Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Roderick Benns points out the disruptive effect of the cancellation of Ontario's basic income trial - signalling the importance of being able to plan on a stable source of income. And Jessica Chin reports on an anticipated wave of renovictions to push tenants out of their homes in an effort to goose property rents.

- George Monbiot discusses the devastating health effects of air pollution - and the roadblocks the fossil fuel lobby has put up to try to avoid a shift toward cleaner air and improved public health. But Umair Irfan notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Exxon's attempt to suppress its own knowledge of the dangers of climate change now that some states are seeking to hold it accountable.

- Tom Parkin highlights how the Libs are more focused on playing games with by-elections than on accomplishing anything progressive voters would have expected from them as a government. And Murray Mandryk contrasts Scott Moe's words about the Sixties Scoop against his continued refusal to work even on such basic injustices as the systematic removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities.

- Finally, Seth Klein writes about the need to move past cynicism and participate in building the change which people both want and need:

(T)he truth is any of us as progressive activists, with the courage to see the world as it is and the conviction to seek to remake the world as it should be, walk a razor’s edge between hope and despair. We feel and know both. And maybe we should be more open about that.

And yet, I do see hope. I see it in the slow but sure progress of our movements. I see it in our research, which tells us that the world we want is possible given the political will. I see it in the activism and good will of people I’ve gotten to meet around the province in this job. I see it in the values of our fellow British Columbians and Canadians. From time to time, we at CCPA do polling on values (not much, it’s expensive). And when we do I’m always struck that, as a society, whenever we are given a choice between a private gain like a tax cut and a public good like spending on enhanced public services or tacking homelessness and poverty, for most people, the public good wins every time.

And so, here’s what I believe after 22 years in this job: the values of British Columbians are — in the main — good and progressive and caring. We just need a politics that allows people to give those positive values proper expression.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your year-end reading.

- Kenan Malik comments on the many forms of classism. And Roderick Benns examines how Ontario's basic income recipients were able to make use of their increased income security - including by spending more time with friends, with family and volunteering in their communities.

- Susan writes about the distinction between an Alberta NDP government which treats people with dignity and respect, and Jason Kenney's UCP which goes out of its way to try to strip anything of the sort from minority group members.

- David Leonhardt discusses the fundamental importance of climate change compared to every other area of public policy debate.

- Finally, Sonia Sodha writes that rather than accepting the food industry's spin on health regulations as reflecting an excessive nanny state, we should be concerned about the unhealthy diet we're pushed to eat by corporate giants:

“What about our free will?” the anti-nanny-staters will cry at the idea of forcing manufacturers to act. But we don’t see people with placards in the street protesting against the thwarting of our right to eat a slice of bread with as much salt as a packet of crisps. The beauty of food reformulation is that because it happens gradually, our palates adjust and we simply don’t notice that certain foods are 30% less salty than a decade ago.

The free-will question needs turning on its head. The dirty secret at the heart of the food industry is that the deliciously unhealthy stuff – fat, sugar, salt – is also cheap. Cram foods full of them and it’s not only consumers who love them, but shareholders. And this, together with changing eating habits, including the popularity of ready meals and eating out, has driven up the unhealthiness of our food over time. As the food that lines supermarket shelves gets fattier, saltier and more sugary, our palates are reconditioned to crave more of it. There’s no free choice about the industry reshaping our tastes to benefit its profit margins without us even realising.

That’s why it’s not just the usual suspects who are arguing for a compulsory approach, but some industry voices as well, including the British Retail Consortium. They know that unless all food manufacturers are forced to play by the rules, progress will be limited as even responsible manufacturers are held back by first-mover disadvantage.

