Tuesday Afternoon Links

 This and that for your Tuesday reading. 

- Olufemi Taiwo discusses how the political and corporate elite have declared that consequences for bad decisions will apply only to the plebes - even as events make clear that's not a viable strategy. And Rachel Louise Ensign and James Benedict point out the fifteen-digit wealth stash in the hands of older Americans - along with the reality that most of it figures to stagnate rather than being transferred or put to any positive use. 

- Natalie Donback reports on the efforts of cities to plan and rehearse for the most predictable climate disasters even as national governments subsidize their causes. And Oliver Milman reports on a new study finding that New Orleans for one will likely be swallowed up by the sea within a matter of decades. 

- Meanwhile, Jack Ewing reports on Costa Rica's success in fostering electric vehicle adoption by ensuring people have ready access to charging infrastructure.  

- Josh Taylor notes that public opposition to data centres is as strong in Australia as in much of the rest of the world. And Robert Walton writes that while the strain from power usage has drawn more attention so far, large data centres can be equally problematic in causing rapid load reductions which aren't accounted for in grid planning. 

- Finally, Erin Weir discusses how Saskatchewan is giving away its potash resources - and indeed incentivizing the shutdown of mines which pay more royalties. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

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

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

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

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

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ian Welsh discusses the nature of prosperity - and the illusion that it means nothing more than increased economic activity:

All other things being equal more productive capacity is better. The more stuff we can make, in theory, the better off we’ll be. But in practice, it doesn’t always work that way.

Part of the problem is due to hierarchies and inequality. Inequality is undeniably bad for us. The more unequal your society is, the lower the median lifespan. The more unequal the society, the sicker, in general. More heart attacks, much more stress. The more unequal, the more crime. These links are robust.

The links run two ways. On the one hand, humans find inequality stressful. The human body, if subject to long term stress, becomes unhealthy and far more likely to be sick. People who feel unequal act less capable than those who feel equal. This is true for the rich and powerful in unequal societies and the poor. Everyone suffers. Though the poor and weak do suffer more, even the rich and powerful would be healthier and live longer in equal societies, most likely simply due to the stress effect.

The second part is distribution, or rather, the question of who gets to decide the distribution. The more unequal a society, the less stuff the poor and middle class have, comparatively. Some technologies tend to lead to more inequality, some tend to lead to more equality.  ...
Increases in productive capacity and technological advancement do not always lead to welfare and when they do, it do not have to do so immediately. The industrial revolution certainly did lead to increased human welfare, but if you were of the generations thrown off the land and made to work in the early factories, often 6 1/2 days a week, in horrible conditions, you would not have thought so. You were in virtually every way worse off than before being thrown off the land, and so were your children. A few industrialists and the people around them certainly did very well, but that is not prosperity, nor is it affluence.

Prosperity, in the end, is as much about power and politics as it is about technology and productive ability. The ability to make more does not ensure we are making the right things, or that the people who need them, get them. Productive capacity which is not shared is not prosperity.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress highlights the Cons' latest efforts to make sure workers don't share in any benefit from corporate operations.

- Keith Stewart writes that the oil sector's interest in fostering dependence on its product runs contrary to the social interest in generating clean and renewable energy, while Andrew Gage explains the NEB's choice not to take seriously the most obvious risks involved in the Gateway pipeline and tanker project. And Erin Weir offers up PCS' minimal royalty projections as the latest example of how Saskatchewan's dependence on corporate potash production is producing little return for the province's resources.

- Finally, Greg Weston reports on CSEC's illegal intrusion into the online activity of travellers at Canadian airports:

The latest Snowden document indicates the spy service was provided with information captured from unsuspecting travellers' wireless devices by the airport's free Wi-Fi system over a two-week period.

Experts say that probably included many Canadians whose smartphone and laptop signals were intercepted without their knowledge as they passed through the terminal.

