On costly considerations

I've previously pointed out that there might be much less than met the eye to Brightenview's much-trumpeted "ground-breaking" at the Global Transportation Hub. But while there's now some dispute as to what work is being done at the Brightenview site, I'd think we should be particularly concerned about the terms involved if the GTH project is actually departing from Brightenview's historical trends.

After all, Saskatchewan's provincial government put substantial amounts of money into catering to the two main GTH tenants - with the theory that Canadian Pacific and Loblaws would serve as magnets for other businesses to relocate to the area. And it went far out of its way to cover up the terms of the 2009 CP deal in particular: they were only revealed through CBC's reporting this year after being withheld in the face of access to information requests.

Here's what the province agreed to in order to get CP to build on the GTH site (despite its theoretical agreement that the move would be mutually beneficial):

CP sold its old site to the City of Regina for $7.5 million.

The agreement says the land is being given to the private railway company "in consideration of CP's contribution to the project." According to the contract, CP agreed to pay for railway infrastructure, container handling facilities and buildings for the project.

Meanwhile, the Minister of Highways promised to pick up the cost for most everything else, including land, servicing, the moving of power lines, and construction of CP's parking lot and internal roadways.

And the province agreed to provide CP serviced, accessible land west of the city "at no cost to CP and free and clear of all encumbrances" except for a few easements.

Of course, the promise of drawing other substantial activity to the GTH area hasn't been met. And the lack of any other good news around the time of the last provincial election is exactly why Brad Wall was so desperate to cozy up to Brightenview in the first place.

But with the Wall government now relying on Brightenview as its only excuse for development in the area and the other scandals surrounding the GTH, it's apparent that the Saskatchewan Party now has a strong political incentive to ensure that something gets built - no matter who ends up paying the bill.

It's also obvious that Brightenview's track record involves many grand proclamations, but very little follow-through - particularly when it comes time to put the money contributed by unsuspecting investors into building anything at its own expense.

With that in mind, I'd think it's worth asking: what exactly are the terms of Brightenview's development? And in particular, how much is the public paying - either in direct costs for the Brightenview site, or in upgrades to the GTH area for Brightenview's benefit - as the price of the illusion of progress?

(See also Tammy Robert's post expanding on CBC's story about on the connection between Brightenvie and pay-for-play immigration.)

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- The Economist observes that the effects of climate change fall disproportionately on poorer people, rather than the wealthier ones who have caused more of the damage:

The costs of global climate change will again be unevenly (and uncertainly) distributed, but harm will often be smaller for richer, temperate countries. As a result the estimated economic loss from warming is almost certainly understated, because the nastiest effects are concentrated in places where incomes are lowest: and, correspondingly, where tumbling incomes have the smallest effect on global GDP.
...
The rich are disproportionate contributors to the carbon emissions that power climate change. It is cruel and perverse, therefore, that the costs of warming should be disproportionately borne by the poor. And it is both insult and injury that the wealthy are more mobile in the face of climate-induced hardship, and more effective at limiting the mobility of others. The strains this injustice places on the social fabric might well lead to woes more damaging than rising temperatures themselves.

- Meanwhile, Richard Florida writes that inequality only exacerbates the dangers of economic downturns. And UNICEF makes the case to finally put and end to child poverty (and reduce inequality) in Canada.

- Noah Smith points out that no matter how much wealth gets linked to intangibles, economic stability and prosperity ultimately depend on actually producing goods. And Cameron Murray notes that longer-term development depends on industrial policy - which governments presently seem all too eager to leave to the few wealthy enough to shape it personally.

- Canadians for Tax Fairness calls for Canada's provinces to work on ensuring corporate transparency.

- But Jeremy Nuttall reports on Christy Clark's PR-focused response to the Mount Polley environmental disaster as an example of how governments are all too often focused only on minimizing corporate wrongdoing. And Brent Patterson points out the Trudeau Libs' decision to allow the dumping of mine waste in fish-bearing creeks as just another example of profits being put before the planet.

- Finally, Ken Neumann worries about the consequences of the Libs' obsession with courting Chinese capital regardless of its effect on Canada.

Musical interlude

Cosmic Gate feat. Emma Hewitt - Not Enough Time

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Mainstreet has released what looks to be the most useful poll of the campaign so far, showing Charlie Angus and Niki Ashton in the lead among a substantial number of self-identified NDP members. But the gap between Angus and Ashton is tiny compared to the number of later-ballot vots, and all of the candidates look to have plenty of potential for growth based on the still-substantial number of undecided voters.

- Ian Capstick offers his view of the noteworthy strategic choices that have been made so far in the campaign. And Christo Aivalis reviews this week's debate while also summarizing where the campaign stands.

- Angus makes the case for affordable housing as a human right, while pointing out that we have no fiscal excuse for failing to meet it. Jade Saab argues that Ashton is the candidate offering transformative change. John Ibbitson and Konrad Yakabuski both offer their take on the pros and cons of Jagmeet Singh based on his religious background - though it's worth noting that neither can identify any impact Singh's religion is supposed to have on his political choices (other than an erroneous claim by Yakabuski). And Erin Weir takes the view that the next leader needs to ensure that federal carbon pricing and green house gas emission regulations don't merely push the generation of emissions outside of Canada's borders.

- Finally, Kady O'Malley writes that while the public hasn't yet paid a great deal of attention to the campaign, there's reason to suspect that will change - particularly during the voting stage. And Luke Savage warns against trying to frame the NDP's campaign solely in terms of developments in other countries and parties.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Josh Bivens notes that international trade deals have been structured to maximize the cost of globalization for the workers excluded from the bargaining table. And Jon Queally points out that a massive majority of Americans see power disproportionately hoarded by the rich at the expense of everybody else.

- So it should come as no surprise (as noted by Frank Clemente) that the corporate sector is avoiding making a fair contribution to funding collective programs - even while whining constantly about what little it is required to pitch in. And Chuck Collins discusses how much wealth is being hidden by the most privileged few.

