Here, pointing out that the Global Transportation Hub land flipping scandal highlights Brad Wall's consistent willingness to hand out free money to business cronies - contrasted against his fight to avoid funding basic services like health and education.
For further reading...
- CBC has led the way in reporting on the Global Transportation Hub dealings. And Murray Mandryk writes about the provincial auditor's impending investigation.
- By way of comparison to the Saskatchewan Party's eagerness to hand tens of millions of dollars to land speculators, the Star-Phoenix reported on its refusal to do anything to account for the needs of school boards based on increased enrolment, while CKRM notes the same when it comes to an influx of refugees. And CBC reports on David McGrane's study showing that education has been underfunded by billions under the Sask Party.
- On the health front, CJME reported on cuts to surgical services in Regina, while the Canadian Press discussed layoffs in Saskatoon. And CBC noted the gross waste arising from the Sask Party's "lean" cult.
- Finally, in what may be the most appalling stories of cuts yet, CBC reports on the effect of radical cuts to Saskatoon's Lighthouse homeless shelter, while Betty Ann Adam notes that North Battleford's Lighthouse may be in danger of closing altogether.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Nick Powdthavee discuss how the rise of an exclusive class of the rich increases stress and decreases well-being for everybody else.
- Terri Coles writes about the growing political movement for a basic income in Canada, while Jonathan Brun makes the case for Quebec to lead the way. And Jonathan Sher reports on the push from London's top public health official for a living wage.
- Charlie Angus reminds us of Canada's chronic underfunding of First Nations. And Anna Mehler Paperny reports on the appalling mortality rates for young children in Canada's North, together with their obvious social causes.
- Finally, Hugh MacKenzie discusses the advantages of ensuring secure public pensions, rather than counting on millions of retirees to save for themselves (with the financial services sector taking its substantial cut off the top).
- Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and Nick Powdthavee discuss how the rise of an exclusive class of the rich increases stress and decreases well-being for everybody else.
Using data from the World Top Incomes Database and the Gallup World Poll, we compared the share of taxable income held by the top 1% in each country with reported levels of life satisfaction over the last 30 years. We found that a 1% increase in the share of taxable income held by the top 1% hurts life satisfaction as much as a 1.4% increase in the country-level unemployment rate.- Meanwhile, the CP finds that nearly half of Canadians are barely averting insolvency. Gary Mason points out how British Columbia's latest budget sprays cash at everybody except the people who actually need it. And Sean Swan comments on the need to address class economics in order to deal with inequality.
This is a stark reminder that it’s not just about how much you have, nor even how much you have relative to everyone else, but also how much the top 1% has. With that level of income accumulation, even if you are a member of the relatively well-to-do middle class some things start getting priced beyond your reach, such as housing.
In addition, there may be psychological reasons driving the correlation between rising top incomes and decreased average wellbeing: a rise in the share of income held by the richest 1% could make you feel as if your chance of moving up the ladder is growing increasingly beyond your reach.
This is particularly true for certain groups of people. We found that people who are young, less educated or on low incomes tend to suffer more as the richest get richer.
- Terri Coles writes about the growing political movement for a basic income in Canada, while Jonathan Brun makes the case for Quebec to lead the way. And Jonathan Sher reports on the push from London's top public health official for a living wage.
- Charlie Angus reminds us of Canada's chronic underfunding of First Nations. And Anna Mehler Paperny reports on the appalling mortality rates for young children in Canada's North, together with their obvious social causes.
- Finally, Hugh MacKenzie discusses the advantages of ensuring secure public pensions, rather than counting on millions of retirees to save for themselves (with the financial services sector taking its substantial cut off the top).
On threshold questions
Althia Raj is predictably dispensing Lib talking points about the potential outcomes of the NDP's leadership review. So to set the record straight, let's examine what the numbers actually mean.
There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:
In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.
At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.
There's exactly one threshold which produces a binding outcome:
3(a).vSo yes, 50%+1 is indeed the standard to set in motion a mandatory leadership election process.
At every convention that is not a leadership convention; a secret ballot vote will be held to determine whether or not a leadership election should be called. If 50% plus one delegate supports the calling of a leadership election, such an election will be held within one year of the convention vote.
In contrast, any other threshold being thrown around within the pundit class is simply a matter of judgment. Any leader has the discretion to step down at any time - and talk of 70% or any other number represents pure speculation as to whether Mulcair might choose to resign his post, even though he's won in terms of the formal requirement to stay on without further review. And whatever numbers anybody else throws out, we wouldn't necessarily expect a matter of personal judgment - as distinct from voting process - to be defined in advance.
At the same time, nothing in the NDP's process suggests that a leader could lose on a majority vote, but deny the vote has any significance after the fact by claiming uncertainty about voters' intentions. Because that would just be asinine.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Thomas Piketty writes that regardless of the end result, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign may mark the start of a fundamental change in U.S. politics:
- Meanwhile, Iglika Ivanova reviews B.C.'s provincial budget and finds that it's falling far short of what's needed to rein in poverty and inequality.
- Amir Attaran reminds us of the money Canada's health system is wasting on artificially high prices for generic drugs.
- Matthew Behrens weighs in on the next steps for Canada's surveillance state (including C-51) and argues that we shouldn't settle for secret, after-the-fact parliamentary reviews of state disruptions.
- Finally, Maciej Gorecki examines the possibility that voter turnout trends may be driven more by social expectations and maturation than by individual habit-forming.
- Thomas Piketty writes that regardless of the end result, Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign may mark the start of a fundamental change in U.S. politics:
Sanders’ success today shows that much of America is tired of rising inequality and these so-called political changes, and intends to revive both a progressive agenda and the American tradition of egalitarianism. Hillary Clinton, who fought to the left of Barack Obama in 2008 on topics such as health insurance, appears today as if she is defending the status quo, just another heiress of the Reagan-Clinton-Obama political regime.- Richard Shillington studies the economic status of Canadian near-seniors and finds that very few people are prepared for retirement. And PressProgress points out that the result may be a reversal of Canada's past success in fighting seniors' poverty.
Sanders makes clear he wants to restore progressive taxation and a higher minimum wage ($15 an hour). To this he adds free healthcare and higher education in a country where inequality in access to education has reached unprecedented heights, highlighting a gulf standing between the lives of most Americans, and the soothing meritocratic speeches pronounced by the winners of the system.
- Meanwhile, Iglika Ivanova reviews B.C.'s provincial budget and finds that it's falling far short of what's needed to rein in poverty and inequality.
- Amir Attaran reminds us of the money Canada's health system is wasting on artificially high prices for generic drugs.
- Matthew Behrens weighs in on the next steps for Canada's surveillance state (including C-51) and argues that we shouldn't settle for secret, after-the-fact parliamentary reviews of state disruptions.
- Finally, Maciej Gorecki examines the possibility that voter turnout trends may be driven more by social expectations and maturation than by individual habit-forming.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Danny Dorling comments on the dangers posed by inequality, while pointing out that it's simple enough to ensure a more equal society as long as that's made a primary goal of government:
- Mary Ornsby reports on the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty's study showing that province's shelter system is breaking down. And Andre Picard examines the national problem of precarious housing:
- Finally, David Roberts discusses how the scope of climate change makes it difficult for people to easily process the need to act.
- Danny Dorling comments on the dangers posed by inequality, while pointing out that it's simple enough to ensure a more equal society as long as that's made a primary goal of government:
It is not hard to reduce inequalities and to improve health and happiness once that is your actual goal. It is much harder to maintain high and rising levels of economic inequality because you constantly need to find more people to exploit and impoverish if you are to become richer and richer; and you have to fight off others who will always try to take your place at the top of the steepest of inequality slopes; as well as the growing number opposed the high inequality in general. Increasing fairness in education reduces later economic inequality. Taxing people fairly reduces the incentives of those who are greedy to try to always take more. Ensuring that basic human rights are protected over housing, that rents don’t become too high, that people cannot be evicted so easily, makes us all more equal and prevents a very small group of landlords becoming richer and richer. Spending a decent amount on health services protects those who fall ill the most, and often become (or already are) the poorest. In Western Europe only Greece and Italy now spend a lower proportion of their GDP on health care as compared to the UK. Switzerland spends twice as much per person, the Netherlands 59% more, Germany 49% more, France 27% more. The best-off 1% in Switzerland take half what the best-off 1% in the UK take each year. There is no shortage of policies you can adopt, if you believe that we all deserve respect.- Meanwhile, Ben Sichel writes that many educational concerns can be traced back to poverty and inequality. And Teuila Fuatai reminds us that a basic income has been shown to relieve against multiple kinds of stressors and health issues.