The document shows the federal intelligence agency was then able to track the travellers for a week or more as they — and their wireless devices — showed up in other Wi-Fi "hot spots" in cities across Canada and even at U.S. airports.

That included people visiting other airports, hotels, coffee shops and restaurants, libraries, ground transportation hubs, and any number of places among the literally thousands with public wireless internet access.

The document shows CSEC had so much data it could even track the travellers back in time through the days leading up to their arrival at the airport, these experts say.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Scott Doherty recognizes that Saskatchewan's failure to collect a reasonable royalty rate for potash and other natural resources is directly responsible for the province crying poor when workers are laid off. And Alex Himelfarb points out that the magical theory behind perpetual tax cuts is purely a matter of illusion rather than reality.

We are more than just consumers and taxpayers. We are citizens with responsibilities for one another; we undertake to do some things together, things that we could never do alone or that we can do much better collectively. Taxes are the way we pay for those things. They’re the price of living in Canada and the opportunities that provides.  Indeed, those opportunities exist because of the sacrifices and taxes of previous generations to build the Canada we inherited.
...
We demand of our leaders to explain how they are going to pay for new services but, equally, we need to demand that they explain the COSTS of their promised tax cuts ­–­­­ to our quality of life, to our democracy, to our economy.  Would we be so pleased with the next tax cuts if we knew they came with worsening traffic congestion, increased risks to food safety, longer wait times for health care, less help for the jobless and needy, rising inequality and environmental degradation?

We seem only to talk about what government costs and not about what it gives.  Too much is at stake to let our identities as “consumers” and “taxpayers” supplant our citizenship and commitment to the common good.

- Meanwhile, the Star Phoenix discusses Station 20 West - which has become a source of food, health services and community for Saskatoon's Pleasant Hill neighbourhood despite the best efforts of the Wall government to stop it.

- And on the subject of governments with absolutely no clue about the realities facing people living in poverty, Peter MacKay believes that even homeless people should have no trouble whatsoever selling some unspecified property to pay mandatory fines.

- Armine Yalnizyan questions the rationale behind the Cons' cuts to Canada Post. And Duncan Cameron expands on the postal bank option as an alternative to the Cons' slash-and-burn approach.

- Finally, Elizabeth Thompson describes Hugh Segal's philosophy of political bridge-building - which of course couldn't be much more out of place in the current Conservative Party.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Jim Stanford counters the myth of labour shortages by pointing out Canada's significant - and growing - number of potential workers who lack a job. And Janet French reports on how PCS' job cuts have affected both the workers who were laid off, and the communities who depend on their spending to support local economies.

- CPJ's infographic makes the case for a guaranteed livable income in Canada:

- CBC reports on the misleading statistics underlying claims that there's no need to discuss rail safety in Canada - featuring cases of runaway trains which are never classified or reported as such.

- Finally, Alison points out the Cons' consistent expectation that Stephen Harper's appointed Senators will do nothing but the bidding of the PMO - which of course has been fully met in practice. And the escalating attacks on elected NDP MPs by the Cons' patronage appointees seeking to preserve their own unaccountable sinecures only look to confirm the fundamental corruption underlying the Senate as an institution.

New column day

Here, asking whether growth and stable employment are part of the deal when the Saskatchewan Party offers massive handouts to the resource sector - and if so, how to handle the fact that PCS is pocketing tax incentives while slashing jobs.

For further reading...
- The Wall government's own press release touting its potash giveaways is here. Needless to say, there's no mention as to why we'd want to keep giving royalties away if they're not linked to growth.
- Simon Enoch's list of Saskatchewan Party corporate subsidies is always worth a look.
- Murray Mandryk is duly skeptical of the Wall government's talking points.
- And finally, both the Saskatchewan and New Brunswick NDP weigh in on the effect of PCS' cuts.

New column day

Here, on the questions raised by a sudden drop in potash prices - and why we should reconsider our economic and social priorities so that a minor fluctuation in a still-ample level of wealth isn't seen as reason to push the panic button.

