Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Will Wachtmeister reviews Malcolm Torry's book of arguments for a basic income, focusing in particular on social cohesion and innovation as important reasons why individuals should enjoy economic security. But Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel write that the U.S. Republicans (among other parties) are looking to play up divisions based on race and nationality in order to attack the concept of equality - and all too often reaping political gains in the process:

Identifying as ideologically conservative also increases opposition to inequality-reducing action, but the size of that effect is dwarfed by the effect of identifying as a Republican. Perhaps most surprisingly, factors related to income and feelings of economic peril or insecurity have no significant impact on opinions regarding whether government should take action to reduce income inequality.

We find similar results when we examine attitudes toward one of the most effective policies to reduce inequality: government aid to the poor. Again, those with high levels of racial resentment are significantly more likely to prefer decreased federal aid to the poor compared to those with low levels of racial resentment. Unsurprisingly, Republicans prefer that federal aid to the poor be decreased, while Democrats and Independents want it increased.
...
These results should lead progressives to reconsider the importance of race as a motivating factor on attitudes related to a wide swath of policy issues. Indeed, consideration of race should be central to analysis of even issues, like economic inequality, that seem to not be about race. But further, they show that the idea that Republicans will ever go so far to the right that Americans will reject them is unlikely. The sad reality is that most Americans don’t see a large causal connection between government policy and their lived experiences. Instead, they’ll likely blame the poor, immigrants and blacks.

- Duncan Kinney discusses the economic and social benefits Alberta could enjoy by transitioning toward cleaner energy quickly, rather than doing so only because it has to later on.

- PressProgress looks at yet another study showing that opponents of a higher minimum wage are wrong to presume that fair wages have any substantial impact on job numbers.

- Andrew Coyne reminds us that a more proportional electoral system would encourage true majority governments (composed of one or more parties), rather than the false ones generated by first-past-the-post or alternative vote options.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg writes about the Libs' lack of commitment to do anything about C-51 and other Con intrusions onto civil rights.

On timing

Following up on the subject of the federal NDP's leadership, I'll note that the Edmonton convention won't figure to be the only one before the next federal election - and that there might be a case to hold off for now.

The NDP's constitution provides for conventions not less than every other calendar year, meaning that another one should take place well in advance of the 2019 election. And there are factors mostly beyond the NDP's control which may influence any question as to who is best suited to lead the party.

In particular, there's likely some truth to the theory that a different electoral system might produce different incentives for political parties in general. And Mulcair may be a textbook example of a leader better suited to some systems than to others for members primarily concerned with electoral viability.

Mulcair's broad acceptability is a particularly strong asset under first-past-the-post or alternative voting systems, particularly if his relative fortune compared to Justin Trudeau gets reversed again. But in a more proportional system, somebody with a stronger personal connection to issue-based organizing might be better suited to take on the leadership role.

And there are plenty of other risk/reward considerations involved in holding a leadership race sooner rather than later. Even if one assumes a leadership race will happen at some point, the value of building a new leader's personal brand over a longer period of time can be weighed against the advantage of knowing who other parties (notably the Cons) will be putting forward before making any final decisions.

I won't presume to wade through all of the considerations which might affect a party decision as to who ought to lead it. But I do think it's safe to say there might be something to be gained by gathering more information before making any irreversible choices.

On organization

Given some of the odd twists and turns in Paul Wells' latest piece on Tom Mulcair's future, I'm hesitant to give too much credence to his unnamed sources. But to the extent it's accurate, Wells' take on the lack of much organization on any side of a leadership vote seems fairly important:

Back to my first anonymous source. “There are a few angry, angry, angry people,” this person said, “who I would say are concentrated among the MPs. They’re pinning everything on Mulcair.” This person thinks it’s harsh to blame Mulcair entirely for the loss of 51 seats last October. Justin Trudeau also had something to do with it.

“But I would say there’s a growing consensus that Mulcair needs to step aside,” this person continued. “But there’s no organizing or campaigning going on.”