- Mary Ornsby reports on the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty's study showing that province's shelter system is breaking down. And Andre Picard examines the national problem of precarious housing:
- Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the difficulty workers face trying to recover stolen wages. And Barbara Yaffe exposes what appears to be widespread tax evasion on income from house flipping.On any given night, there are about 35,000 homeless people across Canada, and the number of families and children among them is growing at an alarming rate, a new report reveals.One in every seven users of homeless shelters is a child, according to Putting an End to Child & Family Homelessness, being published Monday by the advocacy group Raising the Roof.The report shows that family use of shelters has jumped 50 per cent in the past decade, and their length of stay has increased markedly in recent years to an average of more than 50 days.Further, nightly shelter use is just the tip of the iceberg. About 235,000 people used homeless shelters at some point last year, and that doesn’t include the “hidden homeless” who crash with family and friends, or live in their cars.All told, about 3.1 million Canadians are precariously housed, living in crowded, sub-standard housing or in unaffordable housing (meaning more than 30 per cent of their income goes to housing costs), and many of them are one rent payment away from homelessness.
- Finally, David Roberts discusses how the scope of climate change makes it difficult for people to easily process the need to act.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Claire Provost writes that corporate trade agreements are designed to make it more difficult to pursue fair tax systems:
- Christina Pazzanese examines the connection between economic inequality and democratic disenfranchisement in the U.S. And Tom Mulcair writes about a few of the ways the federal budget could lessen inequality in Canada.
- Finally, John Oliver duly slams the spread of voter ID laws as a means of rigging elections at the expense of voting rights:
- Claire Provost writes that corporate trade agreements are designed to make it more difficult to pursue fair tax systems:
Governments must be able to change their tax systems to ensure multinationals pay their fair share and to ensure that critical public services are well funded. States must also be able to reconsider and withdraw tax breaks previously granted to multinationals if they no longer fit with national priorities.- Michael Winship interviews Naomi Klein about the inability of markets to deal with the threat of climate change. And Mike De Souza reports on the complete imbalance between corporate and public interests at the moment by pointing out how thoroughly Stephen Harper's National Energy Board appointees have undermined any attempt to enforce pipeline safety rules.
But their ability to do so, to change tax laws and pursue progressive tax policies, is limited, thanks to trade and investments agreements. In rapidly developing ‘corporate courts’, formally known as investor-state dispute settlement system (or ISDS), foreign investors can sue states directly at international tribunals.
...
Because control over taxes is seen as core to a country’s sovereignty, many states have included tax-related ‘carve-out’ clauses in these trade and investment treaties to limit ability of corporations and other investors to sue over such disputes. But a growing number of investor-state cases have in fact challenged government tax decisions – from the withdrawal of previously granted tax breaks to multinationals to the imposition of higher taxes on profits from oil and mining.
...
(E)ven the prospect of an ISDS case can be a powerful deterrent for states considering actions against multinationals. These cases can drag on for years, and are extremely expensive. Even if a state successfully defends itself, it often ends up facing million dollar legal bills regardless. The only safe course of action is to never challenge multinational corporations - a dangerous prospect for the public interest that could thwart necessary, progressive action for tax justice.
- Christina Pazzanese examines the connection between economic inequality and democratic disenfranchisement in the U.S. And Tom Mulcair writes about a few of the ways the federal budget could lessen inequality in Canada.
- Finally, John Oliver duly slams the spread of voter ID laws as a means of rigging elections at the expense of voting rights:
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Sunday Afternoon Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- PressProgress highlights the disturbingly large number of Canadians spending more than half their income on a restrictively-defined set of basic necessities. And Elaine Power points out what a basic income could do to end food insecurity and improve public health:
- Lucy Shaddock writes about the importance of a unified labour movement as the strongest force to reduce inequality. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on organizing among fitness instructors to make employers' actions match their promises, while Drew Millard interviews Tom Slee about how the "sharing economy" in fact grinds down working conditions for everybody.
- Finally, Michael Geist observes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is resulting in massive changes to Canada's intellectual property law long before it's been ratified - and even as the Libs pretend to be interested in hearing from the public.
- PressProgress highlights the disturbingly large number of Canadians spending more than half their income on a restrictively-defined set of basic necessities. And Elaine Power points out what a basic income could do to end food insecurity and improve public health:
We know from the social determinants of health literature that there is a gradient in health, such that people who live in poverty are much more likely to develop chronic diseases requiring dietary management, such as diabetes and heart disease. Being food insecure makes it impossible to eat properly to manage these conditions. We also have evidence that for those who are precariously food secure, getting a diagnosis of a chronic disease may be enough to tip the household into food insecurity. This may be a result of the extra associated costs of the disease (e.g., paying for blood sugar monitoring equipment) or because of the disruption of the careful management strategies, or some combination.- Kev offers a worthwhile call for togetherness order to succeed as individuals, while Maggie Wente, Michael McClurg and Bryce Edwards discuss Canada's gross underfunding of First Nations as a prime example of how we're falling short of that basic principle.
Canadian research published last summer shows that as food insecurity worsens, health care costs rise. In the most food insecure households, where people were skipping meals, health care costs were 76% higher than in households that were food secure. When the cost of prescription drugs was added in, health care costs were 121% higher in the most food insecure households compared to food secure households. This means that reducing food insecurity, by addressing poverty, will save money in the health care system.
...
A basic income guarantee could replace social assistance, with all its problems, as well as supplement earned income. An adequate basic income would virtually eliminate food insecurity in this country. This is one of the major ways in which basic income would operate to save us money, by improving health and saving costs in the health care system.
- Lucy Shaddock writes about the importance of a unified labour movement as the strongest force to reduce inequality. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on organizing among fitness instructors to make employers' actions match their promises, while Drew Millard interviews Tom Slee about how the "sharing economy" in fact grinds down working conditions for everybody.
- Finally, Michael Geist observes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is resulting in massive changes to Canada's intellectual property law long before it's been ratified - and even as the Libs pretend to be interested in hearing from the public.
On permanent campaigns
Luke Savage is right to point out that Canada's permanent campaign has merely taken on a different dynamic under the Trudeau Libs, rather than actually coming to an end with the Harper Cons losing power:
It's all too true that the Libs seem inclined to govern as nothing but Cons with smiles on their faces - and Justin Trudeau has wasted little time in showing us the results.
But the scope of what's seen as "possible" and "necessary" is different for a party which has relied largely on progressive voters to win power than for one whose pitch for support is aimed solely at the right wing of the political spectrum. And so at this point in Trudeau's stay in power, the most important role for those of us whose distrust of the Libs has been borne out in practice is to ensure that they have no viable political choice but to live up to their promises and avoid introducing new regressive choices into the mix - rather than simply waiting to see what happens, and hoping to challenge their credibility later.
Again, branding is the key here.That said, it's worth noting what that means for the NDP and progressive activists.
As a part of its Sunny Ways™, the government has displayed a visible fondness for the affirmation of process. It is “pro-trade” and appears to be pro-TPP, but it will “broadly consult”; it is pro-electoral reform but non-specific about what that reform will be (consultation first); it was elected around a very specific and widely trumpeted set of economic proposals, but it has yet to put these into a budget or even schedule one because it has to consult first.
...
The political dexterity this approach affords the Liberals is staggering, as these past 100 days have already demonstrated. Justin Trudeau and his party espouse no ideology, and contend to embody the political preferences of all. It is an approach to politics which, to quote Peter C. Newman, promises “as little as possible but as much as necessary”.
The campaign never ends.
It's all too true that the Libs seem inclined to govern as nothing but Cons with smiles on their faces - and Justin Trudeau has wasted little time in showing us the results.
But the scope of what's seen as "possible" and "necessary" is different for a party which has relied largely on progressive voters to win power than for one whose pitch for support is aimed solely at the right wing of the political spectrum. And so at this point in Trudeau's stay in power, the most important role for those of us whose distrust of the Libs has been borne out in practice is to ensure that they have no viable political choice but to live up to their promises and avoid introducing new regressive choices into the mix - rather than simply waiting to see what happens, and hoping to challenge their credibility later.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Andrew Jackson argues that a federal infrastructure program can and should be oriented toward developing a skilled and diverse workforce, rather than rewarding free-riding contractors who don't contribute to those outcomes. And a joint statement from community and labour groups posted by Angella MacEwen argues that a major focus of the upcoming federal budget should be to repair and strengthen Employment Insurance.