- Kashana Cauley discusses the importance of a youth-led labour movement to ensure that changing priorities and workplaces are reflected in union strategies. And Democratic Audit UK examines the legal structures needed to protect workers' rights, while Paul Willcocks offers some suggestions as to how British Columbia's new government can bolster job quality and economic fairness.

- Evan Horowitz highlights the reality that an effective anti-poverty strategy can't rely solely on jobs and education, but instead needs to ensure that money gets into the hands of the people who need it most. And Left Foot Forward notes that the creation of precarious and low-wage jobs does nothing to improve the lives of the people who can't escape them.

- Finally, Nora Loreto and Michael Stewart ask whether Canada's media has a right-wing bias in granting unjustified air time (and credence) to reactionary ignorance.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Susanna Rustin reports on a new study from the London School of Economics demonstrating the lifelong personal impacts of childhood poverty. And Colleen Kimmit writes that the solution to food insecurity (along with other elements of personal precarity) is a guaranteed income, not charity or redundant skills training:

Many people think of basic income as a radical, untested idea, but Canada already has it for a significant portion of the population: seniors. One of the first projects that PROOF worked on, based on research conducted by Lynn McIntyre at the University of Calgary, looked at old age pensions in Canada. Using the Canadian Community Health Survey data once more, they randomly selected a group of single, low-income “near seniors” aged 55 to 64 and followed them for ten years. At the outset, 22 per cent qualified as food insecure. By the time the cohort passed age 65, that number dropped to 11 per cent. Nothing else changed in their lives except this crucial birthday. Turning 65 and becoming eligible for the old age pension—a stable, secure income, indexed to inflation and double regular social assistance amounts—immediately halved the number of people going hungry.

This kind of income is precisely what it will take, Tarasuk argues, to alleviate the stress many Canadians feel when it comes to covering even their most basic needs. She is encouraged by Ontario’s basic-income pilot; if it’s adopted, it may eliminate the need for piecemeal approaches.

“It’s not about a soda tax, or access to food, or better nutrition labelling. Community kitchens don’t solve it. Gardens don’t solve it. There’s arguments for all that stuff. But it’s not going to move the needle on food insecurity,” says Tarasuk. “We just want basic income. That’s it.”

- Meanwhile, Claudia Buch discusses how high levels of connected personal and corporate debt result in an economy that's less stable and secure for everybody.

- Matt Stoller wonders whether U.S. Democrats will notice the opportunity to take on the cause of trust-busting and challenging corporate power in light of the trust fund tycoon serving as the face of the Republican Party.

- The CCPA suggests that Canada treat its sesquicentennial as an opportunity to ensure that how we actually engage with Indigenous peoples matches our aspirations and self-perception. But the Star's editorial board notes that the long-awaited inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women is going off the rails. And Russ Diabo writes that the Trudeau Libs' broader plan seems to be to extinguish Indigenous rights under the guise of self-governance.

- Finally, Anna Lennox Esselment writes about the rise of the permanent campaign in Canada.

New column day

Here, on the noteworthy contrast in positions on income supports in the NDP's leadership campaign (and particularly the recent debate in Saskatoon).

For further reading...
- Jeremy Nuttall discussed the state of the campaign prior to Tuesday's debate. And Peter Zimonjic offered a summary of the debate. 
- I'd previously blogged here about the difference between Guy Caron's basic income proposal and Jagmeet Singh's limited income guarantees.
- The NDP's policy book is here (PDF). And I'll point in particular to the following passages as to universality in transfers as well as public services:

3.7
Seniors and retirees
New Democrats believe in:

a
Maintaining the universality of Old Age Security (OAS) and increasing funding for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)

…
SECTION 5
GOVERNING IN AN INCLUSIVE AND FAIR CANADA
…
New Democrats are committed to the kind of mutual respect among levels of government that is the hallmark of cooperative federalism; that makes collaboration on social and economic policies work, and that ensures the universality of social programs.

- And finally, Michal Rozworski offers a more detailed look at the different areas of debate (and confusion) around the structure of social programs.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- The Global Alliance for Tax Justice examines the most common tax evasion practices used to allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. And Desmond Cohen points out how our current estimates of inequality underestimate exactly how much is being hidden.

-  David Macdonald anticipates and criticizes the Bank of Canada's increased interest rates by pointing out that Canadians have already been sorely lacking for more increased wages. And Andrew Jackson argues for a higher minimum wage by pointing to our relatively low wages when compared to other developed countries.

- Meanwhile, UFCW highlights a report on how Guatemalan agricultural workers are being exploited in Quebec.

- Gillian Steward discusses the developing electric car industry - and the reality that no public policy can prevent fossil fuel-powered vehicles (and the oil and gas industry's profits connected to them) from taking a turn toward obsolescence within a decade.

- Finally, John Rapley warns against unwarranted belief in neoliberal economic dogma due to both its failure to explain actual economic outcomes, and its failure to take into account necessary interests and values:

For decades, neoliberal evangelists replied to such objections by saying it was incumbent on us all to adapt to the model, which was held to be immutable – one recalls Bill Clinton’s depiction of neoliberal globalisation, for instance, as a “force of nature”. And yet, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the consequent recession, there has been a turn against globalisation across much of the west. More broadly, there has been a wide repudiation of the “experts”, most notably in the 2016 US election and Brexit referendum.

 

It would be tempting for anyone who belongs to the “expert” class, and to the priesthood of economics, to dismiss such behaviour as a clash between faith and facts, in which the facts are bound to win in the end. In truth, the clash was between two rival faiths – in effect, two distinct moral tales. So enamoured had the so-called experts become with their scientific authority that they blinded themselves to the fact that their own narrative of scientific progress was embedded in a moral tale. It happened to be a narrative that had a happy ending for those who told it, for it perpetuated the story of their own relatively comfortable position as the reward of life in a meritocratic society that blessed people for their skills and flexibility. That narrative made no room for the losers of this order, whose resentments were derided as being a reflection of their boorish and retrograde character – which is to say, their fundamental vice. The best this moral tale could offer everyone else was incremental adaptation to an order whose caste system had become calcified. For an audience yearning for a happy ending, this was bound to be a tale of woe.

