Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Chris Hedges interviews Matt Kennard about the hostile corporate takeover of democracy. And Adam King highlights how Canada's oil industry is profiteering at public expense while using the harm done by their own greed to promote the right-wing politicians in their pocket. 

- Jennifer Henderson reports on Nova Scotia's decision to remove maps showing the locations of glyphosate spraying in order to prevent the public from responding to known risks where the result might be some accountability for the polluters involved. And Tim Bousquet notes that Nova Scotia's supposed plan for housing is based entirely on funneling federal money to private developers. 

- Nina Lakhani reports on new research showing how the largest carbon offset schemes do nothing to actually limit carbon pollution. And in stark contrast, Allyson Chiu points out that one of the incidental benefits of remote work is a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - meaning that the effects of forcing people back into the office in the midst of a pandemic are as harmful for the environment as for public health. 

- Stanford University examines how the ecological damage from the anthropocene age isn't limited to particular species, but includes the elimination of entire branches of the tree of life. 

- Finally, Luke LeBrun offers an important look at the bigotry behind the "one million march for children" being pushed by the alt-right in Canada. 

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Talia Lavin writes about the value of shifting the Overton window to enable serious discussion of higher tax rates on the people who have far more money than they could possibly need:

I think about how we view the rich, so often born into the aeries of luxury, as inherently deserving of their station. They’re coddled by their birth and by our tax code. They’re buoyed by our admiration: They’re “makers” and “doers” and winners of philanthropy awards, because they have enough money ― parked in ways such that it swells and effloresces into yet more money ― that they can throw their pocket change at the rest of us and be feted for it. We clap and call them “job creators,” even when the only jobs involved are for lawyers and the kind of accountants who know the differential tax-sheltering benefits between the Cayman Islands and Cyprus.
...

I think of the old, cracked windows on public trains that swelter in summer and freeze in winter and are beset with ever-longer delays. The ruts in our roads, the poison in our water, the fires in our forests, the plastic in our seas. I think of the things all that hoarded cash could heal and build and fix.

That’s when I’m grateful for even the smallest breath of air in our political discourse, a way to sweep away some of the poisonous rhetoric that blames the poor for their poverty and lauds the wealthy for circumstances most of them had no hand in creating.

I am sick of it, I am so sick of it I could scream an unending scream that might shatter even the reinforced imported Italian glass of a hedge-fund manager’s midcentury modern gut-renovated Manhattan penthouse that once belonged to an old woman whose rent control died when she did. With my own stubby hands, I want to break open the myth that those who outearn us are our betters. I want to break open the coffers of the wealthy and let us use it to save ourselves.

I’m so angry I want to smash the Overton Window that some courageous politicians are shoving at with their shoulders. Outside it the air is cool, and heavy with promise.

- Andrea Flynn and Susan Holmberg comment on the need to finally live up to FDR's rights-based vision in ensuring that people's basic material needs are met. Lori Culbert reports on Vancouver's attempts to wrestle with child poverty, while Hadlen Freeman observes that the longstanding problem of homelessness affects people doing precarious work in the new economy. And Kelly Crowe discusses how the revamping of Canada's food guide does nothing to help people who are unable to afford to follow it.

- Leyland Cecco highlights how pipeline protests are calling needed attention to the rights still held over unceded territory.

- Meanwhile, Charlie Taylor notes that Ireland's Strategic Investment Fund has joined the ranks of major public investors who have decided they can do better than to fund fossil fuel development.

- Finally, Dr. A.J. discusses how deliberate and avoidable austerity has left Nova Scotia with a crumbling health care system - while opening the door for profit-based health services which will only exacerbate the problem.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Angella MacEwen offers her suggestions as to what a fair and progressive trade agenda should look like:

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms are especially unpopular, as they prioritize investor rights over investor responsibilities. Canada and Mexico have had similar dismal experiences under NAFTA — while the US has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case. ISDS chapters should be eliminated from progressive trade agreements, and any new investor protections should be subsidiary to national judicial processes and privilege state-to-state settlements.