The constitutionally mandated leadership review after an election is a simple matter. Delegates to a national convention vote on whether there should be a new leadership convention. In any party, dissatisfaction with the leader is unlikely to crystallize unless there’s a present and available alternative.
...
Maybe Mulcair will launch his charm offensive when the House returns at the end of January. Maybe he has no need to charm anyone. With no credible replacement, his opponents may well fold their tents. That’s not an ideal campaign slogan for 2019, but you make do with what you’ve got.

Now, I'd disagree with the theory that any new leadership vote would be predicated on there being some obvious successor waiting in the wings. But even if any leadership campaign could wait until later, the "organizing" side is rather important.

If there were indeed a broad consensus as to the need for a new leadership contest, we'd expect it to be relatively easy for somebody to build some structure around that position. Conversely, if it's true that no substantial organizing is happening around the leadership vote, that would tend to signal that complaints about Mulcair are better classified as meaningless backseat driving, rather than a significant rallying point.

Of course, I've pointed out that some of the most important questions about Mulcair himself revolve around his fit to lead a movement-based party rather than a government-in-waiting. And I'm certainly hoping we'll see some more visible steps in that direction in the near future - whether or not they're seen as responding to a leadership challenge.

But if the most important potential weakness on Mulcair's part applies even more strongly to anybody trying to oust him, that hardly serves as an impetus for change.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Errol Mendes points out that any commitment to securing human rights in our foreign policy is currently limited by the lack of any systematic attempt to see how those rights are being treated. And Rick Mercer rants about the Libs' gall in misleading Canadians about the sales of arms to tyrants (though his recollection of the election campaign is somewhat off):


- Meanwhile, David Boyd points out that climate change is just another area where an obsession with corporate interests above all else is leading to fundamental values being compromised.

- Daniel Dale documents the callous disregard Michigan's Republican administration has shown toward the people it's poisoned in Flint. And Kristi Tanner takes a look at the devastating long-term public health impacts of a single austerian decision.

- Doug Cuthand points out how Brad Wall is playing politics at the expense of First Nations - though it's worth keeping in mind that voters get the final say in whether that calculation works or not.

- Finally, Dani Rodrik writes about the need to bring public investment back into our discussion about how to build an economy that works for everybody:

The idea that public investment in infrastructure – roads, dams, power plants, and so forth – is an indispensable driver of economic growth has always held powerful sway over the minds of policymakers in poor countries. It also lay behind early development assistance programs following World War II, when the World Bank and bilateral donors funneled resources to newly independent countries to finance large-scale projects. And it motivates the new China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which aims to fill the region’s supposed $8 trillion infrastructure gap.

But this kind of public-investment-driven growth model – often derisively called “capital fundamentalism” – has long been out of fashion among development experts. Since the 1970s, economists have been advising policymakers to de-emphasize the public sector, physical capital, and infrastructure, and to prioritize private markets, human capital (skills and training), and reforms in governance and institutions. From all appearances, development strategies have been transformed wholesale as a result.

It may be time to reconsider that change. If one looks at the countries that, despite strengthening global economic headwinds, are still growing very rapidly, one will find public investment is doing a lot of the work.

...

Public investment can enhance an economy’s productivity for a substantial period of time, even a decade or more, as it clearly has done in Ethiopia. It can also catalyze private investment, and there is some evidence that this has happened in India in recent years.

The potential benefits of public investment are not limited to developing countries. In fact, today it may be the advanced economies of North America and Western Europe that stand to gain the most from ramping up domestic public investment. In the aftermath of the great recession, there are many ways in which these economies could put additional public spending to good use: to increase demand and employment, restore crumbling infrastructure, and boost research and development, particularly in green technologies.

Such arguments are typically countered in policy debates by objections related to fiscal balance and macroeconomic stability. But public investment is different from other types of official outlays, such as expenditures on public-sector wages or social transfers. Public investment serves to accumulate assets, rather than consume them. So long as the return on those assets exceeds the cost of funds, public investment in fact strengthens the government’s balance sheet.

Friday Evening Links

This and that to end your week.

- Serina Sandhu writes that everybody is worse off when inequality is allowed to run rampant. And Danny Dorling highlights the principles we'll need to follow in order to reverse the trend in that direction:

There was a time when hardly anyone was roofless in the UK, when you never met a beggar and when those with least were not that different from those in the middle, when those with least had enough to be included in society. I was young then. As I age it becomes harder to remember when I first saw teenagers having to sleep rough, or was first asked for ‘the price of a cup of tea’, or first realized that because I could make some choices whereas others couldn’t, that they were no longer free.

