Trudeau Libs use in trying to push it through.

- And finally, Paul Romer suggests that a tax on targeted advertising could both raise revenue, and reduce the amount of user tracking that contributes to hidden dangers online.

New column day

Here, on how Justin Trudeau has gone from counterweight to lapdog in dealing with the Trump administration.

For further reading...
- Teresa Wright reported on the crackdown on refugees in the Libs' omnibus budget bill. And Karl Nerenberg called out Trudeau's pandering to anti-refugee prejudice.
- Kelly Crowe reports on Canada's role among the countries trying to suppress accurate information about pharmaceutical profits.
- Janice McGregor examines the fine print of the much-ballyhooed - but little-scrutinized - deal to temporarily remove tariffs on steel and aluminum.
- Peter Zimonjic and Katie Simpson report on the Libs' fast-tracking of Trump's version of a revised NAFTA.
- Finally, the Council of Canadians expresses its own concern about Trudeau's willingness to do Trump's bidding.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- CBC examines the obscene corporate subsidies doled out by Canadian governments - with Alberta ranking as the worst offender even as it also takes in less revenue than other provinces. And Jeff Gray reports on the growing gap between Doug Ford's budget promises and the revenue available to keep them - even as he hastily backtracks on a few of his most antisocial cuts.

- Meanwhile, Michael Ungar points out how resilience depends on social supports, rather than being a matter of individual choice or merit as it's so often portrayed.

- Murray Mandryk discusses the Saskatchewan Party's telling refusal to evaluate the effect of its much-criticized "lean" program imposed on the province's health care system - as well as the research confirm that it was an utter waste.

- Stuart Trew highlights how spin about "Good Regulatory Practices" in the new NAFTA serves only to limit the ability of governments to act in the interest of citizens and workers. 

- Finally, Andrew Coyne points out that the unelected Senate's interference in bills dealing with preventing oil spills and ensuring effective environmental assessments represents just another instance of obsolete political structures thwarting the will of Canadian voters.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- The Star's editorial board rightly criticizes Doug Ford for his propensity to announce massive cuts first, then begrudgingly acknowledge their unconscionable consequences later. Linda White, Elizabeth Dhuey, Michal Perlman and Petr Varmuza note that Ford's cuts to child care will be particularly harmful for low-income families with parents working or studying full-time. And Madeleine Ritts calls out the PCs for blaming individuals for systemic poverty (and denying them the essentials of life as punishment).

- Meanwhile, Robert Booth reports on the connection being drawn between the UK Cons' similar attack on the poor, and the historical blight of workhouses. And Chris Vallance discusses the medicalization of the symptoms of poverty, including the overprescription of drugs in response to the inevitable stresses of precarity.

- Ronald Labonte, Courtney McNamara, Deborah Gleeson and Eric Crosbie point out how the new NAFTA can be expected to harm public health by preventing governments from regulating in the public interest. And Ed Finn discusses how the corporate push toward processed foods and a focus on convenience over nutrition is making us all less healthy.

- Mitch Potter highlights how the Libs are echoing the Cons' anti-refugee rhetoric and policy as this fall's federal election approaches.

- Finally, Jonathan Michie points out that employee-owned businesses perform significantly better than their corporate counterparts, but are limited in their development by government and financial policies which stifle them.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Ploy Achakulwisat writes about the health emergencies emanating from an ongoing climate breakdown. And Andy Kroll points out that even in the U.S., a concerted effort of corporate spinmeisters and anti-environment politicians hasn't been able to override the public's concern about climate change.

- Meanwhile, Mike de Souza exposes the National Energy Board's deliberate deletion of documents which would otherwise have proven embarrassing - showing once again how a regulator which is supposed to act in the public interest has instead flouted the law to serve the interests of the fossil fuel sector. Robyn Allan writes that Justin Trudeau and other enablers of unsustainable dependence on dirty energy are wilfully ignoring where our future society and economy are headed. And Owen Jones calls out the UK's willingness to hand massive amounts of money to the oil and gas sector while demanding that low-income individuals fend for themselves. 