That won’t stop the libertarians crying foul. Perhaps what motivates some of them is a belief that this is all about individual willpower, a disdain for people just too greedy to leave some of their dinner on their plate. But it’s not Christmas levels of gluttony primarily driving our obesity crisis. An irresponsible food industry has got a lot of lives to answer for.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Linda Solomon Wood writes that Canadians need to be wary of fake news being propagated in our midst:

(W)e face a continuous, deliberate, planned assault on the truth. Not just on the facts themselves, but on truth as an idea. On truth as a value worth defending. And for those who believe in that value, for those who believe the pursuit of truth is in any way sacred, this is war. “Fake news” is a tactic, not a strategy. The strategy is to:

• undermine our trust in democratic institutions
  
• undermine our trust in sources of information
  
• and undermine our trust in each other
  
• and to put whole nations under its spell.
  

Fake news is the tool of choice for authoritarians. Authoritarianism and hate have something in common: a simple, dramatic story. The truth will always be messier. To prevail, truth needs space and focused attention. And this work, this war, needs skilled storytellers, thousands and thousands of trained journalists, who are experienced and compassionate, and people like you, who will subscribe to and pay for real news. We need journalists more than ever to tell good, honest stories that let us better know each other. It will take thousands of journalists empowered by millions of readers. It will take a tsunami of truth.

- Bob Mackin examines yet another astroturf arrangement being set up by the B.C. Libs' big-money backers. And David Climenhaga notes that it's hard to tell outside agitation from homegrown right-wingers when it comes to yet another tiresome spiel about Alberta separatism.

- Tom Parkin writes that there's nothing new in the Libs' attacks on labour rights - and that the latest attempt to squelch the right to strike doesn't figure to end any better than the Cons' versions.

- Alex Paterson discusses the economic and human costs of poverty in Canada. And Roderick Benns points out the positive effects of a basic income in reducing stress and anxiety.

- Finally, Lisa Girion exposes the link between baby powder and asbestos - and how decades of children were put at risk by a corporate actor with no regard for legal obligations or public interests.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Jerry Dias writes that a new year has already seen far too many examples of corporate greed rampaging out of control. Elizabeth Bruenig highlights the contrasting treatment of poor people who face increasingly stringent requirements to access even meager benefits, and the wealthy who are being handed billions for doing nothing. And Elizabeth Kolbert discusses the psychological underpinnings of inequality - including the predictable harm done to people who face less than fair treatment.

- Meanwhile, Roderick Benns looks at some early data on Ontario's basic income pilot which shows low-income workers as the primary registrants so far.

- Philip Oltermann reports on the push by German workers for reduced hours in a standard work week.

- Danyaal Raza weighs in on the need for plasma collection to serve the public interest, not a profit motive. And Melissa Davey discusses the possibility of a sugar tax to raise revenue and improve public health.

- Finally, Zach Dubinsky compares the effects of the Panama Papers on tax enforcement in several countries, and notes that Canada is far behind our international peers in recouping money sent offshore.

Saturday Afternoon Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses how the Republican's trillion-dollar corporate giveaway will only exacerbate inequality without doing anything to help the U.S.' economy:

If inequality was a problem before, enacting the Republicans’ proposed tax reform will make it much worse.

Corporations and businesses will be among the big beneficiaries, a bias justified on the grounds that this will stimulate the economy. But Republicans, of all people, should understand that incentives matter: it would be far better to reduce taxes for those companies that invest in America and create jobs, and increase taxes for those that don’t.

After all, it is not as if America’s large corporations were starved for cash; they are sitting on a couple of trillion dollars. And the lack of investment is not because profits, either before or after tax, are too low; after-tax corporate profits as a share of GDP have almost tripled in the last 30 years.

Indeed, with incremental investment largely financed by debt, and interest payments being tax-deductible, the corporate tax lowers the cost of capital and the returns to investment commensurately. Thus, neither theory nor evidence suggests that the Republicans’ proposed corporate tax giveaway will increase investment or employment.
...