Luckily you don’t have to rely on the memories of the old to know that a more equal world is possible, a world where the 1% take a far smaller share of the cake. The 1%, by definition, will always be those taking the largest slice, but not always such a great fat slice, leaving slithers for the rest. Question those who say that it can only be this way. Try to question them kindly rather than with incredulity. A society based on merit would be remarkably equitable compared with what we face today. No one is worth 3000 times another person. The three-thousand fold inequalities within the 1% are just as indefensible as those between them and the other 99%.
...
Gross inequality creates a lack of respect for the other group – people who are not like us. There is a lack of respect among the rich for the poor, and that will be the same among the poor for the rich. Lack of respect breeds cruelty and hate. Lack of respect is not new and has grown between groups many times before, over religion, race, nationality, social class, sex and sexuality. These older divisions all remain and can be easily reignited, resulting in cruelty and hate, fear, suffering and despair. However, nowadays it is financial inequality both globally and in the UK that is the greatest source of our separation from each other.

What is needed is understanding and generosity, hope and perseverance, but above all kindness. Kindness is patient, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13, verses 4-8). All is worthwhile when we have been kind.

- Meanwhile, Jonathan Heller connects race and poverty as related contributing causes of health disparities. But Robert Rogers finds that it's income which plays a larger role than any other factor in childhood obesity.

- Ben Norton comments on the U.S.' disappearing middle class, as the majority of the population doesn't have enough savings to handle even a $1,000 emergency expense.

- Hugh Mackenzie responds to a particularly inept defence of labour inequality by pointing out that even if CEOs were worth their weight in gold, they'd still be overpaid. And Adnan Al-Daini discusses how everybody else is subsidizing the increasingly absurd amounts being paid to the lucky few.

- Finally, Michael Harris delivers a well-deserved retort to Kevin O'Leary in response to his attempt to become Canada's Donald Trump:

Using O’Leary’s standards, the guy with the biggest bank account is the smartest dude. Which means that Norway wins because it both got North Sea oil developed, and it exacted the public’s fair share, which it refused to merge into general revenues. Alberta and Canada caved in to energy investment at any price, blew the windfall, and now have to face the music. With oil dipping below $30 a barrel, it might be a dirge.

So let’s not forget the real authors of this mess. O’Leary would have you believe that Alberta now has catastrophic political leadership. What he actually means is the free lunch for Big Business is over.

The NDP might have delivered a $5 billion deficit budget, replete with new taxes — but it was past Conservative governments which made both the deficit and the tax hikes inevitable. They were put in charge of massive amounts of money and mismanaged it tragically.

It’s ludicrous for O’Leary to now complain that Rachel Notley is the wrong steward for what he calls Canada’s most important resource. The only people who believe that are the ones whose heads are “for rent, unfurnished”, as the saying goes.

Musical interlude

Dirty Vegas - Setting Sun

On relativity

Since we're seeing another wave of hysteria about Tom Mulcair's support in the general public as the NDP's convention approaches, let's check in with the main poll being cited for the thesis that there's some imminent issue with his popular support.

And in particular, let's take a look at the question which considers leaders in absolute rather than relative terms:

More than seven of ten Canadians (72.0%) believe Trudeau has the qualities of a good political leader while 56.3% say the same of Mulcair, 28.4% of Ambrose and 36.5% of May. 

So which of these theories fits the data?

(a) ZOMGEVERYBODYHATESMULCAIRMUSTREPLACENOW!!!
(b) Tom Mulcair remains a respected leader whose "preferred" numbers in comparison to Trudeau have dropped primarily due to the latter's honeymoon phase.

As during the election, Mulcair is running into the flip side of the axiom that "it's good enough to be a 3 if everybody else is a 2": it's not good enough to be a 6 if somebody else manages to be seen as a 7.

But that doesn't mean any party can reasonably ignore a relatively strong starting point. And so whatever reasons there are for reviewing Mulcair's leadership, his level of public approval can't plausibly be seen as one of them.