- Jennifer Morgan and Sharan Burrow write about the need to combat both climate change and inequality. But while they try to make the case that the main task is to convince the Davos set to care about the planet and the majority of humanity, Shawn Gude interviews Evelyne Huber about the need for workers to drive democratic change. And George Monbiot examines the role of community spaces in creating the possibility of meaningful transformation.

- Barry Ritholtz discusses the latest research confirm that increased minimum wages tend to lift lower incomes without having any negative effect on the availability of work.

- Finally, Laura Macdonald and Nadia Ibrahim highlight how the abandoned promises surrounding the new iteration of NAFTA include the suggestion that a trade deal could reduce gender inequality rather than exacerbating it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Charles Smith writes about the importance of a living wage as a matter of fairness and justice. But Stephanie Taylor reports on Regina City Council's lamentable vote against ensuring that the people who make the city function are able to earn enough to live. 

- Meanwhile, Ipsos surveys the impact of debt on Canadian households - with nearly a quarter of respondents considering themselves overwhelmed by what they owe.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh examines some of the recently-passed protections for workers which are on the chopping block under Doug Ford's anti-labour government. And Trish Hennessy worries that Ontario's workers will end up worse off than they were before the Wynne Libs' last-gasp attempt to appear progressive.

- Scott Sinclair notes that the small amount of good news in the new USMCA involves some reduction in the power of investor-driven dispute resolution. But Alexander Panetta examines a few of the ways in which the deal puts more power in the hands of the U.S. to dictate economic terms to Canada and Mexico.

- Finally, Yves Engler makes the case for free public transit as a means of improving both local equality and the global environment.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Evelyn Forget makes the case for a national basic income which would provide a more stable fiscal base for Canada's provinces as well as its citizens. And Dennis Raphael writes about the social murder resulting from the wanton destruction of income supports and other policies which save lives. 

- Meanwhile, the CP reports on the recommendation of British Columbia's provincial auditor that it actually track the effects of tax expenditures, rather than merely taking for granted that they serve any useful purpose.

- Mel Watkins writes that the mistakes Canada made by giving up sovereignty in previous trade deals laid the groundwork for the latest NAFTA concessions. And Brent Patterson notes that the USCMA includes special protection for GMOs in order to benefit US agribusiness regardless of the risks for Canadian producers and consumers.

- The CP takes note that our current emission reduction targets fall far short of what's needed to rein in catastrophic climate change. And in case we needed more reminders of the immediate dangers associated with fossil fuels, Jesse Ferreras reports on the explosion and fire caused by an Enbridge pipeline rupture in B.C., while Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon talks to one of the workers in the immediate vicinity of the Irving Oil refinery explosion.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent and Hugh Segal argue that it's long past time for Canada to pursue electoral reform:

What used to be unusual occurrences in our system – minority governments – are fast becoming the norm both provincially and federally. Three of the past five federal elections have produced minority governments. With a first-past-the-post electoral system, this can be a recipe for increasing instability.

The reason for this is that such a system exaggerates the effects of even tiny swings in voting: Just a few votes in a single riding can be the difference between a majority and a minority government. As a consequence, parties that find themselves in a minority situation often engage in a constant game of “chicken,” continually jockeying for advantage with an eye to a snap election. In proportional systems, such gamesmanship is rare. A small change in the vote for a party only results in a small change in the number of seats. There’s no point in triggering a snap election. So people get on with governing. And, knowing a number of parties are likely to be elected causes leaders to be more collaborative and less confrontational with each other. This makes for better government.

The evidence of the past few months is clear. Given the realities of Canadian voting trends, converting our provincial and federal electoral systems to proportional ones needs to be an immediate priority. We hope that Quebec, B.C. and PEI get the ball rolling and we look forward to seeing other Canadian provinces and the federal level following their example as soon as possible.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jim Stanford discusses how abusing precarious workers has become the primary job of big business. But Owen Jones notes that strikes against McDonald's in the UK represent just the latest example of workers taking collective action to fight for a more fair economy.

- Meanwhile, Kevin Rawlinson reports on a new estimate of the amount of unpaid work performed in the UK every year.