For further reading...
- My discussion of Robert and Edward Skidelsky's How Much Is Enough? shouldn't be taken to suggest the book goes beyond a rough outline of the alternative to a growth-obsessed society. But I'll certainly recommend it as a starting point for discussion.
- For those interested in some recent reports on the effects of poverty on personal decision-making and life outcomes, I'll again point here, here and here. 
- And for a more personal take on hunger and poverty in the midst of plenty, I'll highly recommend A Girl Called Jack - discussed here by the Guardian - to those who haven't seen it yet.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#skndpldr Roundup

As expected, the last week has been a relatively quiet one in the Saskatchewan NDP's leadership campaign - representing the break between membership recruitment and voter contact. But there have been a few developments worth noting.

Most obviously, the latest debate took place in Yorkton. Scott has already posted his thoughts, while Twitter coverage at the time was offered by Stephen Moore (with a particular focus on Trent Wotherspoon) and Paige Kezima.

But the development which figures to have the most impact on the balance of the campaign is Ryan Meili's 9 + 1 message: rather than allowing other candidates to take the lead in talking about what it means to elect a leader from outside the Legislature, he's making a highly visible pitch to the effect that the NDP should be looking to build strength beyond its MLAs. And the message looks like a fairly strong one on point - though there will be somewhat of a balancing act need to avoid distracting from Meili's broader vision and policy themes in responding to what's ultimately a relatively minor strategic consideration.

Meanwhile, Wotherspoon looked to answer some of the holiday musings about Cam Broten's relative success in influencing events in the Legislature by speaking out about the treatment of Provinicial Auditor Bonnie Lysyk by Sask Party MLAs. But I'd think that it's even more telling to see the response of the MLAs involved - who tried to excuse their disrespect for Lysyk by saying they don't know what her job actually is:

Scott Moe, one of the Sask. Party MLAs on the committee, said after the meeting members were acting on their own.

"The questions that I saw in there were more around the scope of the auditor's office and what exactly the office does and questions you might expect from fairly newly elected members in there."

As a bonus for Wotherspoon, he looks to enjoy an opportunity to follow up on the first new cycle as the Public Accounts Committee revisits the same terrain this week.

Finally, while Meili and Wotherspoon earned plenty of attention with their most recent public interventions, Erin Weir's latest should have received more. Obviously any news about PotashCorp's low royalties paid in 2012 fits with Weir's campaign message - but the minimal revenues coming in from the extraction of resources by a highly profitable private operator is also highly significant as a matter of provincial public policy.

Leadership 2013 Roundup

While all has been relatively quiet from two of Saskatchewan's NDP leadership camps, there's still been some activity worth highlighting over the last few days.

- First, Scott Stelmaschuk has made another massive contribution to coverage of the race with a thorough candidate questionnaire. And Erin Weir's response tells us somewhat more about the political legacy he hopes to build:

In 25 years, what do you hope your political legacy to be?

I hope that my political legacy will be Saskatchewan collecting a better return from our non-renewable resources and investing the proceeds in important public services, renewable power for a green economy, and a provincial savings fund for future generations.

- Meanwhile, Weir has also released a plan for Saskatchewan's potash royalty system, with a focus on eliminating loopholes and revenue leakage rather than reconsidering the underlying royalty rates. Which isn't to say we should rule out the possibility of doing both in the longer term - but looks like a valuable first step toward earning a fair return for our natural resources.

- Finally, Ryan Meili's latest blog post discusses his reason for retaining his beard. And while I'm still not a huge fan of spending time talking about appearances rather than policy and values, Meili's take does suggest some noteworthy development as a candidate since the 2009 campaign:

When I ran for leader in 2009, I caved and shaved, wanting to fit into the expected mold of political appearance. I didn’t see this as a big deal at the time, but the more I think about it, the more I find it strange to change our appearances drastically to fit a narrow set of imaginary criteria. Politicians are expected to be thin and attractive, to be well-heeled enough to dress impeccably and to betray no hint of an accent. And, more often than not, they are expected to be white, male, middle-aged and heterosexual.

Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that I’m a member of an excluded minority. Like the other declared candidates in this race, I am a majority-culture, straight male approaching middle age. A few whiskers does not by any means make me part of an equity-seeking group. But the early reaction, however minor, to my facial hair is interesting, and reflects the disproportionate role that appearance and demographics play in our judgment of candidates. This may just reinforce the factors that have led this race, and Saskatchewan politics in general, to have so little diversity in its political representatives.

For citizens, I think it raises another question. If we expect candidates to change who they are to fit a small set of cultural norms, are we selecting representatives for the exact opposite of the behaviour we desire? If we are asking potential politicians to bend themselves so far they’re unrecognizable, can we really be disappointed if they later turn out to be inconsistent and insincere?

New column day

Here, expanding on my previous post as to why we should be wary of Brad Wall's plans for potash royalties.

For further reading, I'll again recommend Mitchell Anderson's Tyee series contrasting how Norway has handled its natural resources with Canada's laissez-faire system. (And the lesson seems all the more applicable in the case of potash, where the limited alternative sources of production make it even more obvious that we should be able to make sure Saskatchewan's interests are protected.)

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Gerald Caplan weighs in on Jack Layton's legacy:

It seems to me that Jack Layton’s enduring legacy is twofold. First, he set a standard of doing politics that, if followed by others, would change the entire tone of public life for the country. You could see his influence in the decorum that characterized the leadership contest to choose his successor. The media saw only tedium. The party understood it was Jack’s insistence on civility that was at work.

Jack regarded those he disagreed with as democratic opponents, not as dishonorable, even treasonous enemies to be destroyed. For him politics was not the brutal, no-holds-barred permanent war being waged against all comers by the governing party. He rarely attacked motives or personalities. He treated his opponents with respect and civility. He stuck to the issues, about which he felt passionately and which he pursued forcefully.
...
Until May 2, (2011), I saw the party’s role as being the conscience of the nation, an influencer of those with power, not a government-in-waiting. That’s how I interpreted election results from the 1930s all the way through to the 2008 elections, during which time the CCF/NDP only once polled as high as 20 per cent of the votes; often it was considerably lower. This was even true of the 3 elections Mr. Layton had fought before his last one. The message from the party’s beloved “ordinary Canadians” seemed to me self-evident.

Jack rejected this destiny as the NDP’s permanent fate, and at the last minute he was vindicated.

- Andrew Nikiforuk comments on the Cons' attempts to make Canadian democracy subordinate to the will of Enbridge and other oil interests:

To get a million barrels of bitumen a day to the Gulf of Mexico at Port Arthur, Texas, the Harper government strenuously lobbied politicians in Washington on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline. When that project became bogged down in public protests and regulatory delays, Harper abandoned a 2008 policy that restricted bitumen shipments to China and became an outspoken cheerleader for Enbridge and Northern Gateway. Putting bitumen on supertankers bound for Asia "will require some significant infrastructure projects to go forward," Harper said recently in Bangkok. "And we’re obviously…looking at taking steps necessary to ensure we can get timely regulatory decisions."

There is nothing subtle about Harper or the "necessary steps" he has taken. His government has been characterized by the Economist as "intolerant of criticism and dissent," with a penchant for rule-breaking. Early in 2012 it branded First Nations and environmental groups opposed to Northern Gateway, including the Canadian office of the U.S.-based nonprofit ForestEthics and the David Suzuki Foundation, as foreign-funded "radicals" opposed to economic prosperity. Environmental groups with charitable status that have challenged bitumen mining have been subjected to federal investigation. And to make sure that Enbridge’s pipeline experiences none of the delays that have beset Keystone XL, the Harper government launched a concerted attack in March and April on most of Canada’s main environmental laws.