New column day

Here, on the appalling failure of both the province of Saskatchewan and the city of Regina to contribute a nickel to a long-overdue Housing First pilot project.

For further reading...
- D.C. Fraser reported on the project here, with this serving as the money quote:

The one-year pilot project will get $400,000 from the federal government. Roberts is confident that money will lead to success, but is realistic about how far those funds can be stretched.

“It’s only $400,000. There’s only so much you can do with that, only so many people you can hire,” he said. “If we suddenly shoot for the stars and say we’re going to end homelessness in Regina tomorrow, that’s not a realistic expectation.”

It is unlikely the city or province will add money to what is being made available by the federal government, according to Roberts. Other jurisdictions using Housing First models have received money from other levels of government.

- Fraser's follow-up story shows Michael Fougere lapping up credit and attention notwithstanding the city's lack of any contribution, while the province simply stays on the sidelines. And CBC's report mentions how few people are expected to be helped in the first year. 
- As for the other past broken promises and failed plans mentioned in the story, the report (PDF) of the provincial government's much-ballyhooed advisory group on poverty was announced last August. And Fraser noted this week that a promised strategy has never been unveiled.
- Meanwhile, Regina points to its committee involvement and some off-hand mentions of homelessness in housing plans (PDF) without seeming to go any further. And Shawn Fraser has rightly highlighted the city's refusal to actually take steps of its own even while it endorses federal action.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On strategic choices

Christopher Kam's series of posts on political parties' strategy surrounding electoral reform is definitely worth a read. But I'll stand by the view that there's another alternative interpretation of the likely outcomes - particularly based on the likely alignment of any coalition between parties:

The configuration of parties’ preference orderings over electoral systems suggests two nascent coalitions**:

1. An ideological coalition of the Liberals, NDP, and Greens versus the Conservatives;
2. A coalition of the large (Liberals and Conservatives) against the small (NDP and Greens).

The first coalition could come together around a high-district magnitude STV system, but not around MMP. The second could come together around AV or low-M STV.

Frankly, I just don’t see the first coalition as all that viable. Here’s why:

1. The Liberals enjoy a majority; they can impose their own choice on the country;
2. The Liberals are also the only party that’s common to both coalitions; quite apart from their majority, they are pivotal on this issue;
3. The Conservatives actually have some leverage vis-a-vis the Liberals in the form of a (temporary) Senate majority. Even if the Liberals were to stack the Senate, the Conservatives could mount a fairly effective blockade of the legislation.
4. Let’s say that the first coalition threatens to crystallize around high-M STV (or, due to some surprising event, around MMP), the Conservative could concede AV to the Liberals.  This offer i) gets the Liberals exactly what they want with ii) the support of their main ideological opponent (all the better to rebut charges of self-interest), and iii) AV’s district magnitude of 1 preserves the disproportionality that that Conservatives need to do well; and iv) it removes electoral reform from the agenda for decades.
5. To repeat, MMP just doesn’t serve the Liberals’ interests as well as AV or low-M STV.

For these reasons (and especially the last), a coalition of the Large versus the Small seems more likely to me.

Now, it's certainly possible that the parties' decision-making could reflect Kam's theoretical analysis. But even leaving aside the points I've made as to how the Cons may have some incentive of their own to prefer a more proportional system, there's also reason to think the "ideological coalition" may have more legs than Kam thinks.

As Frank Graves for one has repeatedly pointed out, the Libs' election victory was based largely on support from exactly that coalition: the decisive group of voters was one of "promiscuous progressives" who had relatively little preference as to which party took power so long as it replaced the Cons. And indeed, it remains the case that the NDP and Thomas Mulcair are seen positively - just not as much so as the party basking in the glow of winning power.

From that starting point, there would seem to be no more sure way to lose the approval of many of the voters who put the Libs in power than by breaking a clear election promise, giving in to the demands of the Cons, and perpetuating the system which allowed Stephen Harper to win majority power with minority support. In other words, there's an obvious practical reason why first-past-the-post should be taken off the table.

Kam raises the possibility that the Cons and Libs might instead agree on AV as an alternative. But that analysis leaves out the possibility that the Cons might not play along - meaning the Libs would have the choice of going it alone on AV and facing attacks on all sides, or seeking common ground on MMP or other more proportional systems.