- Andrew Sayer laments the fact that our economy is set up to disproportionately reward unproductive ownership and rent extraction rather than actual contributions to social well-being. And Jill Treanor provides a prime example, as UK banks who are laying off frontline workers and seeing their share values decline are nonetheless handing out billions of dollars in bonuses to a lucky few.
- Sabrina Tavernise writes about the U.S.' growing inequality in life expectancy between the rich and the poor.
- Glenn Burley studies how it's possible to eliminate tuition and compulsory fees from post-secondary education at a readily affordable price. And PressProgress follows up by highlighting how much tuition is currently costing Canadian students.
- Finally, Andrea Hill exposes the Saskatchewan Party's appalling slashing of services for homeless residents of Saskatoon. And Ken Gousseau reports on the CCPA's research into what Saskatchewan stands to lose if the Wall government gets the chance to follow through on its plans to conduct a fire sale of publicly-owned liquor stores.
- Andrew Jackson argues that a federal infrastructure program can and should be oriented toward developing a skilled and diverse workforce, rather than rewarding free-riding contractors who don't contribute to those outcomes. And a joint statement from community and labour groups posted by Angella MacEwen argues that a major focus of the upcoming federal budget should be to repair and strengthen Employment Insurance.
- Andrew Sayer laments the fact that our economy is set up to disproportionately reward unproductive ownership and rent extraction rather than actual contributions to social well-being. And Jill Treanor provides a prime example, as UK banks who are laying off frontline workers and seeing their share values decline are nonetheless handing out billions of dollars in bonuses to a lucky few.
- Sabrina Tavernise writes about the U.S.' growing inequality in life expectancy between the rich and the poor.
- Glenn Burley studies how it's possible to eliminate tuition and compulsory fees from post-secondary education at a readily affordable price. And PressProgress follows up by highlighting how much tuition is currently costing Canadian students.
- Finally, Andrea Hill exposes the Saskatchewan Party's appalling slashing of services for homeless residents of Saskatoon. And Ken Gousseau reports on the CCPA's research into what Saskatchewan stands to lose if the Wall government gets the chance to follow through on its plans to conduct a fire sale of publicly-owned liquor stores.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
New column day
Here, expanding on this post as to Nathan Cullen's proposal to make sure the outcomes of all plausible electoral systems are taken into account in designing a new one.
For further reading...
- Again, Cullen's proposal was reported on here, and discussed by Aaron Wherry here.
- Meanwhile, the Libs have presented a wide range of possibilities as to both the process and possible outcomes of electoral reform without indicating one way or the other whether they'll work with a proportional committee.
- And for those who haven't yet reviewed the Broadbent Institute's report (PDF) on both public opinion and electoral results under different systems, it's well worth a read.
For further reading...
- Again, Cullen's proposal was reported on here, and discussed by Aaron Wherry here.
- Meanwhile, the Libs have presented a wide range of possibilities as to both the process and possible outcomes of electoral reform without indicating one way or the other whether they'll work with a proportional committee.
- And for those who haven't yet reviewed the Broadbent Institute's report (PDF) on both public opinion and electoral results under different systems, it's well worth a read.
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Sally Goemer writes that extreme inequality is a cause of economic instability for everybody. And Tom Powdrill discusses the importance of organized labour in ensuring the fair sharing of income, while Steven Hill points out the harmful effects of precarious work.
- Sheila Regehr and Roderick Benns are hopeful that we're headed toward a basic income in Canada, while Molly McCracken notes that a secure income is the best defence against hunger.
- Tom Parkin observes that the Trudeau Libs have predictably started to ignore the principles and policies they trumpeted to win over progressive voters. And Duncan Cameron points out that the NDP can take on the cause of challenging corporate power as a matter of both egalitarian principle and political opportunity.
- Michael Geist discusses how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will interfere with Canadian cultural policies. And Jim Stanford finds that Canada's bilateral trade deal with South Korea has fallen far short of what was promised - leading to increased imports but decreased exports.
- Finally, Emily Peck comments on the connection between improved paternal leave and greater upward mobility for women in the workplace.
- Sally Goemer writes that extreme inequality is a cause of economic instability for everybody. And Tom Powdrill discusses the importance of organized labour in ensuring the fair sharing of income, while Steven Hill points out the harmful effects of precarious work.
- Sheila Regehr and Roderick Benns are hopeful that we're headed toward a basic income in Canada, while Molly McCracken notes that a secure income is the best defence against hunger.
- Tom Parkin observes that the Trudeau Libs have predictably started to ignore the principles and policies they trumpeted to win over progressive voters. And Duncan Cameron points out that the NDP can take on the cause of challenging corporate power as a matter of both egalitarian principle and political opportunity.
- Michael Geist discusses how the Trans-Pacific Partnership will interfere with Canadian cultural policies. And Jim Stanford finds that Canada's bilateral trade deal with South Korea has fallen far short of what was promised - leading to increased imports but decreased exports.
- Finally, Emily Peck comments on the connection between improved paternal leave and greater upward mobility for women in the workplace.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- David Dayen examines the different treatment granted by businesses to well-connected elites compared to everybody else, and says it's understandable that voters are looking for leaders who understand their side of the divide. And Robert Reich highlights the dangers of trying to appeal for votes by telling people nothing they do will lead to meaningful political change.
- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman examines how the Republicans - like Canada's Cons - have deliberately trapped themselves in a time loop which will accept no new evidence or developments.
- Tom Jacobs writes about the connection between inequality, obesity and poor health - as childhood deprivation tends to lead to increased food consumption when it's possible later on.
- Paul Mason offers three questions we need to answer in order to meaningfully address a lack of affordable housing.
- Martin Regg Cohn answers the misplaced spin that an increase in public pensions is anything but an economic boon - as it ultimately helps both present-day investment and long-term income security.
- Finally, Gerald Caplan provides a few suggestions to restore some semblance of civility and functionality in Parliament.
[Edit: fixed link.]
- David Dayen examines the different treatment granted by businesses to well-connected elites compared to everybody else, and says it's understandable that voters are looking for leaders who understand their side of the divide. And Robert Reich highlights the dangers of trying to appeal for votes by telling people nothing they do will lead to meaningful political change.
- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman examines how the Republicans - like Canada's Cons - have deliberately trapped themselves in a time loop which will accept no new evidence or developments.
- Tom Jacobs writes about the connection between inequality, obesity and poor health - as childhood deprivation tends to lead to increased food consumption when it's possible later on.
- Paul Mason offers three questions we need to answer in order to meaningfully address a lack of affordable housing.
- Martin Regg Cohn answers the misplaced spin that an increase in public pensions is anything but an economic boon - as it ultimately helps both present-day investment and long-term income security.
- Finally, Gerald Caplan provides a few suggestions to restore some semblance of civility and functionality in Parliament.
[Edit: fixed link.]
Tuesday, February 09, 2016
Tuesday Morning Links
This and that for your Tuesday reading.
- Alice Martin offers three basic reasons why unions are as necessary now as ever, while PressProgress weighs in on the IMF's findings showing the correlation between unions and greater equality. And David Ball points out that there's a long way to go merely to reverse the damage the Cons deliberately inflicted on the labour movement in Canada.
- Peter Taylor-Gooby writes about the importance of job quality as well as quantity in assessing our economy. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the Libs' apparent lack of interest in young workers as they impose a system which facilitates the continued use of unpaid interns.
- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is assembling a must-read set of reports on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Murray Dobbin discusses the desperate need for real public input and debate before Canada gets locked into the most restrictive corporate rights agreement yet.
- Stephen Kimber argues that rather than focusing on smaller measures such as making prescription drugs available to seniors, we should be working on implementing national pharmacare for all. And Matthew Herder notes that we should also have far more access to information about the effectiveness of the drugs we do use.
- Finally, Peggy Mason asks and answers the right questions about the Libs' expansion of military operations in Iraq and Syria - as once again, Canadian troops are being sent into harm's way by a government which lacks any idea what they're supposed to accomplish.
- Alice Martin offers three basic reasons why unions are as necessary now as ever, while PressProgress weighs in on the IMF's findings showing the correlation between unions and greater equality. And David Ball points out that there's a long way to go merely to reverse the damage the Cons deliberately inflicted on the labour movement in Canada.
- Peter Taylor-Gooby writes about the importance of job quality as well as quantity in assessing our economy. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on the Libs' apparent lack of interest in young workers as they impose a system which facilitates the continued use of unpaid interns.
- The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is assembling a must-read set of reports on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Murray Dobbin discusses the desperate need for real public input and debate before Canada gets locked into the most restrictive corporate rights agreement yet.