"The debate is no longer about a pipeline," says Robyn Allan, an economist and former CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. "It’s about an energy strategy designed in the boardrooms of Big Oil that’s being forced on the Canadian public."

- One might hope that the Libs' fine for robocalls in Guelph would help push the Robocon investigation along. But I have to wonder whether the story featuring both full cooperation from the Libs and a political price will simply reinforce the Cons' apparent conclusion that the cost-benefit calculation favours continuing to stonewall against any attempt to figure out who's responsible for their own misleading robocalls.

- Finally, Scott Stelmaschuk and Bruce Johnstone both offer rather more generous interpretations of Brad Wall's talk of royalty revisions than my take. But I'm still inclined to be skeptical until there's some evidence to suggest a Sask Party-led review would actually serve to increase revenue, rather than operating as yet another handout to the corporate sector.

The great giveaway

No, Brad Wall's new musings about changing Saskatchewan's resource royalty structure won't pass without comment from this corner. But it's worth noting that the reason for concern lies not a mere flip-flop from the Sask Party's 2011 election platform, but what's all too consistent in its behaviour since taking power.

At the outset, let's remember that Wall's position while in power has never been that the tax structure surrounding royalties is set in stone; instead, it's been that any change has to result in greater returns for corporate conglomerates at the expense of the province in order to be acceptable. So the Sask Party has been perfectly happy to hand out freebies such as head office tax credits on top of the system that was working perfectly well before it took power.

It's only when the NDP suggested that the province should benefit more from high prices and increased development that the Sask Party decided all existing arrangements were sacrosanct. Which leads to the foundation Wall is setting up for the mother of all resource giveaways:

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is musing about adjusting the way the province collects money from companies that extract natural resources.

Wall says companies should have royalty stability especially after they've spent billions investing in the economy.

But the premier also says it's important that taxpayers are properly compensated if in 20 years potash production has doubled.

The current complex system is based on price rather than volume and Wall says it needs to change.

So let's compare what we have now to what Wall seems to be proposing.

At the moment, Saskatchewan's royalty structure results in our province sharing in the value of our resources. If prices rise - reflecting no particular merit on the part of either developer or province, but an increase in value in the resources which we're allowing to be removed from our common wealth - then so too does the province's revenue. And it's that structure which allows for the prospect of a Bright Futures Fund which ensures that money is invested for the province's benefit when times are good, and available to meet our needs when prices drop.

In contrast, Wall apparently sees it as unacceptable that Saskatchewan, as the owner of the resources being extracted, should share at all in the gains when those resources increase in price. Instead, he's setting out to establish "royalty stability" based strictly on the volume of resources removed from our province. And if prices happen to rise - well, as far as Wall is concerned, that windfall belongs solely to his corporate benefactors.

Needless to say, his resource-sector puppeteers will have every reason to be happy with that outcome. But once again, it's the people of Saskatchewan who stand to lose out from a system designed to eliminate the benefit we'd otherwise enjoy from our own resources. And if Wall is indeed planning to force through changes during the course of this term in office, then the resource question may be the most important fight we face over the next few years.

[Edit: fixed formatting.]

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Pratap Chatterjee discusses our new age of robber barons - and how the wealthiest CEOs get out of paying any tax at all on massive sums of money:

The Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington DC thinktank, says that a chunk of the money Ellison spent buying Lanai should have paid for elementary school teachers and clean energy jobs, instead of fulfilling the billionaire CEO's vacation fantasies. That's one conclusion of their new report, "The CEO Hands in Uncle Sam's Pocket: How Our Tax Dollars Subsidize Exorbitant Executive Pay", which points out that Oracle took advantage of a 1993 loophole in tax law to designate $76m of Ellison's income as "performance-related pay", which allowed him to avoid paying any taxes on the money.