And even if the Cons are willing to participate in a "Large" coalition backing AV, there's still significant political risk in acting with their support alone.

That type of insiders vs. outsiders dynamic can be exactly what an outsider party needs to boost its support beyond what's previously been seen as possible, particularly if the Libs' cooperation with the Cons alone is seen to disqualify them as "progressive". And an AV election where voters inclined toward the NDP, Greens and Bloc all find common ground in disapproving of the Libs' choice of electoral systems might result in some highly unpleasant surprises for Trudeau.

One can fairly make the argument that the factors mentioned by Kam will still win out in the end. But if they do, it's not for lack of some significant countervailing forces - and the Libs will want to be careful how much they feed into an argument that they're merely reinforcing what they've promised to replace.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Jordan Yadoo discusses the increasing inequality in lifespans across the income scale. Roderick Benns writes that Belleville (along with Cornwall) has joined the movement calling for a basic income so everybody has some measure of security. And Chris Dillow theorizes that it's non-material goods which are most inaccessible to all but the wealthiest among us:

I suspect that most of the best things that the median income-earner can’t buy are non-material goods.

One is financial security. 49% of people, and most 35-44 year-olds live in households with less than £5000 of net financial wealth (pdf). They are only a pay cheque or two away from trouble.

Another is status. Our wages are related to our sense of worth – which is one reason why most people would prefer (pdf) a lower but above-average income to a higher but below-average one. A median income, by definition doesn’t provide much status.

...

 

Another thing our median earner can’t buy is workplace autonomy: she is more likely to be the victim of workplace coercion than the beneficiary of it. And even if she isn’t, she probably lacks the satisfying work which the better-paid sometimes enjoy.  And she is tied to work for years, because she lacks the savings to retire early. Warren Buffett might dance to work every day, but most people on £25,000 a year do not.

Now, none of this is to deny that things have improved; workers today enjoy better conditions and shorter hours than their 19^th century ancestors. But it seems to me that what median earners lack are the goods which are higher up the hierarchy of needs.

- Meanwhile, D.C. Fraser reports on Regina's first step toward a Housing First strategy to end homelessness - though sadly neither the province nor the city can be bothered to contribute a dime.

- Sara Mojtehedzadeh follows up on the story of wage theft in Ontario restaurants by reporting that the employees involved in the most prominent case still haven't received a dime of the $675,000 owed by their past employer.

- Sean McElwee and Brian Schaffner point out that the U.S. fight against a cleaner environment is being conducted almost entirely by the Republicans' donor class. And Charles Mandel offers some suggestions for greener living at the individual level.

- Finally, Michael Geist highlights the ongoing battle over open access to the Internet in Canada.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Chair cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Scott Santens discusses how a basic income could help to foster social cohesion. And Jared Bernstein confirms the seemingly obvious point that properly-funded social programs work wonders in reducing poverty.

- Bill Curry reports that activist groups are seeking answers about what their much-hyped "social infrastructure" will actually include. And Tom Parkin is rightly concerned that lower-income Canadians aren't on the Trudeau Libs' radar.

- Thomas Walkom writes about the danger that the Libs will severely harm Canada's public sector in response to economic stagnation. And Karl Nerenberg reminds us how much needs to be done just to reverse the damage done by the Cons - assuming Trudeau actually wants to change anything in substance.

- Thom Hartmann comments on the role corporate greed played in California's giant methane leak. And Sarah Lazare reminds us that even if we set aside the cartoon villainy of the likes of Martin Shkreli, price gouging is the norm within the pharmaceutical sector.

- Meanwhile, Yessenia Funes talks to Stephen Bezruchka about the health problems caused by inequality at all points on the income spectrum.

- Finally, Andrew Coyne provides a response to the first-past-the-post apologists who think there's nothing wrong with a political system designed to hand absolute power to parties supported by a minority of voters:

How about this: in a democracy, each person’s vote should count for as much as every other. This strikes me as one of the core promises of democracy. Universal adult suffrage — “one person, one vote” — is a foundational principle of every modern democratic state. And yet, while it is true that every adult citizen can vote in Canada, it is demonstrably not the case that every vote counts equally.
...
The issue here is not fairness among the parties. Rather, it is the unequal treatment of different voters that represents a fundamental breach of the democratic promise.