The failure of this grand narrative is not, however, a reason for students of economics to dispense with narratives altogether. Narratives will remain an inescapable part of the human sciences for the simple reason that they are inescapable for humans. It’s funny that so few economists get this, because businesses do. As the Nobel laureates George Akerlof and Robert Shiller write in their recent book, Phishing for Phools, marketers use them all the time, weaving stories in the hopes that we will place ourselves in them and be persuaded to buy what they are selling. Akerlof and Shiller contend that the idea that free markets work perfectly, and the idea that big government is the cause of so many of our problems, are part of a story that is actually misleading people into adjusting their behaviour in order to fit the plot. They thus believe storytelling is a “new variable” for economics, since “the mental frames that underlie people’s decisions” are shaped by the stories they tell themselves.

Economists arguably do their best work when they take the stories we have given them, and advise us on how we can help them to come true. Such agnosticism demands a humility that was lacking in economic orthodoxy in recent years.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Back-to-back cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Kate Aronoff writes that in addition to being a political loser, corporate-friendly centrism is extremely dangerous in allowing for far less than the effort we should be putting into fighting climate change. And Tess Riley reports on new research that only a hundred companies are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions - making it clear how a few firms with a lot of money at stake will be an obstacle to needed policy choices absent a concerted effort to put the public interest first.

- Trish Hennessy takes a look at the benefits of a $15 minimum wage for Ontario workers, while Michal Rozworski offers a media roundup of economists speaking in favour of a more liveable wage.

- Gordon Laxer points out that NAFTA has locked Canada into an unheard-of loss of sovereignty over our natural resources, while noting that the U.S.' desire to renegotiate offers a prime opportunity for change.

- Finally, The Globe and Mail rightly questions how Canada can live in denial of a severe suicide crisis among Indigenous children. And Doug Cuthand laments the latest outbursts of racism, including the killing of Barb Kentner.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- The Courage Coalition discusses why economic justice is necessary for social equality. But Ed Finn writes that instead, Canada is pushing people into serfdom:

Today's big business executives are not so outspoken, at least not in public, but privately they could make the same boast. Their basic agenda is not that much different from that of their 19th-century forerunners, whom they envy and seek to emulate. And what's really scary is that they now have amassed almost as much of the political and economic power they need to recreate the "bad old days" of the industrial robber barons.
...
This flinthearted exploitation of child labour may never be repeated in Canada, mainly because there are so many children in poorer nations who can more easily be exploited. But don't rule out the possibility that much of our adult work force will be driven back into a modern-day version of serfdom. With our labour laws impaired and laxly enforced, with workers' unions and bargaining rights weakened, with well-paid manufacturing jobs being replaced by low-paid part-time or temporary work, the regression of our labour force into 19th-century-style servitude is far from a dystopian fantasy.

Canadians should take a good hard look back at the age of absolute corporate power that doomed millions to dire poverty and serfdom in the late 1800s. If they did, they might be more concerned about having to relive that blighted and benighted past -- and become active in the struggle to avert it. 

- And Andrew MacLeod reports on the CMHC's thorough rejection of Christy Clark's attempt to lock vulnerable people into housing prices they can't afford.

- Carolyn Ray writes that instead of doing anything to rein in the abuses of banks who are simultaneously slashing jobs and closing branches while raking into economy-distorting profits, the Libs are attacking the credit unions who offer the most important alternative source of financial services. 

- Finally, Ben Chapman writes about the results of Finland's test of a basic income - which finds that people with some basic economic security are actually showing a stronger inclination to seek out work. And Tom Parkin examines the federal NDP leadership candidates' respective plans to put an end to poverty - while highlighting the importance of recognizing that as a feasible and necessary goal.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Damian Carrington reports on new research showing that the actual change in temperature caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be larger than anticipated in even the most cautious forecasts to date. And Chloe Farand highlights France's plan to rein in its contribution to climate change by banning all gasoline- and diesel-based vehicles by 2040.

- Meanwhile, D.C. Fraser reports on a study (with particular reference to the Sask Party's Boundary Dam project) finding that carbon capture and storage is an utter waste of money. And it's hardly a point in the Wall government's favour that updated numbers about the unit's operation make it only five to ten times more expensive than natural gas, rather than ten to twenty as found in the study.

- David Climenhaga comments on the need for Alberta's workers' compensation system - like its counterparts elsewhere - to focus on providing benefits for injured workers, rather than denying them in order to send money back to employers.

- Tabatha Southey observes that the "Proud Boys" incident in Halifax reflects a movement of bigots seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions through a facade of jocularity. And Scott Sinclair reviews John Judis' The Populist Explosion, including his warning that the rise of toxic populism generally represents a symptom of deeper political problems.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom writes that the federal government's settlement with Omar Khadr (based on violations of his rights by Lib and Con governments alike) represents a particularly obvious example of the damage done by political fearmongering about terrorism.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Michael Rozworski discusses the importance of workers exercising power over how our economy functions. Robert Booth reports on a forthcoming UK study showing the desperate need for improved quality of work and life among low-income individuals. And Lana Payne writes that a strong labour movement is essential to fair and sustainable economic development:

(W)hile bankers bemoan “soft wage data,” in the real world workers can tell you exactly why wages are stuck. Too much of the gross domestic product — the economic pie — continues to be hoarded by the rich and corporations, creating unprecedented inequality. And workers have had less power to demand a share of that pie.

It is this inequality and its impact on economic growth that has finally pushed central bankers to re-examine their book of conventional economic “wisdom.”

To solve the issue of stagnant wages, government must fix the rules, including by empowering unions that can make a difference on the wage front. After 30 years of attacking them, governments should let unions do what they do best — raise people up, improve living and working conditions and share the pie.

