Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Umair Haque writes about the implications of facing a deliberate decline in both environmental and economic well-being for the sole purpose of facilitating the short-term extraction of profits. Daniel Gilbert, Todd Frankel and Joseph Menn report on Silicon Valley Bank's choice to discard any risk modeling that accurately pointed out the dangers of its lending strategy before its collapse. Bryce Covert weighs in on how the Federal Reserve's determination to squelch economic and wage growth (but not the profiteering which is the actual cause of inflation) represents little more than class war against workers. And Peter Hannam reports on a study showing how Australia's tax system has been set up to make taxpayers fund inheritances for the super-wealthy at the expense of social programs and benefits. 

- Zia Weise and Federica Di Sario report on Antonio Gutteres' call for wealthy countries to accelerate their commitments to stop emitting carbon pollution. Geoff Dembicki's Senate testimony highlights the need to investigate the fraud of the fossil fuel sector in sowing doubt about science that it knew to be accurate. Yves Smith discusses why market fundamentalism is utterly incompatible with averting climate breakdown. And Stephanie Roe offers a reminder of the ways to help at the individual level - even if they need to be paired with major systemic progress. 

- Euan Thomson and Petra Schulz comment on Pierre Poilievre's rage farming in the face of any empirical reality when it comes to harm reduction - though of course the principle applies to all kinds of policy areas. 

- Shawn Micallef points out John Tory's grim legacy as the mayor of Toronto bent on impeding any social progress in the name of austerity while still harming the city's finances in the process. And Mario Canseco discusses new polling showing that a strong majority of Canadians favour 15-minute cities and the underlying principle of accessible communities (even in the face of the petro-right's rage machine). 

- Finally, John Sewell writes that anybody actually wanting to reduce crime (rather than stoking an environment of fear) should be working on ensuring people have the necessities of life, rather than pouring money into arming police forces. 

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Leyland Cecco discusses how a combination of feckless government and decades of carefully-stoked anti-science sentiment has turned Alberta into North America's COVID-19 hot spot, while Max Fawcett writes that Jason Kenney's response has been the picture of cowardice. 

- Ediriweera Desapriya, Parisa Khoshpouri and Kamal Gunatunge write that the risks of long-haul COVID in particular highlight the important of ensuring that people get vaccinated, while John Michael McGrath makes the case to pay people to do so. But Yves Smith takes note of the reality in the Seychelles, where one of the world's highest rates of full vaccination is doing little to stop the spread of variants. And Allison Bamford talks to Kyle Anderson about the flaws in Scott Moe's reopening plan which cuts ongoing transmission and its impact on health out of the picture entirely.

- Andrea Reimer examines the psychology behind the propensity of people with power to use it foolishly and anti-socially. And Mitchell Thompson writes about the strike-breakers' playbook used to intimidate workers into abandoning efforts at collective bargaining.

- Benjamin Storrow exposes how actors in the natural gas sector are conspiring to delay the electrification needed as part of a just transition to a clean energy economy. And Jim Stanford highlights how Canada's progressive union movement is well ahead of the curve in fighting for a sustainable economy with good jobs.

- Finally, Linda McQuaig writes about the need for the Trudeau Libs to go beyond merely pushing back against deficit hawks, and also ensure that their use of public money serves to improve the lives of people rather than relying on discredited trickle-down theory.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Owen Jones offers his take on how the UK's Labour Party should proceed following Jeremy Corbyn's most recent leadership victory - and while the exact circumstances may not apply to the NDP's upcoming leadership campaigns, his ideas as to how to combine the interests of base supporters and softer voters are well worth keeping in mind. And Jeremy Nuttall discusses Niki Ashton's continuing efforts to advance one of Jones' ideas by giving millenial workers a voice in an economy currently designed to exploit them.

- Yves Smith highlights the gross falsehood of corporate spin trying to push for even lesser business contributions to the society that makes profits possible.

- Tim Richter and Ryan Meili rightly argue that Canada's housing crisis should be seen as a public health emergency. And the Times Colonist highlights the importance of better addressing homelessness and housing issues in Victoria in particular.

- Duncan Pike points out why anybody concerned about an intrusive surveillance state should take the time to weigh in on the federal government's security consultations. And Brendan O'Connor reports on the equally-worrisome and rapidly-growing use of private surveillance the U.S. (largely supported by public funding).