An alternative framework would increase revenues and boost growth. It would include real corporate-tax reform, eliminating the tricks that allow some of the world’s largest companies to pay miniscule taxes, in some cases far less than 5% of their profits, giving them an unfair advantage over small local businesses. It would establish a minimum tax and eliminate the special treatment of capital gains and dividends, compelling the very rich to pay at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as other citizens. And it would introduce a carbon tax, to help accelerate the transition to a green economy.

Tax policy can also be used to shape the economy. In addition to offering benefits to those who invest, carry out research, and create jobs, higher taxes on land and real-estate speculation would redirect capital toward productivity-enhancing spending – the key to long-term improvement in living standards.

An administration of plutocrats – most of whom gained their wealth from rent-seeking activities, rather than from productive entrepreneurship – could be expected to reward themselves. But the Republicans’ proposed tax reform is a bigger gift to corporations and the ultra-rich than most had anticipated. It avoids necessary reforms and would leave the country with a mountain of debt; the consequences – low investment, stalled productivity growth, and yawning inequality – would take decades to undo.

- And PressProgress examines how the Cons are trying to mislead Canadians about even the smallest steps toward tax fairness.

- Roderick Benns comments on the first report from Ontario's basic income pilot project, including the fact that many employed people are signing up for income support.

- Armine Yalnizyan and Chris Disdale highlight how the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was used to exploit workers willing to pay for the opportunity to live in Canada. Nicholas Keung reports on the plight of migrant workers who are still treated as "temporary" after decades of hard work. And Astra Taylor interviews Jessica Bruder about the growing number of people dealing with precarious work and lives into retirement age in the U.S.

- Finally, Paul Buchheit writes that privatization is a disaster for any hope of democratic governance over public services and institutions.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Penney Kome raises the question of who will be responsible for the damage wrought by climate change. And Trish Audette-Longo reports that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is set to start examining how human behaviour contributes to, and is affected by, a changing climate.

- But Adam Klesfeld notes that the IMF looks to be enforcing about the least fair assignment of responsibility possible by squeezing Barbuda at a time when it faces the need to rebuild from Hurricane Irma. And Jonathan Ford discusses how privatized water infrastructure in the UK seems aimed at little more than extracting money from citizens.

- Stephen Gordon points out how a lack of awareness as to how privileged Canada's upper middle class is contributes to an unduly narrow public discourse, while Heather Mallick notes that more progressive taxes on the wealthy are generally a political winner as well as desirable public policy. Paul Willcocks discusses how easily-exploited loopholes make it impossible to develop a fair tax system. And the Canadian Labour Congress applauds the Libs' first step in dealing with a few particularly glaring ones - while pointing out the need to go much further, including by keeping their promise to end the stock option loophole.

- Meanwhile, Shannon Rohan and Kevin Thomas write that the business lobby which is attacking a fair minimum wage is missing the forest for the trees in arguing against wages which can support a stronger economy.

- Aruna Dhara writes that Canada can learn from Australia's example in establish a national pharmacare plan.

- Finally, Roderick Benns interviews Gary Bloch about the value of a basic income in overcoming both structural barriers to access to income, and stereotypes which result in poverty being seen as acceptable.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Danny Dorling wonders whether we've finally reached the point of shifting toward greater income equality, while noting the uncertainty in trying to assess pay ratios.

- Kevin Carmichael discusses how homeownership is getting pushed further and further out of the reach of young Canadian workers. And Edgardo Sepulveda writes that rent too is becoming less and less manageable for lower-income households.

- Roderick Benns talks to Danielle Martin about the role a basic income can play in ensuring everybody is able to live a decent life. And Andrew Taylor interviews Rutger Bregman about the possibility of a 15-hour work week to ensure people have time for what's truly valuable:

Bregman's notion of a shorter work week is not designed to provide more time to sit on the couch massaging the remote control.

"When I talk about the 15-hour work week, I'm talking about doing less paid work that we don't really care about so that we can do more things that are actually valuable," he said. "Whether it's volunteer work or caring for our kids or elderly. We need to update our idea of what work is."