Unions don’t just bargain better wages, they negotiate better jobs.

- Trevor Nunn discusses the growth of the gap between the rich and the rest of us. And Pedro da Costa makes it abundantly clear that the most important divide is between the extremely rich who have seen soaring incomes, and everybody from the 99th percentile downward:

- Eric Reguly discusses the emergence of corporate fascism. And Alan Freeman examines Sears' move to strip pension benefits away from its former employees as an example of how the consequences of corporate failures are visited primarily on workers. 

- Andrew Jackson makes the case for an increased minimum wage. And Jon Thompson reports on Ontario's basic income pilot program and its anticipated effect on people facing poverty and homelessness in Thunder Bay.

- Finally, Justin Ling highlights the absurdity of the Trudeau Libs' choice to cover up the details of their own transparency plan. Jeremy Nuttall interviews Harry Leslie Smith about the glaring gap between appearance and reality when it comes to the Libs' choices in office. And Murray Dobbin writes that Trudeau's push for corporatized free trade will be particularly damaging to Canada's cities.

Musical interlude

Big Sugar - Diggin' A Hole

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

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

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

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

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

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

On graceful exits

Last time fund-raising numbers were released from the federal NDP's leadership campaign, I noted the possible significance of Peter Julian's relative lack of donations. And the problem looked to be a double whammy for Julian: while any candidate would have reason for concern in not being able to fund a campaign as intended, it was especially problematic for a candidate whose brand included organizational superiority.

Today, Julian cited fund-raising as the main issue in departing from the race - presumably meaning he'd run through another quarter of disappointment.

And the race will be weaker for his leaving on a couple of fronts. First, Julian made important contributions to the issues within the campaign, notably by ensuring that all candidates thought through and clarified their positions on pipeline issues.

And second, Julian was the lone candidate with a substantial connection to British Columbia. That means the other candidates will have new opportunities to seek first-choice support in a province with a large number of members. But it also creates a risk that less people will be motivated to participate at all - and it's possible that other candidates who might have seen Julian's supporters as a source of down-ballot support will be worse off for his leaving the race.

New column day

Here, on Ottawa's Canada 150 event which was planned solely for the benefit of VIPs and businesses rather than mere people - and how that reality fits the Trudeau Libs' general governing themes.

For further reading...
- Again, CBC reported on the Canada Day fiasco, while the Ottawa Citizen published accounts from a few of the people who ran into it.
- CBC also followed up with Ottawa Tourism - which is the source of the column's observations about full hotels and restaurants being seen as a far higher priority than the well-being of participants - while also going into a bit more detail about the security arrangements.
- And Rob Drinkwater wrote about the trumped-up outrage over Justin Trudeau's omission of Alberta from his list of provinces and territories.
- Finally, Amy Minsky reports on the Libs' continued use of cash-for-access fund-raising. And PressProgress reports on polling done for Finance Canada which makes it clear the public knows that Trudeau and company aren't governing in the interests of the middle class.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Darlene O'Leary sets out the results from public consultations for a national anti-poverty strategy. And Dennis Howlett writes that our tax system could (and should) be set up to build a far more fair and supportive society.

- Meanwhile, Ryan Cooper makes the case for public services which are simple to use, rather than imposing avoidable stress on the people who are supposed to be benefiting.

- Jeff Minerd discusses how NAFTA has affected Canada's food supply by vastly increasing the quantity of unhealthy food imported from the U.S. And Scott Sinclair weighs in on the Trade in Services Agreement as the next threat to democratic control over public services.

- Didier Jacobs argues that the U.S. needs to rein in the use of shell corporations to facilitate corruption and tax evasion.

- But the CP reports that SNC-Lavalin is reorganizing itself to avoid taxes on income derived from Canadian P3 projects. And Dermod Travis notes that the B.C. Libs instead provided tax breaks to scam artists through their AdvantageBC crony support system. 

- Finally, Yanis Varoufakis comments on the false choice between the corporate establishment and the reactionary right - while appropriately labeling the latter the "Nationalist International". 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Danny Dorling writes about the connection between high inequality and disregard for the environment:

In a 2016 report, Oxfam found that the greatest polluters of all were the most affluent 10% of US households: each emitted, on average, 50 tonnes of CO2 per household member per year. Canada’s top 10% were the next most polluting, followed by the British, Russian and South African elites.

In more equitable affluent countries such as South Korea, Japan, France, Italy and Germany, the rich don’t just pollute less; the average pollution is lower too, because the bottom half of these populations pollute less than the bottom half in the US, Canada or Britain, despite being better off.

In short, people in more equal rich countries consume less, produce less waste and emit less carbon, on average. Indeed, almost everything associated with the environment improves when economic equality is greater.
...
It is only since the late 1970s that the 25 rich countries focused on in this article have begun to diverge widely in their levels of economic inequality. Because they have done so, a set of natural experiments has been set up which today allows research into the effects of these differences.

The preliminary conclusion, based on these natural experiments, is that the more economically equitable countries tend to perform better across a wide range of environmental measures. Once we know what the driving forces are, and become fully aware of the damage that is done by inequality in environmental as well as social terms, we will know how necessary it is to embrace change.

- Jordan Brennan makes the case as to why a fair minimum wage should be achievable by consensus in order to rein in longstanding economic unfairness.

- Anjum Sultana writes about the link between citizenship and the social determinants of health, highlighting how full inclusion leads to better results for everybody. And Seth Klein calls out the Fraser Institute for an especially dishonest and alarmist attack on Indigenous people just in time for National Aboriginal Day.

- Steven Chase reports on the Libs' refusal to be honest with Canadians about the use of Canadian troops in combat in Iraq.