- Finally, Murray Mandryk offers a handy example of "make it awkward" in action by calling out Brad Trost's regressive Conservative leadership campaign.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Paul Edwards discusses the availability of a gradual transition to clean energy while avoiding more than 2 degrees of climate change - but only if we start swapping out fossil fuels for renewable energy now. And Christopher Grainger argues that a space race-style approach to research and development represents a necessary part of the transition we should be pursuing:

Carbon lock-in is one of the key insights of recent work in “directed technical change” by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues. They find the most cost-effective way to address climate change is early action on both fronts: pricing carbon and supporting low-carbon innovation. Acemoglu and co differ from traditional economic models of climate change by properly considering how new technology emerges, instead of treating it as an “exogenous” process that suddenly arrives like manna from heaven.

Early policy intervention is crucial. It can change the path of innovation from “dirty” (carbon-intensive) to “clean” (low-carbon) and then once clean innovation gains a sufficient advantage it can be left alone, as profit-maximising firms will pursue clean innovation in their own interests.
...
If markets left to themselves will continue to merely pump out “innovations” along certain pathways, then it is up to the state to play a more direct role in starting a “greentech” revolution. Mariana Mazzucato, in her book The Entrepreneurial State, argues that major advances in tech from the internet to nanotechnology to pharmaceuticals were born either directly from government research or because governments made the risky investments necessary for the private sector to act.

The good news is that not all money is the same, and those behind Mission Innovation and the Breakthrough Energy Coalition seem to have read Mazzucato. They explicitly reference “patient capital” which can reduce the risk of uncertain technological investments. There is no question this is a major step in the right direction.

Governments certainly need to price carbon, but they should also act as entrepreneurs and market-creators to kickstart innovation for the green growth of the future. If we are underspending on this by orders of magnitude, then doubling is not nearly enough.

- Justin Fisher laments Brad Wall's continued determination to be an obstacle in the way of any progress. David Turnbull points out how much more is being spent on fossil fuel subsidies than on the latest round of climate change funding promises. And George Monbiot compares the UK Cons' cavalier attitude toward climate change to their eagerness to engage in war.

- Yves Smith weighs in on the futility of expecting economic growth out of corporate tax slashing. And Adrian Morrow reports on the Ontario Libs' corporate welfare programs which are burning through billions of public dollars in the absence of any apparent effort to set funding criteria or track any results.

- Richard Elliott highlights how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will limit the availability of desperately-needed prescription drugs.

- Finally, the Broadbent Institute highlights the Canadian public's eagerness for a change in our electoral system - though there's an obvious choice to be made between preferential systems supported by the public, and a ranked-ballot system which would have further inflated the Libs' seat count.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Paul Krugman theorizes that our recent pattern of economic instability can be traced to a glut of accumulated wealth chasing too few viable investments:

On the surface, we seem to have had a remarkable run of bad luck. First there was the housing bust, and the banking crisis it triggered. Then, just as the worst seemed to be over, Europe went into debt crisis and double-dip recession. Europe eventually achieved a precarious stability and began growing again — but now we’re seeing big problems in China and other emerging markets, which were previously pillars of strength. 

But these aren’t just a series of unrelated accidents. Instead, what we’re seeing is what happens when too much money is chasing too few investment opportunities.

...

What’s causing this global glut? Probably a mix of factors. Population growth is slowing worldwide, and for all the hype about the latest technology, it doesn’t seem to be creating either surging productivity or a lot of demand for business investment. The ideology of austerity, which has led to unprecedented weakness in government spending, has added to the problem. And low inflation around the world, which means low interest rates even when economies are booming, has reduced the room to cut rates when economies slump.

Whatever the precise mix of causes, what’s important now is that policy makers take seriously the possibility, I’d say probability, that excess savings and persistent global weakness is the new normal.

My sense is that there’s a deep-seated unwillingness, even among sophisticated officials, to accept this reality. Partly this is about special interests: Wall Street doesn’t want to hear that an unstable world requires strong financial regulation, and politicians who want to kill the welfare state don’t want to hear that government spending and debt aren’t problems in the current environment.

But there’s also, I believe, a sort of emotional prejudice against the very notion of global glut. Politicians and technocrats alike want to view themselves as serious people making hard choices — choices like cutting popular programs and raising interest rates. They don’t like being told that we’re in a world where seemingly tough-minded policies will actually make things worse. But we are, and they will.