The most effective way to compensate and transition people who lose out from economic shocks — whether from trade, automation or a variety of other sources — is to have a well-financed social safety net and universal public services. Employment Insurance and associated active labour market policies are important, but so are universal health care, child care, affordable housing and other elements of the welfare state. This is why public services must be fully carved out.

Transparency and accountability are missing from the current trade model. We need more than token stakeholder meetings or vague gender chapters to correct this gap. Environmental, human rights and gender audits can reduce exploitation and guide policy-makers toward better policy. Initial audits would be enhanced by a public system for regular monitoring and assessment of specific outcomes over time.

Finally, economic development strategies, such as strategic government procurement and community benefit agreements, must be available to domestic governments at all levels.

All of these areas represent untapped opportunities for significant improvements based on an alternative vision of a real “progressive trade agenda” — one that truly puts workers and the environment first.

- And Jim Stanford discusses how Canada is better off for Petronas having pulled away from its plans for a giant, unsustainable LNG project.

- Christine Saulnier takes a look at the lessons which should be learned from Nova Scotia's disastrous experiment with P3 schools. But Kelly Grant reports that the Trudeau Libs aren't much interested in being informed of the dangers of privatization run amok, as they pushed ahead with approvals for private plasma donations in the face of warnings from Canadian Blood Services.

- Which is to say that the Globe and Mail's understandable push for the Libs to put human rights ahead of profits when it comes to arms exports is likely to meet with something less than a receptive audience.

- Finally, Phil McDuff points out how a shift from first-past-the-post politics to a proportional electoral system would actually offer the public control whose absence resulted in the UK's Brexit vote (among other signs of citizen discontent).

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jordan Brennan points out why Nova Scotia (and other jurisdictions) should move past austerity economics:

The McNeil Liberals appear set to rack up budgetary surpluses through a strategy of public sector wage suppression. This is likely to backfire. It is an elementary insight of economic analysis that, just as one person's expenditure is necessarily another person's income, one sector's expenditure (in this case, the government) is necessarily another sector's income (namely, households and businesses).

By limiting public sector wage increases below prevailing inflation rates, the government will shrink household purchasing power and weaken aggregate demand. Furthermore, a strategy of public sector wage restraint may spill over into the private sector insofar as it signals to employers that they can scale back on wage increases without risking retention.

With GDP growth rates in Nova Scotia running at half the Canadian average and with income inequality hovering at a four-decade high it would take an impressive contortion of logic to assert that Nova Scotia's workforce is in need of a pay cut.
...
In the context of weak economic growth, the IMF has recently stated that budgetary deficits are preferable to surpluses and debt reduction. Austerity measures, the IMF continues, reduce human well-being, weaken aggregate demand and worsen unemployment.

Job creation should be made the top economic priority, not balancing the budget. The government should take advantage of ultra-low interest rates and invest in critical social and physical infrastructure such as health care, childcare, education and the transition to a low-carbon economy.

These measures will not only strengthen aggregate demand, but they will improve the quality of life for Nova Scotians. And from a fiscal standpoint, the increased debt needed to finance these investments can be reduced through organic growth.

- The Equality Trust examines the increasingly precarious financial state of many households in Great Britain. But Angella MacEwen writes that Alberta's increasing minimum wage represents an important step toward income security for workers (along with a stronger economy for everybody).

- In contrast, PressProgress points out that the Liberals have chosen to let the value of their much-ballyhooed child tax benefit erode - particularly for lower-income families.

- Hilary Beaumont reports on the lack of action toward the Libs' campaign promise to ensure that First Nations have safe drinking water. And CTV reports on the NDP's work to get the Libs to comply with their obligation to stop discriminating in funding child services.

- Finally, Jerry Dias writes that Canada is arriving at a moment of truth on electoral reform - and that there's no reason for MPs not to work on giving effect to widespread support for a proportional electoral system.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Alison picks up on Armine Yalnizyan's important question as to whether the Cons have a Plan B other than hoping for factors beyond our control to boost oil prices. And Brad Delong argues that based on the foreseeable direction of our economy, we need a stronger public sector now than we've ever had before:

(A)s we move into the twenty-first century, the commodities we will be producing are becoming less rival, less excludible, more subject to adverse selection and moral hazard, and more subject to myopia and other behavioral-psychological market failures.