Notice also the source of that inequity. The present system rewards parties that can bunch their votes geographically, compared to parties whose support is more evenly distributed, since only the party with the most votes in each riding is represented. So parties that take an aggressively regional approach to politics — as Reform and the Bloc did — benefit disproportionately, at the expense of parties with a broader national outlook.

You say "glib", I say "callous and dehumanizing". Let's just call the whole thing off.

Sadly, even a modicum of criticism of Brad Wall on Saskatchewan's editorial pages is all too rare. But while the Star-Phoenix offers at least that much, is there any doubt that Wall's contempt for inmates (among others who rely on provincial services) goes far beyond problems with his tone?

Update: Murray Mandryk gets closer to the mark. 

Update II: And Robyn Urback is right on:

Barbarous societies revel in treating inmates like chattel; the Canadian system should aspire to draw no parallel.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your Monday reading.

- In reviewing Gabriel Zucman's new book, Cass Sunstein discusses the need to rein in tax havens and ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share of the price of a functional society:

(W)hatever your political party, you are unlikely to approve of the illegal use of tax havens. As it turns out, a lot of wealthy people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have been hiding money in foreign countries—above all, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Virgin Islands. As a result, they have been able to avoid paying taxes in their home countries. Until recently, however, officials have not known the magnitude of that problem.

But people are paying increasing attention to it. A vivid new documentary, The Price We Pay, connects tax havens, inequality, and insufficient regulation of financial transactions. The film makes a provocative argument that a new economic elite—wealthy managers and holders of capital—is now able to operate on a global scale, outside the constraints of any legal framework. In a particularly chilling moment, it shows one of the beneficiaries of the system cheerfully announcing on camera: “I don’t feel any remorse about not paying taxes. I think it’s a marvelous way in life.”
...
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, you might expect that there would be an international crackdown on the use of tax havens, and as we shall see, international attention is indeed growing. But the numbers demonstrate that no crackdown has occurred. In Luxembourg, offshore wealth actually increased from 2008 to 2012 (by 20 percent). In Switzerland, the increase has been comparable; foreign holdings are now close to an all-time high. Disturbingly, the new wealth is coming mostly from developing countries, which poses a serious problem in light of the severe strains on their limited budgets.
...
A strong virtue of Zucman’s book is that it puts a bright spotlight on an area in which significant reforms might appeal to people who otherwise disagree on a great deal. You might believe that the tax system should be made more progressive, or you might believe that it should be made less so. But whatever you think, you are unlikely to support a situation in which trillions of dollars are hardly taxed at all.

- Judith Shulevitz writes that a basic income could be particularly important in extending recognition to the value of work normally performed unpaid by women. And Andrew Jackson comments on the best options to reduce poverty among seniors.

- Gregory Beatty rightly points out (as I've done previously) that Saskatchewan's current problems with equalization can be traced back to Brad Wall's choice to abandon the exact same cause when he first took power.

- Ian MacLeod notes that the Libs' supposed commitments to improved oversight over security and greater power for individual MPs both seem to be undermined by the top-down naming of a chair for a new committee on spying. And their apparent starting point of not thinking much needs to be done with C-51 doesn't bode well for the prospect of anything changing for the better.

- Finally, Murray Dobbin argues that the Libs have an ample mandate to pursue the type of proportional electoral reform supported by a majority of parties - meaning that their most important task is to get the new system right.

On standards for reform

Others have duly criticized the Star's editorial on electoral reform. [Update: See e.g. Dr. Dawg's takedown of a few misleading pieces.] But I'll argue that it can be brought in line with reasonable expectations with one important change.

Simply put, it's not a problem to insist upon "broad consensus" on a new electoral system. The problem lies in defining that term - and it's here that the Star goes awry in interpreting it to require the support of all major parties.

That restriction would of course allow a single bad actor to thwart any effort to improve our electoral system. And the Bad Actor Party of Canada has thoroughly telegraphed its intention to do just that no matter how undemocratic the means - meaning that the Star's interpretation would indeed rule out any reform, no matter what the Libs have promised or could achieve. 