Dozens of US CEOs have cashed in on this major tax incentive at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of $9.7bn last year. Statistics provided by National Priorities Project suggest that the same amount of money could have paid for 142,625 elementary school teachers, or healthcare for 4.96 million low-income children.

"At a time of austerity, it's beyond absurd that billions of our tax dollars are pouring into executive pockets," says Sarah Anderson, a report co-author.

- Meanwhile, Erin Weir points out that Vale's choice not to proceed with a potash mine in Kronau only highlights the fact that corporate decision-making has far more to do with other factors than with provincial giveaways - serving as all the more reason for Saskatchewan to ensure it gets fair value for our potash.

- And Jim Stanford notes that the key to growth in our auto sector involves public policy which actually values industrial development, not further attacks on employees:

Imagine, purely for discussion, that labour costs were reduced in Canada. Right now, with a very strong dollar, total nominal labour costs (including benefits) at the three companies average about $3 per hour more than in the U.S. (Real wages, adjusted for higher Canadian prices, are actually lower here.) Suppose that gap was eliminated and costs fell by $3 per hour. Would that usher in a new era of automotive prosperity?

It takes an average of 29 hours of in-house shop-floor labour to manufacture one vehicle (including engine, transmission and final assembly). A $3 hourly saving therefore translates into an $87 reduction in the cost of a car. That’s not even enough to pay for deluxe floor mats in your new sedan, let alone underwrite the future success of an entire industry.

Meanwhile, the all-important policy context in Canada is currently making things worse, not better, for the auto industry. For example, the Harper government is aggressively pursuing free-trade deals that would eliminate tariffs on imports from three different auto-exporting powerhouses: the aforementioned Germany, Japan and South Korea. That would undermine the competitive position of domestic-made vehicles by about $2,000 per unit – outweighing our hypothetical labour savings by a 20-to-1 ratio. Similarly, the continuing flight of the loonie eats up any labour savings as fast as they can be tallied; indeed, the loonie’s 5-cent rise since June alone has added $3 per hour to Canada’s apparent hourly cost.

It seems almost pointless to even worry about labour costs when the broader policy framework that is so essential for industrial success is glaringly absent.

- Finally, Dene Moore reports on how the Harper Cons have gutted the exact review process which they plan to rely on as validating the construction of pipelines wherever Enbridge chooses to place them.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Zach Carter shines a spotlight on the few types of interests who stand to gain from austerity:

But the austerity game also has winners. Cutting or eliminating government programs that benefit the less advantaged has long been an ideological goal of conservatives. Doing so also generates a tidy windfall for the corporate class, as government services are privatized and savings from austerity pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens.
...
"Austerity policies are literally a redistribution from the bottom of the income spectrum to the top," said Dorian Warren, a professor of political science at Columbia University and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, an economic policy think tank. "In Wisconsin, both wealthy people and businesses got tax breaks, while middle-class and working-class employees of the state essentially got crushed."

Warren emphasized that there are political dimensions to the austerity push. Efforts to curb collective bargaining rights -- and thus pay and benefits -- for state employees cut to the heart of the American labor movement. With only 7 percent of the private-sector workforce unionized, public-sector unions are a critical component of labor's political influence and an important bloc in Democratic Party operations.

Governments in Europe, most notably the United Kingdom, have also pursued tax cuts for the rich while imposing austerity measures on the working classes. And the European financier class has benefited even more directly than their American counterparts from these budgets.

Every time the European Union has reached a crisis point on the debt carried by Greece or Spain, EU leaders, especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have come to the rescue with bailout funds. That money goes to the banks that own Greek and Spanish debt, whose holdings would take a hit if either country were unable to repay. But the bailout comes with harsh austerity requirements intended to encourage budgetary discipline, so it's ordinary citizens who end up taking the hit. The most vulnerable populations are harmed by the bailouts, while the well-paid financial professionals who made the deals to finance Greek and Spanish deficits in the first place continue profiting handsomely.