- Alexandra Shimo reports on the contrast between Nestle's extraction of millions of litres of water from Six Nations of the Grand River treaty land, and residents' need to go without running water at all. And Brent Patterson writes that the oil industry is predictably one of the main winners in the new NAFTA.

- Anna Desmarais reports on the Environment Commissioner's conclusion that Canada isn't properly tracking the disposal of businesses' toxic waste. 

- Finally, Linda Leon points out the entrenched interests trying to undermine electoral reform due to the possibility that it might make governmental capture more difficult.

New column day

Here, on the corporate sellouts in the Libs' new version of NAFTA - including a little-discussed chapter designed to turn anti-regulatory bias into official policy for an entire continent.

For further reading...
- The text of the USCMA is here, with Chapter 28 (PDF) forming the subject of most of the column. And by way of comparison, I'll point to the "regulatory cooperation" chapter of the CETA, which provides for some level of coordination without the obligation to systematically question domestic regulations.
- I've already linked to some noteworthy USCMA commentary, including pieces from Neil MacDonald, Duncan Cameron and David Moscrop. Janyce McGregor summarizes some of the key changes under the USCMA. Alex Ballingall points out the increase in drug costs arising out of Trudeau's concessions. 
- Finally, for a reminder of the attitude toward regulation driving the U.S.' position, see reporting on the Trump administration's undermining of rules governing asbestos, radiation, and mercury, as well as the Environmental Integrity Project's full list of regulatory slippage under Trump.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Laurie MacFarlane writes that flows of income and wealth have everything to do with bargaining power and social decision-making, rather than productivity or merit:

(A)ggregate wealth is not simply a reflection of the process of accumulation, as theory tends to imply. It is also a reflection of the boundaries of what can and cannot be alienated, priced, bought and sold, and the power dynamics that underpin them. This is not just a historical matter.

Today some goods and services are provided by private firms on a commodified basis, whereas others are provided socially as a collective good. This can often vary significantly between countries. Where a service is provided by private firms (for example, healthcare in the USA), shareholder claims over profits are reflected in the firm’s value – and these claims can be bought and sold, for example on the stock market. These claims are also recorded as financial wealth in the national accounts.

However, where a service is provided socially as a collective good (such as the NHS in the UK), there are no claims over profits to be owned and traded among investors. Instead, the claims over these sectors are socialised. Profits are foregone in favour of free, universal access. Because these benefits are non-monetary and accrue to everyone, they are not reflected in any asset prices and are not recorded as “wealth” in the national accounts.

A similar effect is observed with pension provision: while private pensions (funded through capital markets) are included as a component of financial wealth in the OECD’s figures, public pensions (funded from general taxation) are excluded. As a result, a country that provides generous universal public pensions will look less wealthy than a country that rely solely on private pensions, all else being equal. The way that we measure national wealth is therefore skewed towards commodification and privatisation, and against socialisation and universal provision.
...
All statistics tell a story, but stories can be told from different perspectives. Embedded in the definitions of all economic statistics are value judgements about what is desirable and what is undesirable, which in turn shape the way we think about the economy. At the moment, the way we measure the wealth of nations mainly reflects the fortunes of capitalists and landowners rather than workers and tenants. Britain looks wealthier than Germany on paper, but this does not reflect the lived reality for most people. While it’s important not to overstate the extent to which statistics can influence the real world, this is important for at least three reasons.

Firstly, it illustrates how seemingly objective metrics often have ideological assumptions baked into them. While there is already a well-established literature on alternatives to GDP, many economic metrics are used in economic analysis and policy appraisal without any critical appraisal of their underlying ideological assumptions. This needs to change.

Second, it highlights how paper wealth has in many places become decoupled from productive capacity, and how conflating the two can be highly misleading. This is particularly the case where zero sum rentier activity is widespread, as in the case of Britain. Such discrepancies raise the question of whether the way that we currently measure wealth is really the most sensible.

But most importantly, it illustrates that the distribution of wealth has little to do with contribution or productivity, and everything to do with politics and power. As J.W. Mason states: “It’s bargaining power, it’s politics, all the way down.”

- Meanwhile, Anna Tims offers a reminder that a cashless and financialized society imposes disproportionate costs on the people who aren't catered to by big banks.