The twenty-first century sees more knowledge to be learned and thus a greater role for education—and if there is a single sector in which behavioral-economics and adverse-selection have major roles to play, it is education. Deciding to fund education via very long-term loan-finance and thus to leave the cost-benefit investment calculations to be undertaken by adolescents has been a disaster.

The twenty-first century will see longer life expectancy, and thus a greater role for pensions. Yet here in the United States the privatization of pensions via 401k(s) has been an equally great disaster.

The twenty-first century will see health-care spending as a share of total income cross 25% if not 33%. Enough said. Sooner or later some insurance plan is going to start saying that we do indeed cover cancer treatment as part of our essential health benefits—but we believe that the proper and state-of-the-art treatment for cancer is via aromatherapy.

The twenty-first century will see information goods a much larger part of the total pie than the twentieth. And if we know one thing, it is that it is not efficient to try to provide information goods via a competitive market for they are neither rival nor excludible. It makes no microeconomic sense at all for services like those provided by Google to be funded and incentivized by how much money can be raised not off of the value of the services but off of the fumes rising from Google’s ability to sell the eyeballs of the users to advertisers as an intermediate good.

Infrastructure and R&D. Enough said.

- And Paul Krugman follows up on the reason why government intervention is valuable due to predictable and well-documented gaps between individual decision-making and social goods.

- Of course, we're being told on far too many fronts that we have to put up with just the opposite - such as in Alberta where everybody short of the massive-donor class is facing cuts and cost increases. But Jeff MacLeod and James Sawler explain why austerity represents a path to ruin rather than development, while Stella Lord addresses the connection between government cuts and individual poverty.

- Finally, Duncan Cameron writes that the Cons have gone out of their way to turn Canada into an outlaw state. Frances Russell laments that the Cons have turned contempt of Parliament into the normal state of affairs in Canadian politics. And Antonia Maioni warns Australia against following in Stephen Harper's evidence-destroying footsteps by gutting their own census.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ralph Surette suggests that Nova Scotia's tax and regulatory review pay close attention to the fact that it can do more than simply slash both:

Nova Scotia already has relatively low corporate taxes and lower than average taxes for the highest earners. Yet none of this can seem to get into the conversation that has us as high-tax, anti-business and anti-everything. I invite the review committee to pin down where we actually stand on the comparative tax scale.

I also invite it to take note of what's going on next door. New Brunswick Liberal Leader Brian Gallant, who's 25 per cent ahead of the governing Conservatives in the polls as the election campaign opens, has vowed to create a new tax bracket for those making over $150,000 and to rescind a 2012 cut of the business property tax, raising $63 million a year in all.

What's more, the New Brunswick Business Council supports him -- president Susan Holt having stated that, with regard to the property tax cut, business didn't ask for it and the province would have been better off putting the money on its deficit.

Indeed, if not in Nova Scotia, here, there and elsewhere you find business-people acknowledging that governments have to pay their bills and it can't all be done by cutting.

- Meanwhile, Alessandro Demaio comments on the growth of economic and social inequality in Australia. David Dayen points out that tax giveaways to private corporations tend to be an utter waste of public resources. And Paul Krugman highlights the need for a far stronger European challenge to austerity and other right-wing policies which are failing miserably even on their own terms.

- Andrea Rexer notes that there are glaring unanswered questions about the CETA which by design won't be dealt with until it's too late (and then only in an unaccountable special commission). 

- Gregory Beatty talks to Charles Smith and Andrew Stevens about the state of labour. And even Tasha Kheiriddin discusses the increasing importance of the labour movement in federal politics - though of course she can't do so without prominently featuring plenty of easily-debunked anti-worker propaganda.

- Finally, Clare Demerse makes the case for a national clean energy strategy to both boost our economy and protect Canada's environment:

While Canada’s fossil fuel and large hydro resources are not evenly distributed, all of Canada’s jurisdictions have opportunities to develop clean technologies like wind and solar power. As highlighted by the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy in its 2012 report, Framing the Future, Canada’s low-carbon strengths and opportunities truly run from coast to coast to coast.