- Chris Hedges recognizes the need for thoughtful questioning of self-serving "conventional wisdom":

And here is the dilemma we face as a civilization. We march collectively toward self-annihilation. Corporate capitalism, if left unchecked, will kill us. Yet we refuse, because we cannot think and no longer listen to those who do think, to see what is about to happen to us. We have created entertaining mechanisms to obscure and silence the harsh truths, from climate change to the collapse of globalization to our enslavement to corporate power, that will mean our self-destruction. If we can do nothing else we must, even as individuals, nurture the private dialogue and the solitude that make thought possible.

- Erin Weir makes the point that massive potash profits only confirm that Saskatchewan is forfeiting massive amounts of public wealth to the Saskatchewan Party's corporate benefactors. And Tom Shelstad notes that a reasonable royalty regime would provide ample money to fund projects like a Regina stadium up front - rather than requiring the city to take on decades of debt.

- Meanwhile, the Star-Phoenix editorial board is duly skeptical about the Wall government's pretending to listen to cultural industries only after driving them out of the province.

- Finally, I've tended to view Regina's housing crisis as a significant issue demanding a policy response. But apparently I should have known it was nothing more than a charming human interest story all along. (I'm just surprised the featuredidn't end with a down-on-his luck new arrival marrying the campground manager's daughter.)

Saturday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your weekend reading.

- Trish Hennessy points out that Rob Ford's contemptuous attack on the idea of secure employment may offer an ideal contrast between the right-wing view of the economy and the stability citizens actually want for themselves:

Remember when holding down a job for life was considered a sign of personal responsibility and integrity?

Remember when staying committed to a job for life was an example of how you could be relied upon, trusted? How you were viewed as stable and productive?

Remember when having a job for life was a symbol of the model citizen? A good family person? A way to contribute to our collective well-being?

And remember when the pot of gold at the end of that job-for-life rainbow was a company pension that turned retirement into “the golden years”?

A job for life. A frame worth propagating?

- Meanwhile, Karen Foster points out the disturbingly high number of workers stuck with "involuntary" part-time work due to a lack of full-time jobs.

- Rick Salutin discusses how readily-available online communications can serve as a democratizing force:

The models for major change over the past two centuries were Revolution versus Reform. Either overthrow and destroy what was in place — the ancien regime, capitalism etc. — replacing them with something new. Or reform those institutions, nibbling away at them till you’ve gradually reconstructed them. You see the mindset persisting in education: either get rid of schools as they are and replace them with free schools, home schooling and the like — or reform what’s there until it vanishes.

But tweet night did neither. It left all the appalling old structures exactly as they were: the podium, the stodgy agenda (presentation followed by Q and A). Yet it remade them simply by inserting a layer: the Internet. Nothing changed but everything was different due to that insertion. It’s radical, in the sense of transformative, yet conservative, in the sense of preservative. And it worked.

- Jorge Barrera breaks the story that the Cons tried to destroy records documenting their deliberate choice not to talk about John Duncan's callous view of residential schools.

- Finally, Erin points out that the Wall government seems to be curiously silent about BHP Billiton's plans to undermine Canpotex now that there aren't obvious political points to be scored.

Thursday Evening Links

This and that for your evening reading.

- pogge points out yet another Con slush fund, as public money earmarked for green infrastructure was instead diverted to oil, gas and forestry companies.

- Meanwhile, the Cons' attempt to paint a proliferation of oil pipelines as a matter of national unity leaves little room for doubt that we can expect future appropriations to similarly find their way into the hands of the corporate resource sector.

- Speaking of which, Bill Doyle helpfully warns the people of the province that's handed him hundreds of millions of dollars that they'd better not get uppity about claiming a share of their resources for themselves.