If, on the other hand, we instead see a "broad consensus" as meaning general agreement among a range of different parties - or even all parties who engage in parliamentary consultations in good faith - then a new system should be entirely achievable. And that's the standard the Libs should see as necessary to support the electoral reform they've promised.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lana Payne reminds us that wealth will never be fairly distributed without public action to ensure it doesn't get concentrated with the lucky few:

More and more of the income pie is going to the top one per cent — who are soaking up a bigger and bigger share of the benefits of productivity.

According to the Economic Policy Institute in the United States, decades of stagnant wages despite the fact that people are working more productively has become a serious economic problem for the country.

Simply, prosperity needs help getting shared.

Prosperity gets shared when forces such as strong trade unions through collective bargaining and governments through taxation and redistribution policies make it happen. Markets alone, as many economists have argued, do not do this.
...
Stagnant wages for workers mean there is less demand for goods and services. And this lack of demand is, according to Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, contributing to what he calls the great global malaise. “Those at the top spend far less than those at the bottom. Money moves up, demand goes down.”

Stiglitz says in addition to income inequality, fiscal austerity has also played a significant role in slumping economic growth.
...
The upside is at least the problem of inequality has been identified.  Like climate change, it has its deniers. But we must forge ahead. The next step, as with climate change, is to develop a plan to deal with it. Let’s get on with it.

- And Ana Sofia Knauf reports that Seattle is leading the way in trying to restore some power to workers against businesses built on precarity.

- Carolyn Shimmin offers some important facts about food insecurity in Canada - including the reality that food bank use (widespread though it is) severely underestimates the scope of the problem. And Ryan Meili interviews Clive Weighill about the influence of social factors on crime and justice:

Ryan Meili: Long before I had a chance to meet you, I quoted you in A Healthy Society. You said we need to get tough on poverty, poor housing, racism, and the social issues that lead us down the road to crime.

Clive Weighill: Some politicians talk about getting tough on crime. I’m saying you don’t just want to get tough on crime, you have to get tough on the issues of poverty, poor housing, disadvantage. People are products of their environment, and if we can’t solve those social issues, we’re not going to solve the big picture in the end. I firmly believe that we have to work on poverty.
...

RM: It seems the social determinants of involvement in the justice system, social determinants of educational success, it's all the same factors.

As you've said, this means we need to look a little further upstream, looking at getting people out of poverty or making sure that people don't wind up there. What were your thoughts on the recent recommendations from the Advisory Group on Poverty Reduction?

CW: They make complete, common sense to me. It's just how to get the will of the public. They have to get behind this.

- Elias Isquith weighs in on the horrific human cost of the lead poisoning caused by Rick Snyder's austerian politics.

- Finally, Monia Mazigh comments on the desperate need for Canada to review - and likely scrap - a no-fly list which is plainly capturing far too many people without any reasonable explanation or basis in fact.

On priorities

I've written before about the Saskatchewan Party's assumption that actually meeting the basic needs of inmates wasn't a core function of the provincial correctional system.

Well, the choice to turn food service into a corporate profit centre has produced predictable results. And faced with an inmate protest about unsafe and unhealthy food, Brad Wall had the choice whether to be responsible and compassionate, or whether to try to dehumanize the people suffering from his government's decisions.

Needless to say, he chose column B. And we should be appalled enough by that message as applied to people who involuntarily depend entirely on the government for their sustenance.

But it's worth noting the exact same thinking behind the prison food service privatization is being applied in other areas, ranging from hospital services to school construction and maintenance. And Wall's message about his view of public services likewise extends beyond Saskatchewan's prisons.

As far as Brad Wall is concerned, anybody wanting to be treated like a human being should pay somebody for the privilege. And conversely, anybody making use of public services should expect to see their interests ranked far below the goal of funneling public money into corporate hands.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Joseph Stiglitz comments on how the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks to make democracy subordinate to corporate interests:

The US concluded secret negotiations on what may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades, the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and now faces an uphill battle for ratification, as all the leading Democratic presidential candidates and many of the Republicans have weighed in against it. The problem is not so much with the agreement’s trade provisions, but with the “investment” chapter, which severely constrains environmental, health, and safety regulation, and even financial regulations with significant macroeconomic impacts. 