But to seize these opportunities in a coherent and coordinated way, we need a national vision and strategy.
...
The Canadian energy strategy should become the home for clean energy initiatives that premiers work together to deliver—ideally with more partnership from Ottawa. Here are three areas that would make a difference for tackling climate change and speeding up the deployment of clean energy in Canada:

• New investment in transmission lines and smart grids to supply clean energy across Canada, and allow for increased clean power exports to the United States 
• Stronger policies, and incentives, along with infrastructure investment, to spur the use of electric vehicles in Canada, and 
• A more coherent approach to pricing carbon pollution. Some provinces are already among North America’s leaders in carbon pricing, while others are still thinking about how to start charging for pollution. With Ottawa missing in action on carbon pricing, provincial coordination is currently our best shot at laying the foundation for a national approach to making polluters pay.

Leading the evidence

Paul MacLeod's post-mortem of Nova Scotia's election campaign is well worth a read. But following up on Kevin Milligan's astute point, I'll point out how one of the main factors in the outcome looks to hint at partisan politics taking yet another turn for the worse - even as it signals what activists may need to do to bring about change which may become increasingly difficult through the party system:

It was around this point that the Liberals decided they needed a new game plan. They had recently been trounced in the federal election and the Liberal brand was at an all-time low.

That fall, the provincial party hired Toronto’s Gandalf Group to do an extensive (and expensive) poll of voters — what they liked and what they didn’t like.

This poll, combined with business roundtables and other research, created a wealth of data.

Reading through the numbers, the Liberal campaign team decided the weakness of the NDP was electricity. If they could paint Dexter as an ally of Nova Scotia Power and McNeil as a champion of ratepayers, they could move votes.

It was, in the words of one senior Liberal, the first time they had an evidence-based plan instead of just following their gut instincts.

Now, it isn't exactly news that most parties are interested in developing evidence-based politics even if their policies don't match. After all, the Cons have quite happily trashed the census and other forms of public knowledge about Canada at the same time as they hungrily collect (and limit access to) constituent information for their own political uses.

And that trend doesn't much figure to change if conventional wisdom coalesces around the idea that success in politics revolves solely around poll-tested campaign messages rather than competent governance or coherent plans.

Indeed, I have to wonder whether the Libs' lack of principles might actually create some advantages on that front just as it did when politics were seen more as a matter of brokerage rather than contrasting visions. While a party with a reasonably well-defined set of core beliefs may have a more limited range of options in testing messages for public presentation, one which is accustomed to simply following the leader might adapt more easily to changing messages at a moment's notice to fit the latest poll numbers.

But if partisan politics are headed toward more sophisticated efforts to be seen as the main pitchman for whatever voters seem most likely to buy, that creates an opportunity for anybody focused on issues rather than parties.

Anybody looking to see an issue promoted to the forefront of an election campaign can get there by persuading a party that the cause can shift votes. And if the worst danger of that approach is that all parties might be forced to echo one's message in order to avoid having it turn votes against them, that's hardly a disastrous outcome - especially if political competitors continue to have an incentive to force the government's hand once a campaign is done.

Of course, in the longer term I'd think it's well worth trying to ensure political discussion - in both partisan and non-partisan form - takes place more in the realm of "what will be best for the public in the long run?" instead of "what will shift votes in our favour today?" But the more political parties are prepared to follow evidence in at least some form, the more likely we are to see a successful effort to bridge the gap between the two.

[Edit: added link.]

On legacies

Obviously last night's Nova Scotia election results represent a huge disappointment for the NDP. But they also offer some reason to discuss the brand being developed at both the provincial and federal levels.

The working assumption for both the federal party and most of the provincial parties close to forming government has been that the only way to win over voters is to appear steady, staid and safe rather than pushing strongly for many policy priorities. And that theory seemed especially likely to work for Darrell Dexter given Nova Scotia's precedent of offering every previous government at least a second term.

But now that Dexter alone has been toppled - in contrast to far more controversial provincial counterparts elsewhere over the past couple of years - it's worth asking whether more activist government might prove valuable on two fronts.

First, for electoral purposes there has to be some value to keeping a party base engaged and a set of values in the public eye. And while "base vs swing" is one of the perpetual debates for political strategists of all stripes, it's hard to see the Nova Scotia experience as evidence that balancing budgets immediately and promising social progress later is a winning combination.