He said shortening the work week, in tandem with implementing a universal basic income, would offer people the freedom to decide what to do with their life while providing a level of financial security.

Bregman said working fewer hours would reduce stress and workplace accidents. He also said countries with shorter working weeks had less income inequality and greater gender equality.

- Finally, Brent Patterson calls out the Libs' silence on prescription drug affordability as NAFTA negotiations threaten the public's access to needed medications.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Danielle Martin highlights how investments in ending poverty including a basic income can improve health outcomes among other key social indicators:

Far more than consumption of medical care, income is the strongest predictor of health. Canadians are more likely to die at an earlier age and suffer more illnesses if they are in a low income bracket, regardless of age, sex, race, and place of residence.

There are at least two ways in which income is related to health. First, income allows people to purchase the things that are necessary to survive and thrive, such as nutritious food and safe shelter. Second, income affects health indirectly, through its effect on social participation and the ability to control life circumstances. Put another way, the biggest disease that needs to be cured in Canada is the disease of poverty, and part of the cure is to implement a big idea: A Basic Income Guarantee for all Canadians.

We can eliminate income poverty by ensuring that no one in Canada has an income below what’s needed to achieve a basic standard of living. If we did so, we’d see a considerable improvement in the health of Canadians. The Basic Income Guarantee goes by various names (such as the guaranteed annual income, the negative income tax, and the basic income), and there are different ways to design it. The version I like best works like this: if your income from all sources falls below a certain level, you get topped up to a level sufficient to meet basic needs. That’s it. A true Basic Income Guarantee would ensure that everyone in Canada has an income above the “poverty line.”

The Basic Income Guarantee can’t and mustn’t replace all social programs. We still need good public education, publicly financed health care, quality affordable child care, affordable housing, and reliable unemployment insurance. But it would eliminate the need for the kinds of income support programs that invade people’s lives and limit their choices.

- And Robin Boadway and Roderick Benns similarly argue that a basic income should be included in our set of fundamental needs in setting labour policy - though we shouldn't pretend it's a complete solution to the problems facing workers either. 

- Joseph Stiglitz discusses how workers stand to lose out from Donald Trump's combination of trickle-down and crank economics. And Alan Blinder and Alan Krueger note that Trump's preference for corporate deal-making is likely to ensure that the most important work in building and maintaining necessary but unglamourous infrastructure doesn't get done.

- The Star rightly points out that we shouldn't use prison as a solution to individuals' mental health problems.

- Tamara Khandaker writes that the Libs' idea of reexamining the already-appalling civil rights abuses in Bill C-51 seems to be to push an even more intrusive and unaccountable surveillance state.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg observes that Justin Trudeau may be creating far larger risks for himself by passing up a clear opportunity for electoral reform, rather than working with the consensus in favour of a proportional electoral system. And PressProgress muses as to what an electoral reform survey would look like if it were designed to be as slanted as the Libs', only in the opposite direction.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Stephen Hawking discusses the urgent need to address inequality and environmental destruction as people are both more fearful for their futures, and more aware of what's being taken away from them:

(T)he lives of the richest people in the most prosperous parts of the world are agonisingly visible to anyone, however poor, who has access to a phone. And since there are now more people with a telephone than access to clean water in sub-Saharan Africa, this will shortly mean nearly everyone on our increasingly crowded planet will not be able to escape the inequality.

The consequences of this are plain to see: the rural poor flock to cities, to shanty towns, driven by hope. And then often, finding that the Instagram nirvana is not available there, they seek it overseas, joining the ever greater numbers of economic migrants in search of a better life. These migrants in turn place new demands on the infrastructures and economies of the countries in which they arrive, undermining tolerance and further fuelling political populism.

For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges: climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species, epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.

Together, they are a reminder that we are at the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity. We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it. Perhaps in a few hundred years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only have one planet, and we need to work together to protect it.