- And finally, Stephanie Carvin, Aaron Wherry and the Globe and Mail each offer worthwhile reads on how the compensation being paid to Omar Khadr is the price for neglecting human rights - and how the way to avoid paying it is to respect rights in the first place.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Close cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ben Tarnoff discusses the growing number of basic public services which are being converted into private rents as profit motives are given precedence over democracy:

A profit-driven system doesn’t mean we get more for our money – it means someone gets to make more money off of us. The healthcare industry posts record profits and rewards its chief executives with the highest salaries in the country. It takes a peculiar frame of mind to see this arrangement as anything resembling efficient.

Attacking public services on the grounds of efficiency isn’t just incorrect, however – it’s beside the point. Decades of neoliberalism have corroded our capacity to think in non-economic terms. We’ve been taught that all fields of human life should be organized as markets, and that government should be run like a business. This ideology has found its perverse culmination in the figure of Donald Trump, a celebrity billionaire with no prior political experience who catapulted himself into the White House by invoking his expertise as an businessman. The premise of Trump’s campaign was that America didn’t need a president – it needed a CEO.
...
But government isn’t a business; it’s a different kind of machine. At its worst, it can be repressive and corrupt and autocratic. At its best, it can be an invaluable tool for developing and sustaining a democratic society. Among other things, this includes ensuring that everyone receives the resources they need to exercise the freedoms on which democracy depends. When we privatize public services, we don’t just risk replacing them with less efficient alternatives – we risk damaging democracy itself.

If this seems like a stretch, that’s because pundits and politicians have spent decades defining the idea of democracy downwards. It has come to mean little more than holding elections every few years. But this is the absolute minimum of democracy’s meaning. Its Greek root translates to “rule of the people” – not rule by certain people, such as the rich (plutocracy) or the priests (theocracy), but by all people. Democracy describes a way of organizing society in which the whole of the people determine how society should be organized.

What does this have to do with buses or schools or hospitals or houses? In a democracy, everyone gets to participate in the decisions that affect their lives. But that’s impossible if people don’t have access to the goods they need to survive – if they’re hungry or homeless or sick. And the reality is that when goods are rationed by the market, fewer people have access to them. Markets are places of winners and losers. You don’t get what you need – you get what you can afford.

By contrast, public services offer a more equitable way to satisfy basic needs. By taking things off the market, government can democratize access to the resources that people rely on to lead reasonably dignified lives. Those resources can be offered cheap or free, funded by progressive taxation. They can also be managed by publicly accountable institutions led by elected officials, or subject to more direct mechanisms of popular control.

- Rowena Mason and Anushka Asthana report on a new UK study showing how austerian politics have cut into the well-being of public-sector workers. And Jeff Perry writes that the Saskatchewan Party has been inflicting similar damage on teachers (among other public servants) even before its latest attempt to systematically transfer money from provincial workers to corporate cronies.

- Binta Baxter highlights how massive debts - including those run up through an exploitative student loan system - effectively turn workers into serfs.

- Emily Booth shares her experience as a mother just barely making ends meet. And Ainslie Cruickshank reports on the plight of the hundreds of Toronto women who face homelessness at the time they birth - while feeling compelled to pretend otherwise in order to avoid losing their children.

- Finally, CBC reports on a Canada Day security setup which could hardly have been much better designed to punish people for making the effort to share in a public event. And the Ottawa Citizen publishes letters from a few of the people affected.

Leadership 2017 Links

The latest from the federal NDP's leadership campaign.

- Jagmeet Singh offered a must-read Multiculturalism Day take on the extra challenges faced by people fighting negative stereotypes, while also announcing his first caucus endorsement from Randall Garrison.

- However, Andrew Jackson chimed in with a note of caution about Singh's plan to fold Old Age Security into an income-tested benefit for seniors. 

- Guy Caron stepped forward to critique Phillipe Couillard's attempt to conflate Muslim faith with terrorism. And Niki Ashton proposed a health care plan which includes adding dental care and other preventative care (along with a focus on the social determinations of health) to Canada's national medicare system.

- Jeremy Nuttall's report on the latest debate (hosted by the United Steelworkers and addressing labour issues in particular) focused on the strategic voting issue. Meagan Gilmore highlighted the candidates' support for labour while noting a few areas of developing disagreement. And Christo Aivilis reviewed the candidates' performances while emphasizing the importance of winning support for the NDP in particular, not merely running against pone or more right-wing competitors.

- Campaign Research's latest polling shows Singh slightly ahead in the general public, and Charlie Angus with a narrow lead among NDP supporters and self-declared members - though the most important finding is the modest public awareness of the candidates.

- Finally, Adam Radwanski points out both the rewards and the risks in front of NDP members due to the diversity of plausible winners in the race. Tim Harper notes that all of the leadership candidates are staking out distinctly progressive positions to at least some extent, rather than limiting themselves to centrist platitudes. Tom Parkin argues that instead of making a concerted push in any particular direction for strategic purposes, the leadership candidates (and NDP members choosing between them) should place a priority on authenticity and trust. And Duncan Cameron highlights the importance of presenting a positive vision for change.

Monday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Martin Lukacs writes that the world should able to draw plenty of positive examples from Canada's politics - though not from the corporate-focused federal Libs:

As Donald Trump rips up the Paris climate accords, it may seem easy to despair. But these provincial victories show us there is a reason to hope: the huge potential in uniting urgent environmental action with an unapologetically left-wing agenda.

The agreement signed by the B.C. Greens and NDP — the boldest declaration of an incoming government in recent Canadian history — gives a taste of what this might look like.

Consider just a few of their plans. A ban on big money donations and the introduction of proportional voting: this alone would transform an enclave of corporate power into a more functional democracy. Honouring the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: this would start to heal the colonial wounds that tear apart the province. And “employing every tool” to block the Kinder Morgan tar sands pipeline: this would be a message that economic development need not torch our climate commitments, which would reverberate across the country.

