Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Melody Schreiber writes about the perfectly awful timing of Joe Biden's wrong-headed declaration that the COVID-19 pandemic is "over" even as a particularly damaging wave was cresting. And Troy Farah reports on new research showing that the treatments which previously offered some means of mitigating the effects after an individual was infected are no longer helping against the emerging variants. 

- Jim Stanford warns that the Bank of Canada is inflicting an entirely avoidable recession by failing to pay attention to the actual causes of inflated prices. And DT Cochrane studies how corporate Canada has avoided $30 billion in taxes even while profiteering at the expense of the public. 

- Meanwhile, Armine Yalnizyan warns against allowing the corporate powers that be to paint workers as the villains for seeking to have their pay keep up with the cost of living. And Stephen Magusiak points out that the list of disqualifying characteristics of UCP frontrunner Danielle Smith includes absolute contempt for service industry workers. 

- Matthew Cunningham-Cook and Ricardo Gomez discuss how Jackson, Mississippi's water crisis can be traced directly to Wall Street exploitation. And Adam Ramsay points out the predictable harm to the UK's economy and democracy arising from Liz Truss' choice to begin her stay in power with a blizzard of disaster capitalism, while Max Fawcett notes that the Cons are once again stubbornly refusing to learn anything from the damage wrought by their policy choices abroad. 

- Finally, Andrew Coyne writes that Quebec's election results provide one of the most glaring examples yet of the unfairness of a first-past-the-post electoral system. And Fawcett suggests that the federal NDP push Justin Trudeau to keep his long-broken promise of electoral reform as the price of continued support. 

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Dhruv Khullar interviews Ashish Jha about what's to come in the COVID-19 pandemic - including the desperate need for mitigation measures to reduce an unsustainable amount of spread. And Alexander Quon reports on the increase in COVID deaths in Saskatchewan from 2021 to 2022 even as the Moe government tries to pretend there's nothing left to see here. 

- Meanwhile, Greg Iacurci discusses how even the limited support working-class Americans received during the pandemic has changed their view of what's possible. 

- But Phillip Inman writes that central banks are fixated on suppressing wages even if the result is to collapse economic development altogether. And Heather Wright reports on the reality that increasing food prices aren't resulting in better returns for the farmers who produce it. 

- Amanda Follett Hosgood points out the disaster capitalism that's seeing the pandemic turned into a land grab and opportunity to push through environmentally devastating projects. 

- Finally, Supriya Dwivedi writes about the need for our political leaders to value a democratic electoral system, rather than looking to torque it beyond repair for personal gain. And Charlie Angus writes about the challenges of seeking to represent people who have removed themselves from any sense of shared reality. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Annie Lowrey writes about the long-term effects of the millennial generation facing a second economic shock in the years which would normally serve as the base for personal stability and growth.

- Polly Toynbee weighs in on the holes exposed in social safety nets by COVID-19, while recognizing that reality also raises the prospect of longstanding problems finally being remedied. And Amartya Sen likewise points out what lessons we should be taking for the development of access to food, health care and other necessities.

- But Morris Pearl and William Lazonick lament the U.S.' choice to funnel bailout money to the rich rather than offering any meaningful support to workers. And Patrick Falconer calls out Brian Pallister for taking a pandemic as an opportunity to inflict shock-doctrine cuts to non-profit service providers.

- Eric Grenier writes that a strong majority of Canadians recognize the need to ensure the coronavirus is under control, rather than having any interest in rushing back to the previous normal when lives are at stake. And Paul Krugman points out that the few voices demanding that we sacrifice lives to premature re-opening can be entirely ascribed to greed and misinformation.

- Sara Birrell comments on the emptiness of corporate declarations of friendship and social responsibility. And Tobias Klinge, Rodrigo Fernandez and Manuel Aalbers observe that we can't afford to let people's health be subordinated to pharmaceutical industry profiteering.

- Finally, David Webster discusses the Libs' choice to continue exporting violence and death to the Middle East. And Yves Engler criticizes the Trudeau government's willingness to again side with the Saudi regime against human rights.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Richard Partington discusses the rise of inequality and some of the options to combat it. And PressProgress points out the Parliamentary Budget Officer's conclusion that the NDP's plan for a wealth tax can turn money currently being hoarded by the ultra-rich into tens of billions of dollars in new revenue to help build a stronger Canada.

- Meanwhile, George Monbiot writes that the UK Cons are looking to push through Brexit primarily for the purposes of being able to use the shock to further enrich the wealthy. And Gillian Steward discusses the austerity in store for Alberta as Jason Kenney schemes to break his promise not to cut public services.

- Dana Brown examines the case for a public pharmaceutical manufacturer in the U.S. to ensure needed medications are affordable.

- Finally, Isabella O'Malley reports on the massive oil spill on Grand Bahama caused by Hurricane Dorian.

Tuesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Brad Delong writes that political choices - not a lack of resources - are responsible for the limited progress being made toward the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.

- Matt Bruenig weighs in on the U.S.' unprecedented levels of wealth inequality. And Bill Moyers comments on the vulture capitalists looking to turn Puerto Rico's disaster into an opportunity to enrich themselves.