To do that, we need to break down, not build up, barriers within and between nations. If we are to stand a chance of doing that, the world’s leaders need to acknowledge that they have failed and are failing the many. With resources increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present.

- Adnan Al-Daini discusses how market dogmatism is affecting every facet of our society. And Noah Smith reminds us that some the economic theories used have been entirely falsified by real-world evidence.

- Roderick Benns highlights how a well-designed basic income could substantially improve the personal security of the people now at the most risk. But John Clarke warns against settling for an austerian model which treats an insufficient basic income as a substitute for fair wages and needed social supports.

- Bruce Cheadle reports on the International Institute for Sustainable Development's new research showing that Canada's economy is grossly overreliant on fossil fuels, as nearly all of our development has been oriented toward extracting dirty and limited resources rather than developing and applying human capital.

- Finally, Janyce McGregor reports on how the CETA and other trade agreements are designed to increase prescription drug costs - without any effort being made to assess what the price tag will be. But Kelly Crowe and Darryl Hol do note that without much fanfare, Parliament is studying a national pharmacare plan which could both reduce direct drug costs, and significantly improve health outcomes.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Neil Irwin examines one of the key ideas underlying the U.S. Democrats' economic plans, being that workers need to have meaningful choices rather than being trapped by a limited and slanted set of available employers and work structures:

Labor market monopsony is the idea that when there isn’t enough competition among businesses, it is bad news for workers. When an industry includes only a few big companies, they don’t have to compete with one another as hard to attract employees — and so end up paying their workers less than they would if there were true competition. It’s the flip side of how monopoly power lets companies charge higher prices to consumers.
...

The talk of monopsony is part of a shift in the policy tools that many left-of-center economic thinkers see as most promising for addressing the economic challenges of poor and middle-class Americans. Rather than focusing on policies that amount to redistribution — tax rates, the social welfare system — they are looking at how the rules of the economic game shape people’s outcomes.

Some use a term for this set of policies coined by the Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker: predistribution policy. This is policy that shapes how the market works in the first place, as opposed to redistribution policy, which assumes a free market will generate growth and then uses taxes and spending to give a lift to the economy’s losers.

...
Besides the monopsony research, the Obama White House has focused on evidence that inequality is fueled by a shift away from labor unions and by corporate consolidation within industries.

Elsewhere, the Roosevelt Institute, a think tank in New York, has explored the interplay between the outsize growth of the financial industry and pay for top corporate executives and the slow growth in the typical worker’s wages. And last week, the Washington Center for Equitable Growth issued recommended strategies for the next administration, which included ensuring that the minimum wage covers workers who depend on tips, and making sure that modern supply chains do not inhibit the creation of good jobs.

... 

Many of the policies under discussion — a higher minimum wage, or tougher antitrust enforcement — have long been supported by liberal economists and politicians. What has changed is that they are being emphasized as a first-order set of priorities, and as part of a unified body of work.

- Emma Teitel discusses new research showing that the gap in opportunity between generations can't be explained by differences in work ethic - as in fact, millenials are more willing than their baby-boomer predecessors to put work first. And Angella MacEwen comments on a joint effort to propose a more fair system of employment leave for today's workers.

- Laurie Monsebraaten reports on the structure of the Ontario basic income pilot project proposed by Hugh Segal. And Roderick Benns highlights the indicators which will signal the success of the concept.

- Mainstreet Research finds that a strong majority of Saskatchewan respondents want to see major changes to the province's political financing rules. And the Canadian Press reports that the Saskatchewan NDP is working to make those changes a reality despite the foot-dragging of a Wall government determined to keep the out-of-province donation taps flowing.

- Finally, Brett Dolter examines how Brad Wall's white paper is anything but a credible climate change plan - as it relies on little but cherry-picked assumptions and bluster to paper over a commitment to fighting against progress. And Bruce Johnstone writes that there's no reason to take Wall's posturing toward the federal government seriously. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Ian Welsh discusses the attitude of meanness underlying so much of the U.S.' political and cultural scene.