It’s not quite a left-wing agenda: after all, the NDP has pledged only the most modest tax hikes to redistribute the obscene hoarded wealth in Canada’s most unequal province. But in its fusion of environmental and economic action, it is historic. In coalition, the fiscally-conservative Greens and environmentally-timid NDP have expressed the best of their platforms, and canceled out the worst.
...
For those who believe such ambition is impossible, look to those who fought for a $15 minimum wage in Ontario. They too were scoffed at for being “unrealistic.” They were ignored at first by major labour unions and the Ontario NDP. But grassroots campaigners, led by women of colour, built a campaign that forced the hand of a weakened Liberal government. They showed that, now more than ever, people are right to nurture higher expectations.
...
Quebec Solidaire comes closest to expressing this transformative vision. Its prospects in Quebec – a significant jump in the polls, an influx of thousands of new members — have now been boosted by Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois. Before he won a by-election this week by a record margin, he made his name working alongside movements forging common cause: by fighting for free university tuition and strengthened public services, as well as against the Energy East tar sands pipeline, he has helped to articulate the holistic core of a new progressive politics. With the Parti Quebecois faltering, there is every reason to believe that such politics can win a much greater share of Quebec’s electorate — and even to hold the balance of power.

- Meanwhile, Rick Salutin argues that we should draw our national identity from genuine achievements such as our national medicare system, rather than worrying unduly about symbols for their own sake. But Tom Parkin laments the fact that far too much of our political media is easily distracted by shiny baubles such as Justin Trudeau's socks, rather than paying any meaningful attention to the choices which affect Canadians' lives.

- Campbell Clark discusses the elitism behind the Libs' push for a corporate trade agreement with China. And Robert Fife and Steven Chase report that the public doesn't share the Libs' blithe disregard for the security implications of handing technology firms to Chinese capital.  

- Carl Meyer exposes how the Libs reversed an evidence-based decision to ban
dangerous cosmetics based on corporate lobbying.

- Finally, Dean Baker examines the possible effects of a financial transactions tax - and notes that the elimination of extreme inequality based on top-end incomes linked to financial-sector rent-seeking is one of the major benefits.

Sunday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Abi Wilkinson writes that we'll be far better served fighting inequality generally rather than limiting our focus to issues of social mobility:

When we talk about social mobility, we’re talking about movement between the strata of our social class system. (Generally upwards movement – nobody seems to want to discuss the fact that making room for people from poorer backwards at the top might necessitate others, born into privilege, travelling in the opposite direction.)

The ideology is meritocratic. It’s assumed that hard work and aptitude should be the only factors determining your future prospects. The goal of improving baseline living standards is framed mainly as a method of improving the opportunities of individuals born into poverty.

As long as class stratification continues to exist, though, opportunities can never be truly equal. The Time for Change report discusses the impact poverty has on children’s ability to learn but also notes that the best-paid jobs remain “deeply elitist”. Employers continue to hire in their own image, assuming that people like them will “fit in” with clients and the workplace culture. People continue to use their connections to give their children a leg up.

No amount of targeted social mobility or anti-poverty policy can truly mitigate the ability of class privilege to perpetuate through generations. And there’s a whole other moral conundrum around meritocracy that is another column in itself – about whether natural aptitude should mean you deserve a nicer life.
...
More mbitiously, we could try to reimagine our economic system in a way that removes or decreases the power imbalance between people in possession of capital and those who need to sell their labour to survive – while also recognising the issues of stratification within each category. The Alternative Models of Ownership report produced by the Labour party offers some ideas about how this may be achieved.

Focusing narrowly on social mobility is like affixing a fraying rope ladder between the branches of a tree, when in reality the trunk is rotting from the inside and the whole thing needs chopping down. The British Social Attitudes Survey, also released today, has found increased support for state intervention and redistribution through higher taxes. More and more of us are recognising that the current system is broken – this feels like the perfect time for a radical rethink.

- Kevin Carmichael discusses the need for Canada to address its own burgeoning inequality - as well as the danger that politicians with a short-term mindset won't see fit to bother. And the Economist takes note of the impact of high-end tax evasion in allowing the richest few to avoid making a fair contribution to the societies which allow them to succeed. 

- The Observer comments on the role governments should play in reducing the stress faced by citizens as a means of improving mental health outcomes. And Richard Friedman points out that instead, we've settled for an environment which positively breeds addictions by combining easy access to addictive goods with constant stress and anxiety.

- Finally, Romeo Saganash calls out the Libs' callousness in pushing a jingoistic celebration of a history steeped in cultural genocide.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Alan Freeman discusses the real costs of ideologically-driven deregulation:

The idea that “the market” will root out bad actors in any industry and that regulations are just a hindrance to economic vitality is a dangerous concept. Companies, like individuals, will do what they can get with. If there were no costly traffic tickets or demerit points, some drivers would speed along residential streets at 100 kilometres an hour and routinely jump red lights. It’s no different for corporate behaviour, whether it’s banks making risky loans, companies selling flammable cladding or meatpackers taking shortcuts on hygiene.

Only strong laws backed up by robust enforcement and big penalties for offenders, including jail time if necessary, can truly protect society. When it came to the poor residents of Grenfell Tower, light regulation proved to be a death sentence.

- Pierre Laliberte and Scott Sinclair examine the effects of NAFTA and its possible termination, and find that there's no reason for Canada to make significant concessions in the name of preserving continental free trade. And given Canada's woeful track record in NAFTA challenges (as pointed out by Mia Rabson), there may in fact be plenty to gain by removing one particularly damaging restraint on democratic governance.

- Meanwhile, Andy Crosby points out how the same federal government which has gone so far out of its way to sell out the public interest in corporate trade deals has taken a brutally hard and cynical line in dealing with First Nations on issues of treaty rights. Ben Parfitt focuses on how the fossil fuel lobby has run roughshod over British Columbia First Nations whose water is endangered by fracking operations. And the CCPA highlights the role of long-overdue reconciliation in building a more fair and sustainable Canada. 

- Paul Wells writes that the Libs are following in the Cons' footsteps by pushing politicized and corporate-oriented funding models for research - even as scientists tell them that's exactly the wrong approach.

- Finally, Michal Rozworski is among many economists signing on to support a $15 minimum wage based on its economic and social benefits. And Lars Osberg, Craig Riddell, Rozworski and Jim Stanford explain their support in more detail.