- Stephen Kimber argues that rather than focusing on smaller measures such as making prescription drugs available to seniors, we should be working on implementing national pharmacare for all. And Matthew Herder notes that we should also have far more access to information about the effectiveness of the drugs we do use.
- Finally, Peggy Mason asks and answers the right questions about the Libs' expansion of military operations in Iraq and Syria - as once again, Canadian troops are being sent into harm's way by a government which lacks any idea what they're supposed to accomplish.
Monday, February 08, 2016
On warped incentives
CC offers one noteworthy takeaway from Jenni Byrne's attempt to deflect blame for the Cons' election loss:
To be clear, Byrne's type of calculation isn't necessarily limited to the Cons. But it surely speaks to the perverse incentives embedded in a first-past-the-post system - and offers us reason to think carefully about the goals we should want parties of any ideological background to pursue instead.
But let's follow what this line of thought means for Canada's electoral system. Would any rational electoral system encourage a party to promote one of its competitors for the purpose of arranging the votes it can't win (particularly one which is further away on the political spectrum), rather than trying to earn support for itself?Wherein Jenni Byrne openly admits that the CPC *needs* vote splitting to stay relevant. https://t.co/HrQDeH058x pic.twitter.com/BpUFBmezhz— CC (@canadiancynic) February 8, 2016
To be clear, Byrne's type of calculation isn't necessarily limited to the Cons. But it surely speaks to the perverse incentives embedded in a first-past-the-post system - and offers us reason to think carefully about the goals we should want parties of any ideological background to pursue instead.
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Richard Eskow summarizes the basic facts about inequality in the U.S. Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that it's impossible to fully explain or address that problem without factoring in ongoing racial disparities. And Sean Trembath writes about James Daschuk's work in tracing health disparities among indigenous peoples back to Canada's colonial policies, while Cheryl McKenzie reports on the challenges in combating poverty.
- Greg Kaplan and Giovanni Volante point out that income insecurity isn't limited to poor households, as plenty of higher-earning families effectively live paycheque to paycheque at best
- Mike De Souza discusses the connection between TransCanada's firing of whistleblowers and a pipeline explosion.
- Andrew Mitrovica asks why nobody is prepared to tell Canadians the truth about the unauthorized disclosure of tax data to CSIS. And Tonda MacCharles reports that the Libs are being even more obstinate than the Cons in trying to deny compensation to people who were wrongly detained and tortured.
- Finally, Lana Payne rightly argues that we can't move on from revelations of systematic sexual harassment without first doing everything we can to eradicate it.
- Richard Eskow summarizes the basic facts about inequality in the U.S. Ta-Nehisi Coates argues that it's impossible to fully explain or address that problem without factoring in ongoing racial disparities. And Sean Trembath writes about James Daschuk's work in tracing health disparities among indigenous peoples back to Canada's colonial policies, while Cheryl McKenzie reports on the challenges in combating poverty.
- Greg Kaplan and Giovanni Volante point out that income insecurity isn't limited to poor households, as plenty of higher-earning families effectively live paycheque to paycheque at best
- Mike De Souza discusses the connection between TransCanada's firing of whistleblowers and a pipeline explosion.
- Andrew Mitrovica asks why nobody is prepared to tell Canadians the truth about the unauthorized disclosure of tax data to CSIS. And Tonda MacCharles reports that the Libs are being even more obstinate than the Cons in trying to deny compensation to people who were wrongly detained and tortured.
- Finally, Lana Payne rightly argues that we can't move on from revelations of systematic sexual harassment without first doing everything we can to eradicate it.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- Heather Stewart discusses the possibility of a 20-hour work week to better distribute both work and income. And without going that far, Andrew Jackson suggests that our public policy priorities should include a needed shift in time on the clock from people who are working excessive hours to ones who lack for work:
- Alan Broadbent and Elizabeth McIsaac call for Toronto to start funding its poverty reduction plan. And the Star argues that we should make affordable access to the Internet available to everybody as a necessary element of social participation.
- Michael Geist optimistically offers some suggestions as to how the Libs could deal with the Trans-Pacific Partnership now that they've signed it without consultation, while Scott Vrooman laments their apparent intentions of ignoring Canadians' concerns. And Erik Loomis offers some valid concerns about the TPP from a U.S. perspective.
- Finally, Patricia Lane discusses how a proportional electoral system could lead to far better governance for Canada.
- Heather Stewart discusses the possibility of a 20-hour work week to better distribute both work and income. And without going that far, Andrew Jackson suggests that our public policy priorities should include a needed shift in time on the clock from people who are working excessive hours to ones who lack for work:
Today, the job market is even more sharply polarized between those who are unemployed or underemployed (such as the one in four part time workers who want more hours), and those who are employed in mainly full-time and permanent jobs who often work very long hours. Data from Statistics Canada's Labour Force Survey (CANSIM Table 282-0154) tell us that in any given week, one in five workers (21%) worked overtime (defined as hours in excess of normally scheduled hours) for an average of 8.2 hours, or more than one extra day per normal work week.- Josh Eidelson discusses Bernie Sanders' sharp critique of welfare plans which try to coerce people into dead-end jobs. Bill Curry reports on Jean-Yves Duclos' openness to a basic income at the federal level. And Stanislas Jourdain notes that Quebec is now working on developing a guaranteed income for its citizens.
Unpaid overtime, mainly worked by salaried professionals, not least in public services, affects 11% of all employees. Paid overtime, mainly worked by hourly paid blue collar workers in industries like construction, transportation manufacturing and resources, affects 9% of all workers. These numbers have increased a bit since the late 1990s.
Theoretically, redistribution of working time could all but wipe out both unemployment and involuntary part-time employment, assuming a perfect overlap of skills and needed experience between those working long hours and those working no or less than desired hours. While this is unrealistic, redistribution of working time could still put a significant dent in the unemployment rate.
...
More use of work sharing today could help cushion the impact of the slump in resource prices on jobs in the hard hit mineral and energy industries. Even today, many workers in the Alberta oil and gas industry regularly work long hours. There is growing interest in using work sharing to avoid layoffs, and, even more creatively, government, employers and unions might develop programs to use temporarily reduced working hours for training in order to upgrade workers skills which will be needed in the next upturn.
The new Liberal government should also consider the many proposals which have been made over the years to amend the federal labour code so as to limit very long hours of work and to provide employees with more flexible working time options.
- Alan Broadbent and Elizabeth McIsaac call for Toronto to start funding its poverty reduction plan. And the Star argues that we should make affordable access to the Internet available to everybody as a necessary element of social participation.
- Michael Geist optimistically offers some suggestions as to how the Libs could deal with the Trans-Pacific Partnership now that they've signed it without consultation, while Scott Vrooman laments their apparent intentions of ignoring Canadians' concerns. And Erik Loomis offers some valid concerns about the TPP from a U.S. perspective.
- Finally, Patricia Lane discusses how a proportional electoral system could lead to far better governance for Canada.
Saturday, February 06, 2016
On double majorities
Nathan Cullen's proposal for party representation on the Parliamentary committee reviewing electoral reform has received plenty of attention. But it might actually go much further than advertised to validate the results of the committee's work and legitimize a more fair electoral system.
One can view Cullen's proposal as reflecting a proportional system for allocating committee seats. But it doesn't mean for a second that any change to Canada's electoral system would come about only based on that structure.
Whatever the committee comes up with will still have to be dealt with through legislation in a Parliament in which the Libs have a majority. And that means what Cullen has suggested would in fact serve to confirm the legitimacy of any new system under all plausible interpretations of the results generated by the current one.
By way of explanation, it's fairly clear that the range of options under serious consideration includes three primary types of electoral system. Two of them - first-past-the-post (to the extent it's seen as an option in light of the Libs' promise to scrap it) and ranked ballot - would both have resulted in Lib majorities based on 2015 voting patterns. (Of course, we don't have direct information about what voters' alternative preferences would have been in 2015. But if one ignores the simulated results prepared based on alternative data, that's not a problem capable of being remedied without conducting an election under a different system.)
That leaves the proportional representation option, where the first-choice preferences of Canadian voters would indeed result in exactly the representation proposed by Cullen. [Correction: double-checking the math, a pure proportional allocation of the seats would result in the Cons having one additional seat and the Greens not receiving one - which certainly looks to be a justifiable change to Cullen's proposal.]
And there could be a substantive complaint about legitimacy if what can be fairly criticized as a false majority under one system is used as the sole basis either for preserving that system, or for imposing another one.