- Ryan Meili and Adrienne Silnicki write about the dangers of relying on paid plasma donations. And Alexa Huffman and Whitney Stinson report that the Sask Party's obsession with cutting public services has pushed Regina's hospital system beyond its capacity.

- On the bright side, Carol Goar observes that the Cons' lack of compassion toward refugees led some in the medical profession to take on a more activist role than they'd done previously - which could produce lasting benefits even as the Harper cuts are reversed. But Catherine Rolfsen notes that there's still a long way to go in meeting the needs of the new refugees arriving in Canada.

- Debra McAuslan talks to Roderick Benns about the social benefits of a basic income. And Teuila Fuatai points out that employers can benefit significantly from a living wage.

- Finally, Peter Zimonjoc reports on some of the "disruption" CSIS has already started to engage in since Bill C-51 was passed. And Ian MacLeod highlights a decade of illegal sharing of metadata by the Communications Security Establishment - which we should see as an entirely expected outcome when a secretive security apparatus has substantial power and no effective accountability.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Chris Harper highlights a few of the factors necessary to help boost the long-term health of children:

First, Antonovsky found that whatever stresses you encounter must be comprehensible. Children, for example, must have the basic understanding that an action will often have a predictable, stable reaction. Imagine how difficult this must be when moving homes constantly or not having one at all. In 2010, 52 per cent of single-mother households in Canada with children under six years of age were living in unstable housing. Just last year, by the age of seven, 7.5 per cent of children in Manitoba had been placed in some form of foster care. How can we expect children to comprehend stress when they don't even have a home base in which to do it?

Secondly, children must have the basic tools to see challenges as inevitable yet manageable. For example, one in six Canadian children have vision problems interfering with their ability to read, yet despite our "universal" health care, just 14 per cent receive professional eye care before first grade. I would imagine it's a lot easier to break the cycle of poverty when you're able to see the blackboard.

Finally, children must be able to find things meaningful. To thrive, it's pivotal that children have the opportunity to find satisfaction and a sense of purpose. Sadly, even that isn't guaranteed.
...

So what do our policy makers and politicians need to do in real terms?

Build an effective national housing strategy so kids have a place to call home, institute comprehensive pre-school vision screening across the country so classrooms can have their full impact and cut red tape for First Nations children by committing to Jordan's Principle.

Isn't it time we put children's long-term health and wellness on the national agenda?

- Roderick Benns discusses how a basic income would serve as a launching pad for people whose best immediate option is temporary work - in contrast to the trap set by more restrictive social programs.

- Richard Kahlenberg comments on the connection between strong unions and a vibrant democracy. And conversely, Lydia DePillis points out that the middle class in particular suffers when unions come under political attack.

- Finally, Jeff Sallot writes that only misguided fear is holding us back from electoral reform. And Andrew Coyne reminds us of the warped incentives at the core of first-past-the-post:

The nature of winner-take-all systems, moreover, is that they are highly leveraged: A comparatively small shift in the popular vote often results in hugely disproportionate swings in the number of seats a party wins. Politicians are by nature risk averse. Consequently there is little incentive for parties to take chances aimed at expanding their support, for example by staking out new or distinctive policy positions — for they might just as well see it shrink. Instead they tend to hug the middle for long stretches, save for a few wedge issues aimed at a relatively small number of “swing” voters, which they trot out at election time.

In sum, the present system gives rise to false and exaggerated majorities, discriminates among voters, rewards regionally divisive parties and polarizing political strategies, strands many voters in “safe” ridings and wastes the votes of many others.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Hugh MacKenzie reminds us how quickly Canada's richest CEOs will exceed the income of the average Canadian worker on the year's first work day. And James Surowiecki takes a look at how the U.S.' corporate sector is fleeing any social obligations by sending profits offshore. 