- Allison Alberto discusses a new study from the Alberta Federation of Labour showing how a $15 minimum wage will boost the economy as a whole as well as the standard of living of some of the people who need it most. Michael Speers implores the Ford PCs not to reverse planned minimum wage increases in Ontario. And Emily Klatt reports on the Saskatchewan NDP's push to finally follow suit with a living hourly wage for all workers.

- Finally, Michael Spence comments on the balkanization of international trade flows. Neil MacDonald writes that contrary to the Libs' spin, the new NAFTA represents almost total capitulation to the U.S.' bullying - including by limiting Canada's ability to seek out trade agreements with new potential allies. David Moscrop concurs that Canada has both made painful short-term concessions, and increased our future vulnerability to the U.S. And Duncan Cameron outlines the changes for the worse in the Trump NAFTA.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jim Stanford writes that the D-J Composites lockout should offer Canada a much-needed reminder as to the reality of labour conflict:

Through 640 emotional days, the picket line has remained peaceful: the only injury was a union member hit by a vehicle charging through the line during a snowstorm. But genuine economic violence is being done every day to 32 workers separated from their livelihoods by an aggressive employer. The employer's position is all the stronger when it can hire others to keep working for less -- but no replacement worker should ever think they can participate in that process without facing scrutiny or challenge.

Ironically, Newfoundland Premier Dwight Ball has a promising solution to this mess sitting right on his desk, in the form of recommendations from an Industrial Inquiry Commission convened by the provincial government in 2010 following a long dispute at Vale's nickel operations in Voisey's Bay. Headed by labour lawyer John Roil, and advised by Prof. Gregor Murray, labour-relations specialist at the University of Montreal, the commission recognized the traditional balance of power between employers and workers has been disrupted by the power and flexibility exercised by global corporations. They recommended modernizing labour law to ensure foreign firms understand and respect Canadian practices. They also proposed a fallback mechanism to arbitrate settlements in intractable disputes, so long as certain conditions are met, including failure to bargain in good faith.

Those sensible recommendations were never implemented, but they were tailor-made to prevent long work stoppages such as this one. Prohibiting replacement workers -- especially during management-led lockouts -- would also promote faster settlements; British Columbia and Quebec already do this. In the end, provincial intervention of some kind is essential to end this conflict.

The D-J Composites lockout, while small, is a telling reminder that employers hold the upper hand in most modern industrial disputes -- and Canadian labour law has failed to address this imbalance. Economists and politicians alike bemoan persistently weak wage growth and stagnant household incomes. But this nasty little quarrel reveals exactly why this is happening. Governments across the country, starting with Mr. Ball's, should watch and learn.

- Claude Wittmann discusses the Ford government's blame-and-shame approach to poverty and the people who face it.

- David Moscrop comments on the folly of falling in line with the U.S.' destructive War on Drugs. And Tessie Castillo points out that the criminalization of drug use is precisely what makes it more dangerous than other potentially addictive activities.

- Brent Patterson offers a reminder (if perhaps one which came too late) as to why we're best served walking away from NAFTA.

- Finally, Max FineDay highlights the need to push back against weaponized misinformation such as residential school denialism.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Matt Bruenig discusses how UK Labour's plans to ensure workers have an ownership stake in major corporations fits into the wider principle of common wealth:

The Labour Party’s John McDonnell recently unveiled a policy that would require large corporations with more than 250 employees to gradually place 10 percent of their shares into Inclusive Ownership Funds (IOFs) owned by workers. Under the plan, workers in each firm would exercise the ownership rights of the IOF shares and annually receive up to £500 of their shares’ dividends.

Along with nationalizing certain utilities, giving workers representation on corporate boards, and reinvigorating the trade union movement, collectivizing the ownership of a portion of company stock through the IOF scheme is meant to be a step towards democratizing the ownership and control of the UK economy.
...
(T)he need to come up with practical socialist governing ideas seems to be what is motivating the recent renaissance of the idea in the last 6 years or so. The surprising success of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK Labour Party has prompted policy organizations like IPPR to reinvigorate the idea so that it can be adopted ahead of the next UK election. In the US, a burgeoning socialist movement sparked by Bernie Sanders has pushed think tanks like People’s Policy Project to do the same thing.
...
Nonetheless, it is heartening to see the Labour Party pick up this long-standing socialist idea and run with it in earnest. The Inclusive Ownership Funds offer a promising strategy for gradually shifting ownership of the economy out of the hands of an oligarchic class and into the hands of Britain’s workers and its society as a whole. It is not a panacea to all that ails the British economy, but it does set it down the path towards a democratic socialist future.