- Tim McDonnell highlights how much of the new fossil fuel development in the U.S. produces profits only because of massive public subsidies. 

- Kathleen Harris and Elizabeth McSheffrey each report on Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand's conclusion that Canada is falling far short of translating climate policy into meaningful action. And Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook, Sander van der Linden, Tony Leiserowitz and Ed Maibach emphasize the importance of recognizing and acting on the scientific consensus around climate change.

- Finally, the Star's editorial board discusses the importance of a justice system which works on reintegrating prisoners into society, rather than setting people up to fail and reoffend.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Matt Bruenig examines who is living in poverty in the U.S. - and how policy choices result in many people who can't feasibly earn wages being stuck below the poverty line:

(C)hildren, elderly, disabled people, and students make up around 70 percent of the poor. If you add in carers and those already fully employed, the number goes to around 90 percent. There is room to activate some of these folks into the labor market, especially carers through the provision of child care and paid leave benefits. But for the most part, the poor are people who cannot and should not work.
...
(B)enefits already do a lot to hold down poverty. The official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.8 percent. Without benefits, it would have been 21 percent.

If we want to build on that kind of success, what we need to do is expand the coverage of the welfare state as well as the generosity of its benefits. Every child should get a modest monthly stipend paid to their parents. Minimum benefit levels for old-age and disability pensions should be increased. Students should get a living grant. Carers should get paid leave and caretaker allowances. Unemployed people should get higher benefits, and some minimum level of benefits should be available to new labor market entrants who have not yet secured a job. It is through these kinds of reforms that serious poverty reduction will ultimately be made.

Until we come to terms with the fact that market income distributions inherently leave out a massive swath of society, our system will continue to fail its poor people. Markets are not designed to get income to where it is needed. It is up to society to construct programs to do that.

- Michael Sisak and Emily Schmall report on a prime example of the U.S.' continued disaster capitalism, as FEMA has been selling off disaster trailers at cut-rate prices even as it's been scrambling to providing housing in responseto this summer's spate of hurricanes. And Josh Boak discusses how the Trump administration is pushing corporate tax giveaways in the face of abundant evidence they'll serve only to further enrich those who already have the most.

- Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood examines the state of NAFTA negotiations and concludes that there's no realistic prospect of reaching a meaningfully progressive agreement.

- Stephanie Taylor reports on the high rates of opioid poisoning in Regina and Saskatoon.

- Finally, Bruce Livesey reports on institutional racism and bigotry within CSIS and the RCMP which is both preventing them from addressing real threats, and resulting in the rendition and torture of innocent people based on their race and religion.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Naomi Klein offers her take on why we need to talk about climate change when its effects are most visible:

(E)very time we act as if an unprecedented weather event is hitting us out of the blue, as some sort of Act of God that no one foresaw, reporters are making a highly political decision. It’s a decision to spare feelings and avoid controversy at the expense of telling the truth, however difficult. Because the truth is that these events have long been predicted by climate scientists. Warmer oceans throw up more powerful storms. Higher sea levels mean those storms surge into places they never reached before. Hotter weather leads to extremes of precipitation: long dry periods interrupted by massive snow or rain dumps, rather than the steadier predictable patterns most of us grew up with.

The records being broken year after year — whether for drought, storm surges, wildfires, or just heat — are happening because the planet is markedly warmer than it has been since record-keeping began. Covering events like Harvey while ignoring those facts, failing to provide a platform to climate scientists who can make them plain, all while never mentioning President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accords, fails in the most basic duty of journalism: to provide important facts and relevant context. It leaves the public with the false impression that these are disasters without root causes, which also means that nothing could have been done to prevent them (and that nothing can be done now to prevent them from getting much worse in the future).
...
(T)he right will waste no time exploiting Harvey, and any other disaster like it, to peddle ruinous false solutions, such as militarized police, more oil and gas infrastructure, and privatized services. Which means there is a moral imperative for informed, caring people to name the real root causes behind this crisis — connecting the dots between climate pollution, systemic racism, underfunding of social services, and overfunding of police. We also need to seize the moment to lay out intersectional solutions, ones that dramatically lower emissions while battling all forms of inequality and injustice (something we have tried to lay out at The Leap and which groups, such as the Climate Justice Alliance, have been advancing for a long time.)

And it has to happen right now – precisely when the enormous human and economic costs of inaction are on full public display. If we fail, if we hesitate out of some misguided idea of what is and is not appropriate during a crisis, it leaves the door wide open for ruthless actors to exploit this disaster for predictable and nefarious ends.

- Noah Smith examines how the uneven ownership of assets - and particularly the concentration of stocks in the hands of the rich - exacerbates income and wealth inequality.

- Kevin Milligan examines the anticipated effects of closing tax loopholes for small businesses. And Michael Wolfson points out the problems with any attempt to paint equal taxation of money held in private corporations as an attack on doctors. 