- Stephen Kimber rightly slams the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies for demanding austerity which will only make a stagnant economy even worse.

- Roderick Benns suggests that Canada take the lead in developing a basic income to combat inequality at home and set an example for the rest of the world.

- Eric Doherty points out that any new infrastructure program will have significant consequences for our ability to rein in climate change - and there's reason to worry the Libs will focus on projects which make matters worse. And Evan Herrnstadt and Erich Muehlegger study (PDF) a connection between air pollution and violent crime.

- Finally, Scott Gilmore highlights the rarity of terrorist violence compared to far more significant risks:

In France, cervical cancer is seven times more lethal than terrorism, but Hollande would be ridiculed for convening a special session of parliament to address that threat. In the U.S., you are 28 times more likely to be shot by a policeman than by a terrorist. But that’s a problem the Republican primaries won’t be debating. And the murder rate in Edmonton is almost twice that in Paris. Although I suspect the pitiable school trustees lack the math skills required to decipher “homicides per 100,000 people per annum,” or the common sense to know what to do with that information.
...
In the New Year, learn to ignore the primal fears in your brain and relax. Remind yourself that you’re safe; safer than you were last year and every year before that. But remember that others, people in the Middle East and Africa, aren’t. And don’t let your politicians go on about how they’re going to protect us; demand to know what they’re doing to protect those less fortunate than us. Also, please check in with your doctor. Cancer is several thousand times more likely to kill you than a suicide bomber.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Tom Bawden notes that inequality is as much a problem in our relative contribution to climate change as it is in so many other areas of life. And Steven Rosenfeld lists some of the ways in which the increasingly-wealthy few are making life worse for everybody else in the U.S.:

The super-rich are more politically active than average Americans, financing and contacting elected officials and knowing many on a first-name basis. Their agenda, which is often cited by public officials across the country, emphasizes private profit-making and is skeptical of almost every public program to address economic inequality, the study by Chicago-based university researchers found. The top 1 percent’s social agenda, while “more liberal than others on religious and moral issues, including abortion, gay rights, and prayer in school,” is still “much more conservative than the non-affluent on issues of taxes, economic regulation, and social welfare,” the researchers found.

Put another way, today’s top 1 percent generally do not believe the longtime conservative line that a rising economic tide will lift all Americans, but have a darker view in which one’s fate is tied to the survival of the fittest. They consider climate change a non-issue and most would cut federal and state safety nets and anti-poverty programs, shift taxpayer dollars into privatized education and do little to ensure access to higher education.

“We speculate that the striking contrast concerning core social welfare programs between our wealthy respondents and the general public may reveal something important about the current state of American politics,” the report says. “If wealthy Americans wield an extra measure of influence over policy making, and if they strongly favor deficit reductions through spending cuts—including cuts in Social Security and Medicare—this may help explain why a number of public officials have advocated deep cuts in the very social welfare programs that are most popular among ordinary Americans.”

- Mike Moffatt writes that there's plenty our governments can do to ensure that wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, but that it will take significant political will to take the necessary steps.

- The OECD documents how tax contributions have changed over the past decade - with corporate taxes in particular plummeting (contrary to the promise that tax cuts will pay for themselves) while individuals pick up the slack. And Alexandra Posadzki reports that bank profits alone seem to be skyrocketing even as the rest of our economy largely stagnates.

- Roderick Benns argues that our next major national project should be a basic income. And David Gratzer suggests that we should work on eradicating homelessness.

- Meanwhile, Ben Walsh highlights the need for far more investment in avoiding catastrophic climate change. And Martin Lukacs challenges Justin Trudeau to follow up on his shiny climate rhetoric with action.

- Finally, Ed Broadbent follows up on this week's show of public support by making the case for a a more proportional electoral system rather than an even more distorted ranked-ballot version. And Dylan Penner also weighs in to support proportional representation.

[Edit: fixed typo in excerpt.]