And second, there's the question of what a government will leave behind after its stay in office is done.

It may be that the forces which put Stephen McNeil in power would have won out in any event. But if that's so, then it's worth comparing Dexter's stay in office to the much-discussed single B.C. term of Dave Barrett.

Barrett of course was criticized for galvanizing his opposition by passing too much legislation too soon - a stark contrast to Dexter's focus on balancing the budget and laying the groundwork for larger plans to be implemented in some future term.

But Barrett's signature achievements continue to play significant roles in the lives of B.C. citizens four decades later - while much of what Dexter accomplished in his single term figures to be gutted (or at best rebranded) in the next four years. And if a premier is going to have only one term in which to build a legacy, he or she surely figures to want to do something worth celebrating and remembering in that time.

All of which is to say that NDP leaders across the country would do well to remind themselves that what matters most is how a government's actions influence the lives of citizens - not how little a government does to draw attention to itself. And if there's real doubt as to how a worthy policy choice will play out politically, it's better to err on the side of positive action.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The National Post offers an excerpt from Susan Delacourt's Shopping for Votes discussing the role branding played in the election of John Diefenbaker. And Jeffrey Simpson discusses the continued drift toward consumer politics.
- But in commenting on the Nova Scotia provincial election, Ralph Surette reminds us what's lost when voting decisions are made based solely on snap impressions rather than any effort to determine who's capable of managing a government:

There have been several televised debates. To anyone watching them from the point of view of substance rather than mere performance, Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil has lost them all and Premier Darrell Dexter has won them all — but the Liberal numbers kept rising.

Dexter’s desperate narrative is, alas, the only coherent one in this whole thing. He’s pointing to progress in some domains and admitting to mistakes (itself a novelty in politics) in others that he’s promising to address in a second mandate, especially now that the budget is tentatively balanced.

The Liberals were surprised a little over a year ago by a poll putting them in the game and have been madly stitching up policy since. They’ve hit onto some superficial hot buttons — health, power rates, corporate incentives — but when questioned about the implications, McNeil reverts to his set rhetoric, avoids the question, and in fact sounds like a tired old incumbent back on his heels.
...
Under the circumstances, a Liberal government is unlikely to cheer anyone, including Liberal voters themselves. Nothing has been properly thought out, and unless McNeil backs off from some of his simplicities, Nova Scotia politics is heading back into the old stewpot from whence it came. But backing off — or breaking promises — in the face of the most cynical voters in the country (in my estimation) would hardly keep the peace.

I desperately hope I’m wrong about this, but after watching Nova Scotia politics for close to 45 years, some of the old queasy feeling is back.

- Meanwhile, Charles Pierce writes that the Republicans have taken politics based on pure branding to its logical conclusion by completely detaching themselves from any sense that the political system should be used to help actual people. And Lana Payne wonders what happened to the common good in political discussions.

- Finally, Kapil Khatter points out how medical decisions can be influenced and manipulated by big pharma - both in fabricating "needs" to be met by whatever drug a particularly company wants to peddle, and in using academic structures to sell a particular drug as the answer.

Book Review: Power Failure?

The story can be found in the headlines of virtually any province at any given time. Political parties eager to propose an economic panacea team up with energy developers who make sure to lock in their own profits before anything can go wrong to sell the public on natural resource development - which predictably produces results which favour the private-sector promoter without leading to much public good. And the opportunity for broader and more sustainable development is missed in the attempt to direct energy resources toward the most obvious immediate purchaser (who frequently has better options than the resource a province wants to promote).

But far too rarely does the previous pattern of empty promises get pointed out when the latest proposal is being pitched. And Richard Starr's Power Failure? is a worthwhile read in highlighting just how predictable the pattern is - even if Starr's focus is solely on the energy industry of a single Canadian province.

Naturally, the theme has gone few a through variations over the time period discussed by Starr. The resources in question are now oil, gas and electric power rather than coal. The government's place in the puzzle has ranged from granting monopoly charters to providing subsidies and bailouts, from operating industries itself to privatizing them at cut-rate prices. And the means of extracting money into private hands have evolved from "watered" stock, to corporate mergers and restructurings, and then to long-term contracts locking in profits at public expense.