- The Council of Canadians reveals the overwhelming public response in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

-  Amarnath Amarasingam and Ryan Scrivens discuss the need to acknowledge and respond to the rise of right-wing hate groups in Canada. And James Wilt calls out the corporate media for legitimizing an outlet dedicated to nothing else. 

- Finally, Robert Jago writes that John A. MacDonald's legacy is amply captured by the continuing discrimination facing Indigenous people in Canada - and that we should focus more on the action necessary to bring about reconciliation for the present and future.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Naomi Klein highlights how capital and power combine to turn disasters into profit-making opportunities - while noting that the Trump presidency is just such a disaster. And Linda McQuaig discusses why we should see the income tax and other collective funding mechanisms as an important step in nation-building.

- Don Pittis writes that a focus on raw job numbers misses the important question as to whether any particular job is actually livable. And Jason Moyer-Lee points out that many of the attempts to avoid employment regulations through "gig" arrangements or other contractual contortions should be expected to fail as soon as governments enforce the laws already on the books.

- Meanwhile, BlueGreen Canada points out that plenty of desirable jobs are at stake based on the federal government's choice as to whether to enforce methane regulations - but it's a failure to properly regulate dangerous greenhouse gases that would leave thousands out of work. 

- Bill Curry takes note of the Australian model which forms the basis for the Libs' privatized infrastructure plan - as well as the fact that Australia itself is backtracking after realizing the dangers of putting profits ahead of public service.

- Finally, Stephanie Taylor and Jacques Marcoux report that the City of Regina's idea of "revitalization" involves putting housing ten times closer to operational railway tracks than is recommended.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Paul Krugman draws a much-needed connection between austerity politics and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine:

What Smith didn’t note, somewhat surprisingly, is that his argument is very close to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, with its argument that elites systematically exploit disasters to push through neoliberal policies even if these policies are essentially irrelevant to the sources of disaster. I have to admit that I was predisposed to dislike Klein’s book when it came out, probably out of professional turf-defending and whatever — but her thesis really helps explain a lot about what’s going on in Europe in particular.

And the lineage goes back even further. Two and a half years ago Mike Konczal reminded us of a classic 1943 (!) essay by Michal Kalecki, who suggested that business interests hate Keynesian economics because they fear that it might work — and in so doing mean that politicians would no longer have to abase themselves before businessmen in the name of preserving confidence. This is pretty close to the argument that we must have austerity, because stimulus might remove the incentive for structural reform that, you guessed it, gives businesses the confidence they need before deigning to produce recovery.

And sure enough, in my inbox this morning I see a piece more or less deploring the early signs of success for Abenomics: Abenomics is working — but it had better not work too well. Because if it works, how will we get structural reform?

So one way to see the drive for austerity is as an application of a sort of reverse Hippocratic oath: “First, do nothing to mitigate harm”. For the people must suffer if neoliberal reforms are to prosper.

- Meanwhile, Esther Hsieh writes that Norway's rejection of laissez-faire economics has resulted in the most productive economy on the planet - with social support for skilled workers (such as universal child care) and income equality serving as key drivers of that economic success. And the Canadian Institute for Health Information observes that universal public health care serves as an important form of income equalization in Canada.

- Michael Byers and Purple Library Guy each offer an assessment of the lessons to be drawn from British Columbia's election results. And Alison reminds us what Christy Clark has sounded like when she hasn't been trying to neutralize her party's penchant for environmental destruction.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom recognizes that the problems with Canada's Senate go far beyond Mike Duffy. And Michael Harris notes that the scandal surrounding Duffy includes Stephen Harper and his inner circle (no matter how much they scramble to escape accountability now):

But we do not live in a better world, we live in this one. Stephen Harper’s inclination is to make up the rules as he goes along. I for one do not see this as loyalty to his minions, but rather as a show of power. When, for example, the ethics commissioner has caught a cabinet minister or two in a breach of the rules, the PM has been known to simply dismiss the finding. The cases of Christian Paradis and Jim Flaherty come to mind.

So Harper’s initial instinct was to save Duffy. He began that process by taking the public on a mind-numbing sojourn into the rules and regulations of the Senate. He used the escape clause of the Deloitte audit, that by Senate definition, knowing where you live is a brain-twister. And he has never had a problem dismissing the ethical part of any problem if it collided with his agenda. Look what he did to Kevin Page for the high crime of outing the PM’s lie over the cost of the F-35s.

But dry-cleaning Duffy quickly turned into a sticky proposition. For one thing, this one has gone right up the nose of the public and people are gagging. And then there are those two mutually exclusive stories about how the senator’s debts were paid off.

...

One enduring question is this: Why did Nigel Wright bail out Mike Duffy before the sharp pencil boys from Deloitte had even finished their damning audit?

But there is an even bigger issue. If Stephen Harper doesn’t see anything wrong with his chief of staff making a $90,000 gift to a sitting Conservative senator engulfed in scandal, is there anything he wouldn’t endorse for partisan gain?

On unshared sacrifices

The decree has gone out: voters in the Atlantic provinces have no choice but to accept a decline in public services in order to cut down on government deficit and debt. But surely they can take solace in that fact that everybody is pitching in, right?