Musical interlude

Sloan - The Good In Everyone

Thursday Afternoon Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Des Cohen discusses how economic inequality has developed - and how it's now rewarding people for doing nothing more than worsening its effects. And Chase Burghgrave interviews Elizabeth Anderson about the employer-based power which is used to keep American workers in line:

You describe the authority of employers as like that of dictators, capable of micromanaging employees’ actions at the workplace as well as reprimanding them for their off-hour activities. Many conservatives and libertarians would probably take issue with workplaces being described in this way, citing the employee’s agreement to the employment contract as evidence of no wrongdoing on the part of the employer. Why should we see authority in the workplace as a form of governance and not as a contractual agreement between equals?

The case of the employer-employee relation is similar [to historical marriage contracts]. The state has determined the default terms of the employment relation through employment law. These establish a regime of “employment at will“: the employer can fire the employee for any or no reason, with very few exceptions, mostly having to do with discrimination. This grants bosses almost complete authority over workers, not only on the job but off duty as well.

Since the state has already put its thumbs very heavily on the scales in favor of employers, it is absurd to suppose that the employment contract is a product of negotiation between equals. Very few employees get a chance to negotiate at all.

While it is technically possible for the worker to negotiate better terms, in practice employers reject negotiation over the scope of employer authority out of hand, except for employees at the very top of the worker hierarchy and those represented by labor unions. Since they, like nineteenth-century husbands, have been dealt all the authority cards by default, why would they negotiate to give any of them to their employees?

- Joe Mihevc rightly argues that anger is an entirely justified response to the continued acceptance of poverty by political leaders. And Geoff Tily writes about the Bank of England's recognition that perpetually rising consumer debt can't be the foundation of a sustainable economy.

- Jacquie Maund and Hazel Stewart point out how a lack of public dental coverage leads to health and social harms.

- Shiri Pasternak writes that the Trudeau Libs are looking to impose a cultural of permanent austerity on First Nations (while dressing it up in rhetoric about self-governance). And Nancy Macdonald tells the story of Barb Kentner, who faces imminent death after a racist attack in Thunder Bay.

- Finally, Andrew Nikiforuk discusses the dangerous abandoned wells left behind by decades of Alberta PC fealty to the oil industry. And Sharon Kelly notes that  Saskatchewan isn't the only jurisdiction which has sunk billions into the false promise of "clean coal", as a Mississippi power plant initially designed as another attempt to whitewash coal power is instead converting entirely to natural gas (at a $3.4 billion loss).

New column day

Here, on how the historical competition between the NDP and the Greens hasn't precluded cooperation where it counts in British Columbia - and how the governing accord there might offer an example of cross-party collaboration for all levels of government.

For further reading...
- Martyn Brown wrote about the danger the Greens might have posed to a change in government early in the election campaign.
- Nancy MacDonald documented the post-election negotiations on all sides, including the common ground between John Horgan and Andrew Weaver once they got to talking. And Andrew MacLeod reported on what Horgan's NDP and Weaver's Greens were able to agree to.
- Finally, Andrew Coyne discusses Justin Trudeau's contempt for the public which has helped smooth over any differences between the NDP and Greens at the federal level. And the Greens' adoption of a preference for a mixed-member proportional electoral system offers an area where it may be possible to translate agreement between the two parties into policy change.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Colin Gordon discusses how contempt for democracy is one of the uniting principles of the right around the globe while reviewing Nancy MacLean's Democracy in Chains:

At the intersection of Buchanan’s market fundamentalism and his embrace of Jim Crow lies a fundamental reservation — nakedly evident on today’s radical right — about equal political citizenship and majority rule. This stemmed in part, from Calhoun onward, from a conviction that the polity could be cleft between “makers and takers,” and that it was the “takers” who, by employing state power to tax wealth and income, were doing the exploiting.

Buchanan’s “public choice” economics dressed this up as an iron law of both human nature and democratic rule (“a cynicism so toxic,” MacLean suggests, “that, if widely believed, it would eat like acid at the foundations of civic life”). Politically, Buchanan and his allies looked to gird the advantage enjoyed by the makers (by removing the last constraints on campaign finance, for example) while muffling the votes and the voices of the rest of us.

The combination, of course, is the hallmark of neoliberalism, whose interest is not in rolling back the state but in employing state power toward particular ends, including the protection of wealth and property and the suppression and surveillance of the poor. For all its thin distaste of “big government,” Buchanan’s radical right betrays a healthy appetite for repression.
...
Over time, Buchanan and his allies tacitly admitted that they had no popular constituency; that the voting public — even those who had supported Reagan and cheered the congressional “Contract with America” — hesitated “when they learned that freed markets would leave them with sole responsibility for their fates.” The solution, first floated in the early debates over Social Security privatization and starkly evident in tortuous repeal of the Affordable Care Act, is to “crab-walk” around the issues, to claim that frontal assaults on popular social insurance programs are efforts to “shore them up” rather than destroy them.

The second, and more chilling, solution is to junk the rules entirely; to tilt an already unlevel playing field decisively and irrevocably against the popular will.

- Marius Busemeyer and Erik Neimanns explore how beneficiaries of social programs tend to reject government involvement in areas other than the ones which support them personally - making benefits vulnerable to politicians who are able to play one group against another (even while intending to leave them all worse off).

- Owen Jones takes note of the fact that the same UK Conservative government which has proclaimed a lack of money to help people has been able to find plenty to buy off the DUP in order to stay in power. And Rob Shaw points out the similar turnaround from Christy Clark's B.C. Libs as they try to cling to power.

- Patrica Thille discusses how obesity is primarily the result of political choices.

- Finally, Claire Provost examines how the Trudeau Libs are choosing to do little to end Canada's persistent gender inequality.