Whatever the particulars of the moment, however, the overarching message looks to apply equally to most resources in most provinces as to the specific example of Nova Scotia. Resource industries are inevitably dependent on factors beyond the control of a single province. But they're also an appealing source of speculative hope for a province - and there's always somebody waiting to sell that dream at an inflated price.

And what's perhaps most remarkable in is the frequent lack of dissent on any particular resource development scheme. Starr rightly notes that a number of the most questionable moves in Nova Scotia's history of resource management passed with little or no opposition - hinting at the difficulty involved in making any case against development, no matter how flawed a scheme may appear in retrospect.

Of course, with rare exceptions the resource issues themselves form only a relatively small part of the political scene. But if the usual ebb and flow of resource politics has a greater impact in enriching the well-connected at the expense of the public than in substantively influencing public opinion, that only makes for all the more reason not to be drawn into the folly. And Starr's book offers plenty of evidence to support anybody arguing for a more principled stand than most politicians are willing to take.

On regional effects

The NDP's provincial surges in Canada's Atlantic provinces has received some attention already. But it's particularly worth noting how the provincial numbers figure to relate to the recent federal election results.

On the one hand, it does seem that the federal campaign managed to catch the attention some voters who otherwise weren't considering the NDP as a possibility - with at least some of those voters now expressing their support.

But perhaps more noteworthy is the fact that the NDP's provincial results in each province other than Nova Scotia still have a ways to go to catch up to the party's federal vote share. And if a higher profile nationally can make those numbers converge, then it looks entirely possible that the NDP could emerge as the leading challenger for government throughout a region that's historically been almost entirely barren territory.

A well-deserved win

Congratulations both to Darrell Dexter's Nova Scotia NDP for their majority election win, and to Nova Scotia's voters for making it happen. And if anybody was waiting to see just how festive the NDP's federal convention would likely be this summer, there shouldn't be much doubt now that the party will have ample reason to celebrate.

The cost of distrust

The Halifax Daily News reports that the federal government has offered Nova Scotia an equalization buyout which, on paper, would hand the province a billion dollars more than the deal Rodney MacDonald is asking for. But the projected benefits would be entirely dependent on the Cons keeping their promise - and MacDonald seems to have understandably concluded that even a billion-dollar risk premium isn't worth banking on Deceivin' Stephen:

Ottawa has offered Nova Scotia an offshore revenue agreement that's arguably $992-million better than what the province is demanding under the Atlantic Accord, according to a federal source.

Two economists who studied the accord dispute for the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council said Friday that option does seem to be more lucrative than what the province is demanding. But Wade Locke of Memorial University in Newfoundland and Paul Hobson of Acadia University both doubt the federal government could guarantee the terms would remain unchanged for the life of the agreement...

Nova Scotia's demand boils down to full offshore revenue plus O'Brien money, without any clawbacks. According to projections contained in Locke and Hobson's June 13 report, it adds up to $23.999-billion over the life of the accord, which expires in 2019-20.

The federal source said the deal Ottawa offered weeks ago could be worth $24.991-billion, using the same APEC figures. The province was apparently interested, before MP Bill Casey broke ranks with the Conservative Party and voted against the budget...

The problem, according to Locke, is every province that receives equalization might be better off if it was allowed to stay with the old fixed formula. If Nova Scotia gets to choose a richer equalization program than the rest of Canada, Ottawa will be under pressure to give others the same option, or reduce that 3.5% fixed growth rate.

"The issue comes down to a matter of trust that a sworn promise is not going to be violated or a commitment is not going to be changed later on when other people are coming to your door saying hey, what about me?" Locke said.

Of course, the Cons have a well-established track record of broken promises - not to mention efforts to pick fights with anybody who dares to point them out. So it's clear why MacDonald would see his province as better off with an arrangement which minimizes the chances of another Harper reversal.

But if even a Con premier and former Harper supporter is willing to leave that much money on the table out based on Harper's untrustworthiness, it shouldn't be a tough decision for voters to decide that the cost to Canada of Deceivin' Stephen's reputation is far too high to tolerate.