Cullen's suggestion then responds to that concern. But I'll argue that it also implicitly answers the question of what more than a bare Parliamentary majority should be required to make electoral reform legitimate beyond reasonable complaint.
As I've noted before, it would be utter folly to demand unanimous support among all parties or MPs before any change could be implemented. But in assessing our electoral options, there's no reason to question the validity of a system which would be able to earn majority support in Parliament regardless of the structure in place at the time the election process is amended. (And similarly, there's no plausible basis to insist on retaining a system which can be replaced based on that multiple-majority support, no matter how much one party shrieks about wanting to preserve its advantages.)
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Libs will follow through on Cullen's proposal. But if they do, it should ensure both a more inclusive discussion of Canada's electoral system, and a more legitimate result.
[Edit: Fixed wording, and see correction above.]
One can view Cullen's proposal as reflecting a proportional system for allocating committee seats. But it doesn't mean for a second that any change to Canada's electoral system would come about only based on that structure.
Whatever the committee comes up with will still have to be dealt with through legislation in a Parliament in which the Libs have a majority. And that means what Cullen has suggested would in fact serve to confirm the legitimacy of any new system under all plausible interpretations of the results generated by the current one.
By way of explanation, it's fairly clear that the range of options under serious consideration includes three primary types of electoral system. Two of them - first-past-the-post (to the extent it's seen as an option in light of the Libs' promise to scrap it) and ranked ballot - would both have resulted in Lib majorities based on 2015 voting patterns. (Of course, we don't have direct information about what voters' alternative preferences would have been in 2015. But if one ignores the simulated results prepared based on alternative data, that's not a problem capable of being remedied without conducting an election under a different system.)
That leaves the proportional representation option
And there could be a substantive complaint about legitimacy if what can be fairly criticized as a false majority under one system is used as the sole basis either for preserving that system, or for imposing another one.
Cullen's suggestion then responds to that concern. But I'll argue that it also implicitly answers the question of what more than a bare Parliamentary majority should be required to make electoral reform legitimate beyond reasonable complaint.
As I've noted before, it would be utter folly to demand unanimous support among all parties or MPs before any change could be implemented. But in assessing our electoral options, there's no reason to question the validity of a system which would be able to earn majority support in Parliament regardless of the structure in place at the time the election process is amended. (And similarly, there's no plausible basis to insist on retaining a system which can be replaced based on that multiple-majority support, no matter how much one party shrieks about wanting to preserve its advantages.)
Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Libs will follow through on Cullen's proposal. But if they do, it should ensure both a more inclusive discussion of Canada's electoral system, and a more legitimate result.
[Edit: Fixed wording, and see correction above.]
Saturday Afternoon Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Robert Atkinson discusses the need for corporate tax policy to encourage economic development rather than profit-taking and share inflation. And Jim Hightower notes that it's an anti-democratic corporate mindset that led to the poisoning of Flint.
- Stephen Tapp offers some noteworthy ideas to ensure the public can meaningfully discuss our federal government's fiscal choices.
- Steven Chase finds that a majority of the public would prefer that Canada prioritize human rights over profits in deciding whether or not to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia. But in case anybody was under the illusion that the Libs were going to pay attention to either public opinion or their own promises, Robert Fife reports on their plans to extend and exacerbate Canada's combat operations in the Middle East.
- The Star rightly calls for an end to the Cons' legacy of secrecy. But there too, there's little reason to think the Libs are offering anything more than show and symbolism.
- Finally, Bruce Johnstone comments on the Saskatchewan Party's dishonesty when it comes to the state of Saskatchewan's economy and fiscal picture. And the provincial auditor's view that a big-money giveaway to land developers was "not a normal transaction" looks to reflect just one more set of shady choices.
- Robert Atkinson discusses the need for corporate tax policy to encourage economic development rather than profit-taking and share inflation. And Jim Hightower notes that it's an anti-democratic corporate mindset that led to the poisoning of Flint.
- Stephen Tapp offers some noteworthy ideas to ensure the public can meaningfully discuss our federal government's fiscal choices.
- Steven Chase finds that a majority of the public would prefer that Canada prioritize human rights over profits in deciding whether or not to supply military equipment to Saudi Arabia. But in case anybody was under the illusion that the Libs were going to pay attention to either public opinion or their own promises, Robert Fife reports on their plans to extend and exacerbate Canada's combat operations in the Middle East.
- The Star rightly calls for an end to the Cons' legacy of secrecy. But there too, there's little reason to think the Libs are offering anything more than show and symbolism.
- Finally, Bruce Johnstone comments on the Saskatchewan Party's dishonesty when it comes to the state of Saskatchewan's economy and fiscal picture. And the provincial auditor's view that a big-money giveaway to land developers was "not a normal transaction" looks to reflect just one more set of shady choices.
Friday, February 05, 2016
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Ben Oquist laments the fact that trickle-down economics and destructive austerity remain the norm in Australia no matter how thoroughly they're proven to fail. Alvin Powell discusses the burgeoning inequality of opportunity in the U.S. And an anonymous tutor to the super-rich writes that even they don't ultimately benefit from gross inequality or social exclusion:
- Raksha Vasudevan highlights the need for a national food policy based on the importance of social health. And Nick Falvo examines what we could and should be doing to combat homelessness in Canada.
- Alison calls out the Trans-Pacific Partnership as setting up an economic casino where the house always wins, while PressProgress points to Bernie Sanders' argument as to how it will continue eroding the middle class. And Maude Barlow notes that after-the-fact amendments to Canada's latest agreement with Europe only look to further entrench corporate control.
- Finally, Michael Winship interviews Naomi Klein about the devastating effects of climate change which go far beyond the globe warming up.
- Ben Oquist laments the fact that trickle-down economics and destructive austerity remain the norm in Australia no matter how thoroughly they're proven to fail. Alvin Powell discusses the burgeoning inequality of opportunity in the U.S. And an anonymous tutor to the super-rich writes that even they don't ultimately benefit from gross inequality or social exclusion:
Seeing the human side of the 1% has caused me to view them less as a faceless symbol of injustice and more as people with their own, sometimes relatable, struggles. The feelings that are evident – anxiety, disconnect, isolation – are universal. And that’s promising. Recognising the humanity in the “other” – even the “enemy” – does not mean I do not judge them, but it does give me a chance to transcend the inequality and start conversations about change.- Meanwhile, Alex Morash points out the need for far more coverage of inequality and poverty as part of economic reporting in order to start reversing the trend. And Carmela Fragomeni reports on Hamilton's lack of progress in trying to reduce poverty.
...
Educational inequality, the housing crisis, economic poverty all have narratives of villains and victims, winners and losers. But, having slept with the “enemy”, I feel more sincerely than ever that when you live with vast, systemic disparity, no one truly wins. And while I don’t believe in the system that creates jobs like mine, tutoring the super-rich has been valuable. I now believe more strongly than ever in the potential of empathy between people from different backgrounds, with different outlooks. And as a result – ironically – more strongly than ever against the social segregation inherent in private schooling.
- Raksha Vasudevan highlights the need for a national food policy based on the importance of social health. And Nick Falvo examines what we could and should be doing to combat homelessness in Canada.
- Alison calls out the Trans-Pacific Partnership as setting up an economic casino where the house always wins, while PressProgress points to Bernie Sanders' argument as to how it will continue eroding the middle class. And Maude Barlow notes that after-the-fact amendments to Canada's latest agreement with Europe only look to further entrench corporate control.
- Finally, Michael Winship interviews Naomi Klein about the devastating effects of climate change which go far beyond the globe warming up.
Thursday, February 04, 2016
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- PressProgress weighs in on the OECD's findings that Canada's income inequality is significantly worse than previously assumed. Didier Jacobs argues that our current economic system is anything but meritocratic. And Paul Morrison points out how a poorly-designed tax system forces low-income workers to pay massive effective taxes on work income.
- Andrew Prokop finds that a majority of Americans agree with Bernie Sanders' message of a "political revolution" to ensure a more fair distribution of wealth, while Michal Rozworski and Derrick O'Keefe discuss the significance of Sanders' presidential campaign.
- The Broadbent Institute makes its suggestions for a more fair and progressive federal budget. And Thomas Piketty outlines a "New Deal for Europe" to address the concurrent problems of inequality, economic stagnation and public debt.
- James Wood reports that Alberta's NDP government is making a major move in the area of affordable housing, while a group of academics calls for Rachel Notley to follow up by introducing a sales tax to ensure there's enough revenue to address social needs.