- Bill Curry reports on the latest report of Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux indicating that while the federal government has money to spare, there's an urgent need for increased transfers to ensure provinces can meet their responsibilities. And the CCPA's Alternative Federal Budget offers a road map toward ending poverty and transitioning toward a sustainable economy in the relatively near future.

- Meanwhile, Katherine Scott points out the need for far more than sporadic awareness and action in pursuit of gender equity.

- Emilee Gilpin reports that the Libs' response to the Trans Mountain court decision about insufficient consultation and regulation has been to give interested parties a grand total of a week in which to register for a new hearing. And Jim Bronskill reports on the federal government's attempts to stifle any public knowledge of the steps taken to spy on environmental activists.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes that Canada should be walking away from NAFTA talks ather than keeping up the laughable pretense that the U.S. - particularly under Donald Trump - can be counted on to respect its continental commitments.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Bandy Lee discusses the need to treat inequality as a social disease which calls for immediate treatment:

Residents of countries with higher income inequality have worse health, not just of the poor but of the rich (Subramanian and Kawachi, 2006). Greater income inequality is also associated higher levels of mental illness (Burns, Tomita, and Kapadia, 2014); murder and assault (Hsieh and Pugh, 1993); obesity and obesity-related death (Pickett, 2005); as well as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, racism, incarceration, and a number of other societal problems (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Such countries also have more sociopolitical instability in the form of assassinations, coups, and riots (Alesina and Perotti, 1996); worse institutions in terms of less efficient governments, higher regulatory burdens, and weaker rule of law (Easterly, 2007); and more corruption (Jong-Sung and Khagram, 2005). The wealthy have stronger motivations to minimize redistribution while at the same time having more power to influence institutions, given the relatively higher share of their resources (Buttrick and Oishi, 2017).

Economic inequality may further put the world at risk of both environmental and nuclear harm. Taming the planet’s climate or reducing nuclear weapons requires trust and cooperation, but these are difficult in the setting of economic inequality and exploitation. Income and wealth gaps accelerate the environmental crisis (Martinez-Alier, 2002), with increasing local and global conflicts over the sharing of the burdens of pollution and access to natural resources. Previous failures to reach consensus in climate summits have been attributed to, among other factors, conflicting policies of rich and poor countries, which disagree on the implementation of mitigation measures (Vasconcelos, Santos, Pacheco, and Levin, 2014). When there is greater income and wealth inequality between nations, there is an erosion of trust due to the ensuing social and cultural differences, and greater perceived need for military defense, including nuclear weapons for nations that can afford them.

Social and economic inequality is linked to disease, death, and other forms of harm. To better understand these societal ills, we must look at inequality as a disorder in itself.

- And Sanjutka Paul examines how a bias toward top-down, property-based decision-making has systematically stacked the deck against workers, particularly in service-based sectors.

- The Trade Justice Network rightly criticizes the Libs for abandoning the concept of progressive trade by implementing the TPP. And Nicholas Caivano and Richard Elliott argue that if Justin Trudeau is going to give in on anything to renegotiate NAFTA (however unnecessary that may be), we should expect him to defend fair drug prices rather than fighting to protect corporate-friendly arbitration structures.

- Karina Roman points out that the Libs' privatized Infrastructure Bank is sucking up millions of public dollars without apparently accomplishing anything.

- Finally, Stephanie Taylor reports that SaskPower is backing away from plans to relocate operations to the Global Transportation Hub - but that the public is already on the hook for the land purchased as part of the previous attempt to portray the GTH as something other than an utter failure. And Adriana Christenson reports on the Saskatchewan Party's hidden selloff of SaskEnergy gas plants.