- Paul Weinberg reminds us that Canada is losing billions of dollars each year in tax avoidance, and hopes that our opposition parties can agree to combat the problem.

- Dean Beeby reports that the Cons know full well that Canada's retirement system is woefully inadequate compared to other development countries - even as they defiantly stand in the way of anybody trying to ensure income security for seniors. Sharon Murphy points out that the Cons' budgets have consistently worsened poverty and inequality. And Jerry Dias recognizes that the NDP's plan for a $15 federal minimum wage represents an important step in the right direction.

- Aaron Wherry traces both the origins and the spread of the Mike Duffy scandal to Stephen Harper's need for total control. Mohammed Adam argues that voters need to hold Harper accountable for both the crimes and the cover-up emanating from his office. And Don Butler reports on how the Cons steamrolled over any public discussion about an anti-communism memorial.

- Finally, Yves Smith contrasts rhetoric and reality when it comes to free trade, and points out that economic development in the U.S. and elsewhere has resulted from smart planning rather than laissez-faire dogma.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Yves Smith notes that a short-sighted focus on returns for shareholders generally represents a poor allocation of resources even on the level of a single corporation - while also pointing out what that mindset does when shared across the business sector:

As the Occupy Wall Street movement correctly recognized, the concentration of income and wealth of the economic top “one percent” of society has left the rest of us largely high and dry. Corporate profits are increasingly going to share buybacks or dividend distribution, but very little is going back into research and development efforts, capital reinvestment, and employment.

Corporations, in other words, are devoting increasing amounts of their considerable and growing financial resources to redistribution rather than innovation. And they are doing so based on the justification of 
“increasing shareholder value.”

However, as Lazonick points out, when the shareholder-value mantra becomes the main focus for companies executives usually concentrate on avoiding taxes for the sake of higher profits and don’t think twice about permanently axing workers. They also increase distributions of corporate cash to shareholders in the form of dividends and, even more prominently, stock buybacks.

When a corporation becomes financialized in this way, the top executives no longer concern themselves with investing in the productive capabilities of employees, the foundation for rising living standards. Instead they become focused on generating financial profits that can justify ever higher stock prices – in large part because, through their stock-based compensation, high stock prices translate into megabucks for these corporate executives themselves.

It’s not a pretty state of affairs. Lazonick discusses how we evolved from a society in which corporate interests were largely aligned with those of broader public purpose into a state where crony capitalism, accounting fraud, and corporate predation are predominant characteristics.

Lazonick makes a very powerful case that the ideology of “maximizing shareholder value” primarily works to the benefit of the very corporate executives who make corporate resource allocation decisions, and who derive high levels of remuneration from munificent stock option awards. As for the rest of us, we’re left to fight over the crumbs.

- Meanwhile, Nick Cohen writes that the ample funding and brazen dishonesty of climate-change denialists has thus far trounced scientific facts in the battle to set environmental policy.

- Lana Payne offers her take on the Unfair Elections Act, while the Globe and Mail calls for the bill to be scrapped. Laura Payton observes that while the Cons have conjured up plenty of imaginary issues to be resolved by decrees from on high, they've done nothing to address very real concerns about voter privacy. And Malcolm French highlights a worrisome step toward U.S.-style partisan oversight of elections:

To this day, no honest observer can say with absolute confidence which of Al Gore or George W. Bush received the larger number of votes in Florida. At the end of the day, the election was decided by the fact that there were more Republican state officials and Republican appointed judges involved in the adjudication of the results than Democratic state officials and Democratic appointed judges.

As a Canadian, I thought the oddest thing about the entire Florida recount was that every single official and every single judge acted according to partisan interests. That applies as much for the Democrats as the Republicans. No one actually cared about finding the democratic outcome of the vote. Unlike a Canadian judicial recount by a judge legally obliged to be impartial, the American system is an entirely partisan affair at every level.

It seems our present government likes the American model, where democracy is less about who gets the most votes than about who gets to appoint the most officials.  The Harper government's Orwellianly named Fair Elections Act (dubbed by pretty much everyone else as the Unfair Elections Act) takes every lesson of the far right assault on the American electoral process and imposes it on our hitherto non-partisan process.

- Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt sees the Cons' desire to radically overhaul elections, other political institutions and judicial appointments without the slightest bit of input from the public or from other parties as ample reason for a federal election.

- Finally, Michael Harris lists a few of the questions we should expect to see answered as the Robocon investigation continues.