- Finally, Matthew Coon Come writes that it's long past time to end the underfunding of First Nations services whether or not it's seen as a legal obligation.
[Update: fixed link as per comments.]
- PressProgress weighs in on the OECD's findings that Canada's income inequality is significantly worse than previously assumed. Didier Jacobs argues that our current economic system is anything but meritocratic. And Paul Morrison points out how a poorly-designed tax system forces low-income workers to pay massive effective taxes on work income.
- Andrew Prokop finds that a majority of Americans agree with Bernie Sanders' message of a "political revolution" to ensure a more fair distribution of wealth, while Michal Rozworski and Derrick O'Keefe discuss the significance of Sanders' presidential campaign.
- The Broadbent Institute makes its suggestions for a more fair and progressive federal budget. And Thomas Piketty outlines a "New Deal for Europe" to address the concurrent problems of inequality, economic stagnation and public debt.
- James Wood reports that Alberta's NDP government is making a major move in the area of affordable housing, while a group of academics calls for Rachel Notley to follow up by introducing a sales tax to ensure there's enough revenue to address social needs.
- Finally, Matthew Coon Come writes that it's long past time to end the underfunding of First Nations services whether or not it's seen as a legal obligation.
[Update: fixed link as per comments.]
New column day
Here, on how Regina City Council's embarrassing heel-dragging in response to the David Suzuki Foundation's Blue Dot Declaration on environmental rights contrasts against the spread of trade agreements with virtually no scrutiny.
For further reading...
- Shawn Fraser both introduced the motion supporting the Blue Dot Declaration, and discussed it here. And the list of cities who have already signed on is here.
- Meanwhile, CBC reported on Council's demurral. And Paul Dechene was duly outraged here.
For further reading...
- Shawn Fraser both introduced the motion supporting the Blue Dot Declaration, and discussed it here. And the list of cities who have already signed on is here.
- Meanwhile, CBC reported on Council's demurral. And Paul Dechene was duly outraged here.
Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- Ben Casselman and Andrew Flowers discuss Raj Chetty's research on the U.S.' glaring lack of social mobility and fair opportunities:
- The Canadian Labour Congress points out the widespread dangers raised by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Brent Patterson reminds us how the TPP will enrich pharmaceutical multinationals at the expense of citizens and health care systems.
- Dennis Pilon refutes the claim that Canada is constitutionally trapped in an unrepresentative electoral system. And PressProgress highlights the unfairness of false majorities - no matter which party happens to benefit from one at a given time.
- Finally, Paul McLeod exposes examples of widespread abuses of power by the RCMP which typically don't get released to the public. And Jim Bronskill follows on the revelation that CSIS has wrongly collected tax data by reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency has no idea what information was improperly shared.
- Ben Casselman and Andrew Flowers discuss Raj Chetty's research on the U.S.' glaring lack of social mobility and fair opportunities:
Children from poor families are much less likely to work in adulthood than children from middle-class families. Only about 60 percent of children from the poorest families are working at age 30, compared with 80 percent of children from median-income families.2 And the relationship extends beyond the very poor; the higher a person’s parents were on the earnings ladder, the more likely he or she is to work as an adult — at least until the very top, when employment rates dip again.- Karen Jusko studies (PDF) the U.S.' social safety net and finds that it falls short of meeting even half of the needs of low-income individuals.
...
When the children of affluent families do work, they make a lot of money. The chart below shows how much 30-year-olds earn given their parents’ income. There’s a steady increase until the top few percentiles of parental income, when it spikes. The average man whose parents were in the 97th percentile earns about $60,000 at age 30; the average man who grew up in the richest 1 percent earns more than $80,000. (This measures only wage and salary earnings, so it doesn’t factor in any other advantages these young adults might have, such as trust funds, lower student debt, or parental help with housing or other expenses.)
- The Canadian Labour Congress points out the widespread dangers raised by the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Brent Patterson reminds us how the TPP will enrich pharmaceutical multinationals at the expense of citizens and health care systems.
- Dennis Pilon refutes the claim that Canada is constitutionally trapped in an unrepresentative electoral system. And PressProgress highlights the unfairness of false majorities - no matter which party happens to benefit from one at a given time.
- Finally, Paul McLeod exposes examples of widespread abuses of power by the RCMP which typically don't get released to the public. And Jim Bronskill follows on the revelation that CSIS has wrongly collected tax data by reporting that the Canada Revenue Agency has no idea what information was improperly shared.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Monday, February 01, 2016
Monday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material to start your week.
- Paul Krugman writes that we're far closer to a major energy transformation than many people realize - but that public policy decisions in the next few years may make all the difference in determining whether it materializes:
- Jim Stanford explains why Canada's auto sector in particular stands to suffer under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Shachi Kurl finds that Canadians in general are rightly concerned about what the TPP means for jobs.
- Finally, Laura Tribe comments that we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely to change the civil rights abuses pushed through in Bill C-51:
- Paul Krugman writes that we're far closer to a major energy transformation than many people realize - but that public policy decisions in the next few years may make all the difference in determining whether it materializes:
According to a recent report by the investment firm Lazard, the cost of electricity generation using wind power fell 61 percent from 2009 to 2015, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent. These numbers — which are in line with other estimates — show progress at rates we normally only expect to see for information technology. And they put the cost of renewable energy into a range where it’s competitive with fossil fuels.- Ian Welsh argues that the 2008 bank bailout - which effectively prioritized financial gambling over real economic development - is largely responsible for the lack of any real recovery afterward.
Now, there are still some issues special to renewables, in particular problems of intermittency: consumers may want power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. But this issue seems to be of diminishing significance, partly thanks to improving storage technology, partly thanks to the realization that “demand response” — paying consumers to cut energy use during peak periods — can greatly reduce the problem....I’d argue that the kind of progress now within reach could produce a tipping point, in the right direction. Once renewable energy becomes an obvious success and, yes, a powerful interest group, anti-environmentalism will start to lose its political grip. And an energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action.Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen, with no political miracle necessary. But failure is also a very real possibility. Everything is hanging in the balance.
- Jim Stanford explains why Canada's auto sector in particular stands to suffer under the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And Shachi Kurl finds that Canadians in general are rightly concerned about what the TPP means for jobs.
- Finally, Laura Tribe comments that we shouldn't have to wait indefinitely to change the civil rights abuses pushed through in Bill C-51:
[Ralph] Goodale has said that reforms on C-51 won't likely be introduced until the fall at the earliest. Sadly, in the meantime, Canadians' rights are being violated everyday C-51 remains in place.
Oversight can't retroactively undo the damage that current legislation is doing. Each day, we're being subjected to excess surveillance. Our data is being shared without any checks and balances in place. There is no recourse for innocent Canadians.
C-51's overreaching powers are being normalized.
Many of the effects of this legislation won't be felt for years to come -- but in the meantime, we go on with our lives. Canadians remain on no-fly lists. Our private data is being collected. Information is being shared and compiled between government agencies. Rights are being violated. And all of this is happening without the oversight to ensure it's being done legally, effectively and safely.
...
It will take some time for public consultations, expert input, and analysis to determine the best policies and legislative solutions for Canada's security mechanisms. But we do know that right now, C-51 is quite simply incompatible with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why do we have to spend the best part of yet another year subject to laws that even the Liberals, the party ruling with an overwhelming majority, thinks are problematic?
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Sunday Morning Links
This and that for your Sunday reading.
- The Guardian's editorial board comments on the role public entrepreneurship should play in fostering economic development and avoiding bust cycles:
- Chris Malsano draws a sharp distinction between socialism and statism. And Greg Sargent notes that Donald Trump's presidential candidacy may be exposing the large number of Republican voters who aren't inclined toward austerity or corporatist economics.
- Teuila Fuatai documents the gap between the low wages paid to many Canadian workers and the cost of living.
- Finally, the New York Times' editorial board slams corporate tax evasion.
- The Guardian's editorial board comments on the role public entrepreneurship should play in fostering economic development and avoiding bust cycles:
The state’s only legitimate economic role is often seen as patching up discrete failures in particular markets. But Ms Mazzucato stresses how proactive policy is often required to create the markets in the first place. She stresses the role of public agencies in advancing industry’s frontiers. The iPhone may be an archetypal example of entrepreneurial brilliance, but it draws on numerous government-funded technologies including the internet, GPS, touch-screen displays and even Siri, the voice-activated operating system-cum-butler. From Nasa to the BBC, public organisations have created private opportunities. The entrepreneurial state should embrace its unsung role as a venture capitalist, be bullish about the need to run risks to secure returns. New institutions, such as national investment banks, might need to be part of the mix.- Michal Rozworski's proposed solutions to Canada's housing crisis include a strong dose of public investment. And Chelsea Vowel duly criticizes Scott Gilmore's attempt to force First Nations and residents of remote areas into cities, rather than working on building existing communities.