- Finally, Andrew Jackson points out that the Canadian banks cited as models of stability received plenty of bailouts of their own. Though it's well worth noting that Canada's freebies may well have been less a matter of the banks actually needing them than a desire to make sure they weren't any less rewarded for global financial turmoil than their foreign counterparts.

On predictable problems

Yes, the news that the Muskowekwan First Nation may soon see its own potash development is a plus in many ways. But it's worth pointing out how the story might have been important to the provincial election campaign which concluded earlier this month.

After all, one of the Sask Party's main hot-button issues was to slam the idea that resource revenues might someday be shared with Saskatchewan's First Nations. And under those circumstances, it's hard to blame any given First Nation for figuring it'll never see a dime out of the province, and thus deciding to go it alone in pushing resource development.

Which is just another reason why a royalty-sharing agreement - as proposed by the NDP - would make a world of sense: by assembling a united front based on agreed revenue-sharing, the province could actually maintain whatever strategic advantage it currently holds in managing potash resources.

In contrast, the existence of overlapping jurisdictions and competing royalty rates carries the potential for disaster. There can't be much doubt that the next step in pushing royalty rates down even further will involve Wall and company pointing to any First Nation that's willing to offer a lower price for its own potash. And as part of the potash sector's regular focus on wealth extraction, I'm sure it'll come up with loopholes between the various levels of government - say, by making sure that it can count development on First Nations land as a credit against provincial royalties, while counting on paying only a lower band-based royalty rate at the point where the provincial system is supposed to provide for an increase.

Of course, the prospect of multiple governments getting into royalty bidding wars and jurisdictional quagmires to shuffle yet more free money into the hands of the potash sector is surely exactly what Brad Wall and his corporate cronies want to see. But Saskatchewan's citizens may want to take a hard look at whether they're prepared to harm both the province and First Nations alike in an effort to avoid transferring any resource revenues from the former to the latter.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Yes, there's plenty of reason for outrage that the Cons are selling access to cabinet ministers through a high-priced club. But this isn't the first time Con cabinet ministers have dedicated their profile to the interests of reactionary interest groups, and it surely won't be the last.

- And it surely shouldn't come as any surprise that the Cons' attacks on institutions they despise such as the CBC are no less brazen - now to the point of apparent illegality.

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt offers a reminder of a time when the Prime Minister responsible for an all-out crackdown on independent thought in his party was himself seen as a relatively thoughtful back-bencher.

- Finally, Erin points out that for all the spin that all talk about royalty reviews being put off indefinitely by this fall's election results, the Sask Party and its allies look to have recognized their own vulnerability on the issue.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Nanos confirms that even as cities are starting to crack down on the Occupy movement, the general public is highly sympathetic to the message about reining in inequality and corporate control:

The Nanos Research poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and La Presse found that 58 per cent of Canadians who are aware of the protests have a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of them.
...
The most significant demographic that views the Occupy movement favourably is people who are between 18 and 29 years of age, the poll found, which may be reflective of a tough job market for new workers. Nearly 73 per cent of people under 30 said they have a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of the protests.

Although respondents in their 40s view the protests less favourably than other demographics, about 50 per cent of them still expressed a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of the protests. People in their 60s had the most polarized reactions to the protests, with 34 per cent saying their impression is favourable and 32 per cent saying it is unfavourable.

- Carly Weeks points out that we may be facing shortages of needed medications simply because big pharma wants to phase out cheaping drugs for more expensive ones. Which should offer yet another reason as to why a public-sector manufacturer could do a world of good.

- The two stories are stunning enough on their own. But it's particularly galling to juxtapose the fact that employment insurance is becoming less and less accessible with the Cons' edict that the Office of Client Satisfaction that's supposed to address concerns is to be kept secret.

- Erin notes that Saskatchewan's election results don't change the fact that getting a reasonable return on our resources is a matter of competent management rather than politics alone.

- Finally, those of us interested in turning potential political involvement into the actual votes needed to bring about change may want to take a close look at Kevin Chief's example.