Tuesday Evening Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Katie Allen reports on Kathleen O'Grady's look at precarious work - and how a generation of young workers is being taught to expect nothing more. Gareth Hutchens discusses Sally McManus' call for the labour movement to seek opportunities to disrupt an economic system set up to exploit workers. Andrew Jackson points out Canada's woeful job quality and severe poverty compared to international peers. And JaNay Queen offers a model for the social determinants of income security.

- Meanwhile, Martin Wolf discusses how inequality and insecurity serve to fuel populism of all kinds. Frank Graves analyzes how one definition of populism is viewed in Canada - finding that a majority of supporters of all parties are open to a message which incorporates populist themes from across the political spectrum. And John Herrman examines how the U.S.' most reactionary elements are trying to brand themselves as "alternative" in order to tap into anti-establishment sentiment.

- Lisa Windsteiger writes about the connection between shrinking social circles and growing inequality. And Jay Pitter points out how the Grenfell Tower tragedy could have been prevented if anybody near power had any interest in listening to people living in social housing.

- Finally, Clothilde Goujard highlights Naomi Klein's warning that Canada shouldn't mistake Justin Trudeau for a progressive leader - whether due to his own PR machine, or due to the contrast against Donald Trump. And Althia Raj reports on Trudeau's laughable claim that the MPs who did the work of studying potential electoral systems to blame for listening to Canadians in making recommendations rather than reading his mind as to the lone self-serving change he'd accept.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Collapsed cats.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- Greg Leiseron discusses why the abject failure of Kansas' anti-social experiment with trickle-down economics shouldn't have come as a surprise to anybody:

Claims of supply-side growth from labor income tax cuts rely on the idea that people will be more willing to work when their after-tax wages are higher. This theory posits that labor income tax cuts result in growth because people who could increase their earnings choose not to because tax rates are too high, but it does not take much to see why cutting tax rates for middle- and higher-income families does not create jobs through this mechanism. Middle- and higher-income families already have jobs, even if they are not the jobs they necessarily want.

Claims of supply-side growth from tax cuts on business profits rely on the idea that those cuts will increase the level of investment and that, in turn, will increase productivity. Under this theory, a tax cut on business profits could increase employment by spurring investment, increasing wages, and attracting people into the labor force who are not willing to take a job at current wage rates. For this theory to work, however, it would need to be the case that cutting statutory business tax rates would meaningfully reduce the effective tax rate on an incremental investment such that the tax cut causes businesses to increase investment. Second, it would need to be the case that the reduced tax rate causes businesses to increase investment in a way that increases the wages they would be willing to pay to people who currently choose not to work because wages are too low. Third, it would need to be the case that this increase in wages would be large enough to spur people who currently choose not to work to enter the labor force and seek jobs. And finally, the deficits resulting from the tax cuts would need to be small enough that they increase businesses’ cost of capital by less than the reduction resulting from the lower tax rate, as a higher cost of capital would cause businesses to reduce investment rather than increase it.

These conditions are highly unlikely to hold in practice. Businesses already pay relatively little tax on the incremental return from investments in tangible capital due to tax benefits such as accelerated depreciation and interest deductibility, and they often pay no tax—or even receive a tax subsidy—on marginal investments in intangible capital. Moreover, reducing the statutory tax rate on business income actually increases the effective tax rate on debt-financed investment, which is a common source of financing for investments in tangible capital because businesses deduct interest payments from taxable income.

- Jonathan Rauch makes the case for conservatives to support collective bargaining to ensure that social stability is possible - rather than seeking to undermine labour at every turn as right-wing parties are currently wont to do. And Stephen Tweedale comments on the value of card check certification to give effect to workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively.

- CTV reports on the limits of capital's interest in a market with full information, as Montreal landlords are complaining about tenants sharing information about the rent they're paying. And Jonathan Garber examines how markets have been consistently - and systematically - off the mark in their estimates of something as basic as bond rates.

- Rob Ferguson reports on Ontario's long-overdue limitation on employer sick note requirements - which is actually meeting little objection even from employers themselves.

- Andrew Jackson examines the relationship between increasing rents and inequality in making cities unaffordable for all but the most privileged workers.

- Finally, Morna Ballantyne writes that Ontario's latest child care announcement represents a significant step forward compared to what the federal government has on offer.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne writes that austerity bears much of the blame for the Grenfell Tower inferno - as well as for the increased dangers facing all but the wealthiest of people:

Grenfell Tower was not an accident. It is what happens when austerity becomes entrenched government ideology.

Grenfell Tower is the tragic consequence of an economic system that no longer works for most people, but instead fuels inequality and greed.

Grenfell Tower is the tragic consequence of government indifference and arrogance and, yes, even contempt for those struggling to make ends meet every single day, working multiple jobs and still unable to move up the so-called mobility ladder.

It has nothing to do with how hard they work, because for the most part they work too much and too hard, and yet the system is stacked against them. And then governments, acting on behalf of the few rather than the many, make those circumstances worse. They push a university or college education out of reach. They slash and burn and cut back on all the programs that allow people to have a chance at a better life. And they do it while slashing taxes for the rich and global corporations.

And then they cave to the lobbies that complain that health and safety regulations are red tape.

- And Oolong argues that austerity is best viewed as today's form of human sacrifice in the name of a false religion.

- Erika Shaker examines the spread of precarious work in Ontario's education sector (as well as in the broader economy).

- Nora Loreto points out how Canada's big banks are raking in billions in profits while slashing jobs - and wonders why reporting on one of those facts seldom mentions the other. And Tom Murphy discusses how multinational corporations are lobbying to sneak implicit approval for tax evasion into the UN's sustainable development goals.

- Meanwhile, Noah Smith observes that decades of corporate giveaways have been rewarded with a decline in business investment in the U.S.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom highlights how Justin Trudeau is following in Stephen Harper's footsteps by expanding an unaccountable security state at the expense of Canadians' privacy. Jeremy Nuttall points out how the Libs have broken their promises on access to information. And Kelly McParland writes that broken promises and sudden reversals represent the main theme of Trudeau's stay in power.