Ms Mazzucato points out that the crisis-hit states in Euroland were also all countries where the pre-crisis state failed to innovate. That fostered a frail prosperity, depending less on progress in industry than on booming house prices. When the emergency cures look inadequate, economists interested in fending off future slumps should reconsider the preventative role the state can play.
- Chris Malsano draws a sharp distinction between socialism and statism. And Greg Sargent notes that Donald Trump's presidential candidacy may be exposing the large number of Republican voters who aren't inclined toward austerity or corporatist economics.
- Teuila Fuatai documents the gap between the low wages paid to many Canadian workers and the cost of living.
- Finally, the New York Times' editorial board slams corporate tax evasion.
On delayed rectification
I'll largely echo David Climenhaga's take on Alberta's oil and gas royalty review (PDF). But it's well worth highlighting the difference between the two main interpretations of the review's recommendations - and what they mean for future resource policy.
By way of comparison, some of the media spin includes statements along the lines of the following:
Indeed, anybody looking to the report to confirm or refute the first point will find plenty of conflicting information. Yes, it suggests that Alberta's royalty rates are "comparable with other jurisdictions". But it also recommends annual reporting and further reconsideration as to whether royalties paid meet a number of goals, including "returns to Albertans" - meaning there's ample room for further review as circumstances change. And we'd expect the gap between costs and royalties to be much higher when prices and profits are up.
So the answer on an improved return for the public is best seen as a "not now" rather than a "not ever". And while that's still disappointing compared to the prospect of ensuring improved public benefits in the long term (which could be palatable if paired with supports to cover a short-term downturn), it doesn't close the door to a more fair system in the future.
By way of comparison, some of the media spin includes statements along the lines of the following:
The key points of the report are:Contrast that against Rachel Notley's message (which matches the actual comments from the review panel, and indeed from Brian Jean in gloating about the lack of changes):
- Albertans are receiving their fair share.
- Oilsands royalties won't change.
“The fact of the matter is the environment has changed profoundly, even in the last 12 months, and so that is what is driving our decision-making at this point,” Ms. Notley told a news conference in Calgary yesterday morning. “It is not the time to reach out and make a big money grab. That just is not going to help Albertans over-all right now, and so I feel quite confident that this is the right direction to take.”There's thus a stark contrast between the claim that Alberta's royalty structure is in fact sufficiently fair to stay in place indefinitely, and the view that a period of low prices isn't the time to alter it to improve its level of fairness.
Indeed, anybody looking to the report to confirm or refute the first point will find plenty of conflicting information. Yes, it suggests that Alberta's royalty rates are "comparable with other jurisdictions". But it also recommends annual reporting and further reconsideration as to whether royalties paid meet a number of goals, including "returns to Albertans" - meaning there's ample room for further review as circumstances change. And we'd expect the gap between costs and royalties to be much higher when prices and profits are up.
So the answer on an improved return for the public is best seen as a "not now" rather than a "not ever". And while that's still disappointing compared to the prospect of ensuring improved public benefits in the long term (which could be palatable if paired with supports to cover a short-term downturn), it doesn't close the door to a more fair system in the future.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Saturday Morning Links
Assorted content for your weekend reading.
- Duncan Brown discusses the connection between precarious work and low productivity. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh examines how Ontario's workers' compensation system is pushing injured individuals into grinding poverty by setting impossible requirements for claimants.
- Jim Balsillie worries that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will only increase the tendency of profits from Canadian ideas to flow elsewhere. And Cory Doctorow criticizes the Trudeau Libs for blindly following the Harper Cons when it comes to corporate control agreements.
- Stephanie Levitz reports on the Cons' cherry-picking of Christian refugees contrary to Canada's international obligations. And Fram Dinshaw exposes the Cons' willingness to keep pesticides in regular use long after they were known to be toxic.
- Nora Loreto discusses the state of Canada's media, including the need for both public and activist support for alternative news-gathering as corporate newspapers are slashed. And Thomas Frank points out the role of elite media in limiting political choices, particularly by presenting special treatment for the wealthy as an inevitability.
- Finally, Alison Crawford reports on CSIS' pattern of unauthorized intrusion into Canadians' tax information. Andrew Mitrovica situates that violation in the broader context of intelligence abuses, while Colin Freeze discusses how substantially more oversight could serve as at least a partial solution. And Cara Zwibel argues that it's time to put Charter rights at the forefront of how laws are made (which we can also extend to how government functions are carried out):
- Duncan Brown discusses the connection between precarious work and low productivity. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh examines how Ontario's workers' compensation system is pushing injured individuals into grinding poverty by setting impossible requirements for claimants.
- Jim Balsillie worries that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will only increase the tendency of profits from Canadian ideas to flow elsewhere. And Cory Doctorow criticizes the Trudeau Libs for blindly following the Harper Cons when it comes to corporate control agreements.
- Stephanie Levitz reports on the Cons' cherry-picking of Christian refugees contrary to Canada's international obligations. And Fram Dinshaw exposes the Cons' willingness to keep pesticides in regular use long after they were known to be toxic.
- Nora Loreto discusses the state of Canada's media, including the need for both public and activist support for alternative news-gathering as corporate newspapers are slashed. And Thomas Frank points out the role of elite media in limiting political choices, particularly by presenting special treatment for the wealthy as an inevitability.
- Finally, Alison Crawford reports on CSIS' pattern of unauthorized intrusion into Canadians' tax information. Andrew Mitrovica situates that violation in the broader context of intelligence abuses, while Colin Freeze discusses how substantially more oversight could serve as at least a partial solution. And Cara Zwibel argues that it's time to put Charter rights at the forefront of how laws are made (which we can also extend to how government functions are carried out):
Clearly there are critical accountability and transparency gaps in our law-making process, which enable the advancement of arguably unconstitutional laws, such as Bill C-51. Indeed, at no point in the process are parliamentarians required to publicly defend the constitutionality of the laws they pass.
That job seems to have been left to our already overburdened courts, and to affected individuals and public interest organizations, such as CCLA, who, in recent years, have been compelled in some cases to launch Charter challenges as the only viable recourse. This is unfortunate given that these particular challenges — which come at a significant cost not only to the applicants, but also the public — could likely have been avoided had Parliament done its duty. And of even greater concern, as these lengthy court battles play out, the laws challenged remain on the books, restricting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, and risk becoming normalized.
Furthermore, the limited safeguards we do have are simply not working. Typically, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provides legal opinions to the justice minister regarding the constitutionality or legal vulnerabilities of government-proposed legislation. However, the government has refused to make these opinions public, stating that they are subject to solicitor-client privilege. The minister is also required to report Charter inconsistencies to Parliament, but the DOJ has suggested that the minister need only report when there is no credible argument in favour of a bill passing the Charter test. This standard is simply too low and, in practice, has meant that not a single report relaying concerns about Charter compliance has ever been made to Parliament.
Proactive accountability and transparency measures are sorely needed to help compel our government and parliamentarians — both present and future — to honour their fundamental duty to uphold the Charter throughout the law-making process. This is why CCLA has launched a new campaign called Charter First, which calls for the reform of our legislative process such that Charter rights are prioritized and Canadians are informed about the constitutionality of proposed bills.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Friday Morning Links
Assorted content to end your week.
- Rachel Bryce, Cristina Blanco Iglesias, Ashley Pullman and Anastasia Rogova examine the effect of inequality on education in Canada. And John McMurtry comments on the increasing hoarding of wealth and the lack of anything left over for the rest of us.
- Emily Badger highlights the "million dollar block" phenomenon showing that incarceration is just as systematically concentrated as extreme wealth (if of course in different places).
- Dana Milbank traces the poisoning of Flint back to Rick Snyder's corporatist mindset. And Julia Lurie reports that Snyder was well aware of the dangers of the city's water long before publicly admitting anything - resulting in state employees receiving an alternate source of water while residents were left to ingest lead.
- Mychaylo Prystupa points out that the Libs' changes to pipeline review processes are still avoiding the downstream environmental effects of fossil fuels. And Stephen Rees notes that resource-based economic bets being made with large amounts of public money - including the B.C. Libs' push toward fracked liquid natural gas - are themselves doomed by market forces.
- Finally, Mark Hume reports that Environment Canada had effectively shut down enforcement activities under the direction of the Harper Cons. And Bill Curry reveals that much-trumpeted inspection plans to limit the abuse temporary foreign workers never actually got started.
- Rachel Bryce, Cristina Blanco Iglesias, Ashley Pullman and Anastasia Rogova examine the effect of inequality on education in Canada. And John McMurtry comments on the increasing hoarding of wealth and the lack of anything left over for the rest of us.
- Emily Badger highlights the "million dollar block" phenomenon showing that incarceration is just as systematically concentrated as extreme wealth (if of course in different places).
- Dana Milbank traces the poisoning of Flint back to Rick Snyder's corporatist mindset. And Julia Lurie reports that Snyder was well aware of the dangers of the city's water long before publicly admitting anything - resulting in state employees receiving an alternate source of water while residents were left to ingest lead.
- Mychaylo Prystupa points out that the Libs' changes to pipeline review processes are still avoiding the downstream environmental effects of fossil fuels. And Stephen Rees notes that resource-based economic bets being made with large amounts of public money - including the B.C. Libs' push toward fracked liquid natural gas - are themselves doomed by market forces.
- Finally, Mark Hume reports that Environment Canada had effectively shut down enforcement activities under the direction of the Harper Cons. And Bill Curry reveals that much-trumpeted inspection plans to limit the abuse temporary foreign workers never actually got started.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Thursday Morning Links
This and that for your Thursday reading.
- Ed Miliband offers his take on inequality and the political steps needed to combat it:
- Derek Leahy discusses the Libs' plans to include upstream emissions as part of the environmental review process for pipelines. But Mike De Souza notes that the Libs are already falling behind on international climate change reporting.
- Meanwhile, the list of the Cons' damage in need of repair continues to grow. On that front, Kady O'Malley notes that their changes to elections rules may have enabled third parties to engage in unlimited robocalling, while BJ Siekierski reports on the wide range of Statistics Canada data gathering which was scrapped for no apparent reason.
- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten writes about the push for Ontario to lead a national movement on child care, rather than settling for wage subsidies as the upper limit of public action.
- Ed Miliband offers his take on inequality and the political steps needed to combat it:
(T)he terms of the case against inequality have changed. I have always believed that inequality divides people, deprives many of the chance to succeed and makes us all worse off. But now there is good reason to believe that inequality isn’t just unfair but that it actually inhibits economic growth. ‘Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time,’ the IMF announced in a report last year: ‘We find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 per cent) and economic growth … the benefits do not trickle down.’ Last May, the OECD published a study entitled In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. All this makes it possible for us to talk about equality not only in terms of fairness, but also as the means to prosperity. The UK is deeply unequal and has an unproductive economy when compared to its major competitors. There are good grounds for thinking the two facts are connected: a low-wage economy, which doesn’t invest properly in its workforce, is an unproductive economy. The mechanism that links low growth to inequality is still debated: some say that low wages for the majority cause low demand and low growth; others say that the social exclusion of a large segment of society has a depressive effect. But what is clear is that inequality must be tackled not just because it is important to distribute resources fairly but also in order to secure higher growth, from which everyone can benefit.- And Ally Foster reports on a panel discussion on the erosion of the middle class in Canada.
...
(F)inally, there is the question of how political change happens, and how to mobilise the millions of people needed to bring it about. Labour must make use of the opportunity afforded it by the remarkable number of new members it has gained since the general election. But it also needs to acknowledge the challenge it faces. The party emerged from the traditions of community organising, and some local Labour branches are now rekindling that spirit. To succeed, the party needs to be about more than knocking on doors, crucial though that is, and the passing of resolutions. Labour needs to use its expanded membership to build deeper roots in local communities, and to help people find the collective power to change things. In a way I didn’t manage, it needs to reinvent itself as a genuine community organisation.
This is a tough time to be a progressive in Britain, with the re-election of a government that seems determined to dismantle the progressive institutions that remain and to make inequality worse. Labour’s renewal must be built on ideas, the most underrated commodity in politics. Ideas create and sustain movements and inspire people – and indeed voters – to join a cause. The right can’t solve the problem of inequality because to do so would be to abandon too much of what they believe, from a belief in the small state to trickle-down economics. The deep injustices of modern capitalism compel us to find a better way of living together. The left should approach the coming years with a determination to renew itself but also with confidence in its values.
- Derek Leahy discusses the Libs' plans to include upstream emissions as part of the environmental review process for pipelines. But Mike De Souza notes that the Libs are already falling behind on international climate change reporting.
- Meanwhile, the list of the Cons' damage in need of repair continues to grow. On that front, Kady O'Malley notes that their changes to elections rules may have enabled third parties to engage in unlimited robocalling, while BJ Siekierski reports on the wide range of Statistics Canada data gathering which was scrapped for no apparent reason.
- Finally, Laurie Monsebraaten writes about the push for Ontario to lead a national movement on child care, rather than settling for wage subsidies as the upper limit of public action.
New column day
Here, on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision (PDF) finding that the failure to provide equal child services for First Nations is a human rights breach which requires federal action at law - rather than merely a moral failure which has too often been ignored.
For further reading...
- CBC reports on the decision, while Neil Macdonald places it in some context.
- Tim Harper goes into more detail as to the history of discrimination given wider exposure by the decision. And I'll point again to Murray Mandryk's take on the lack of social resources facing La Loche and other communities.
- But in case we needed immediate evidence that a finding of discrimination will still leave plenty of people to be convinced that there's any problem to be solved, Jen Gerson belittles the decision and apparently the concept of human rights tribunals in general. And Scott Gilmore argues that the only solution is to push the residents of remote communities out of their homes, rather than making any effort to build healthy lives where they already live.
For further reading...
- CBC reports on the decision, while Neil Macdonald places it in some context.
- Tim Harper goes into more detail as to the history of discrimination given wider exposure by the decision. And I'll point again to Murray Mandryk's take on the lack of social resources facing La Loche and other communities.
- But in case we needed immediate evidence that a finding of discrimination will still leave plenty of people to be convinced that there's any problem to be solved, Jen Gerson belittles the decision and apparently the concept of human rights tribunals in general. And Scott Gilmore argues that the only solution is to push the residents of remote communities out of their homes, rather than making any effort to build healthy lives where they already live.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Wednesday Morning Links
Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.
- John Clarke discusses the challenges facing social movements trying to resist austerity and push for action on poverty in the face of mushy-middle governments who lack any commitment to those principles. Simon Wren-Lewis reminds us of the harm already done by anti-government ideology. And Crawford Kilian makes the case that governments should be wary of trying to cut out the "fat" which may be necessary for a healthy public sector.
- Tim Harper examines the significance of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's finding that the underfunding of First Nations child welfare services makes for actionable discrimination. And Murray Mandryk notes that last week's shootings in La Loche made for just one predictable tragic outcome from a history of neglect.
- Jeremy Nuttall talks to Hassan Yussuff about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and finds that the government pushing yet another corporate privilege agreement has no answers as to what it's supposed to do for workers. And Thomas Walkom writes that the Libs seem to be following in the Cons' footsteps, while Derrick O'Keefe wonders when we're supposed to see the full and open debate on the TPP that the Libs promised during the election campaign before deciding they'd sign on without further analysis.
- Patrick Fafard and Steven Hoffman offer their suggestions for a new federal health accord centred on the social determinants of health.
- Finally, Ole Hendrickson comments on Canada's plutocracy and the morality of extreme wealth.
- John Clarke discusses the challenges facing social movements trying to resist austerity and push for action on poverty in the face of mushy-middle governments who lack any commitment to those principles. Simon Wren-Lewis reminds us of the harm already done by anti-government ideology. And Crawford Kilian makes the case that governments should be wary of trying to cut out the "fat" which may be necessary for a healthy public sector.
- Tim Harper examines the significance of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's finding that the underfunding of First Nations child welfare services makes for actionable discrimination. And Murray Mandryk notes that last week's shootings in La Loche made for just one predictable tragic outcome from a history of neglect.
- Jeremy Nuttall talks to Hassan Yussuff about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and finds that the government pushing yet another corporate privilege agreement has no answers as to what it's supposed to do for workers. And Thomas Walkom writes that the Libs seem to be following in the Cons' footsteps, while Derrick O'Keefe wonders when we're supposed to see the full and open debate on the TPP that the Libs promised during the election campaign before deciding they'd sign on without further analysis.
- Patrick Fafard and Steven Hoffman offer their suggestions for a new federal health accord centred on the social determinants of health.
- Finally, Ole Hendrickson comments on Canada's plutocracy and the morality of extreme wealth.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)