In particular, the chapter gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms (inscribed on more than 6,000 pages). In the past, such tribunals have interpreted the requirement that foreign investors receive “fair and equitable treatment” as grounds for striking down new government regulations – even if they are non-discriminatory and are adopted simply to protect citizens from newly discovered egregious harms. 

While the language is complex – inviting costly lawsuits pitting powerful corporations against poorly financed governments – even regulations protecting the planet from greenhouse-gas emissions are vulnerable. The only regulations that appear safe are those involving cigarettes (lawsuits filed against Uruguay and Australia for requiring modest labeling about health hazards had drawn too much negative attention). But there remain a host of questions about the possibility of lawsuits in myriad other areas. 

Furthermore, a “most favored nation” provision ensures that corporations can claim the best treatment offered in any of a host country’s treaties. That sets up a race to the bottom – exactly the opposite of what US President Barack Obama promised.

...

Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to be strong advocates of global governance reforms: If authority over domestic policies is ceded to supranational bodies, then the drafting, implementation, and enforcement of the rules and regulations has to be particularly sensitive to democratic concerns. Unfortunately, that was not always the case in 2015. 

In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak. The Paris climate agreement may be a harbinger of the spirit and mindset needed to sustain genuine global cooperation.

- Ben Norton writes about the potential effects of TransCanada's NAFTA litigation over the Keystone XL pipeline, while Ethan Cox and Erin Seatter summarize the Chapter 11 process which allows big business to attack decisions made in the public interest. PressProgress reminds us that Canada too has faced corporate attacks on its environmental policies. And for those wondering who Brad Wall really serves, Saskatchewan's premier is cheerleading for the claim even though its primary outcome would be a transfer of U.S. public money to a single corporation.

- Charles Mandel points out in the wake of a massive California methane leak that the same could easily happen in Canada as well. And Paul Hanley calls for Saskatchewan to join the rest of the world in phasing out coal power, rather than insisting on being a dirty-energy outlier. 

- Finally, Hugh MacKenzie offers some suggestions to rein in excessive executive pay. And Michael Massing provides a primer to the media on covering self-interested "philanthropy".

Musical interlude

Gorgon City feat. MNEK - Ready For Your Love

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- John O'Farrell argues that a basic income provides a needed starting point for innovation and entrepreneurship by people who don't enjoy the advantage of inherited wealth:

But in fact it is the current situation that prevents initiative and holds back entrepreneurs. Anyone who ever invented or created anything did so with a modicum of financial security behind them. That’s why so many of our statues are to upper-class white men; that’s why Virginia Woolf needed “a room of her own and £500 a year” (slashed to £27.85 after that spare room fell under the bedroom tax). For centuries we have tapped the potential of only a small proportion of the British people; the rest have been powerless to initiate or discover where their true talents lay. With the UBI, innovators would be given the room to experiment knowing they would still have something to fall back on; it would see more small businesses and less grovelling on Dragons’ Den.

Vitally, it would begin to redress the chronic imbalance in today’s labour market. There’s a reason why call centre workers sound so miserable when they claim to be sharing really exciting news about your phone tariff. Since the decline of the unions, workers have been increasingly powerless to refuse longer hours and less money, with only the food bank to fall back on if they walk away from an exploitative job. With a guaranteed state income to keep the wolf (or Wonga) from the door, employees would regain the bargaining power to demand civilised working conditions and reasonable rates of pay...
...
For all the apparent expense of the UBI, we would save the small fortune that the state currently spends mopping up the mess of social problems caused overwhelmingly by chronic poverty.

Of course, there are complex reasons for increasing homelessness, for bulging prisons, for growing mental health problems – but desperate financial pressure is a major factor in all of them. Every decade sees us spending increasing billions trying to tighten the lid of the boiling cauldron. It might be so much cheaper just to turn down the temperature a bit.

- Meanwhile, Maria Konnikova discusses how we learn about fairness - as we naturally notice and complain about being on the wrong side of unfair circumstances, while learning to identify our own privilege takes significant work.

- Claire McIlveen comments on the need for a far more secure system of retirement income than we can currently claim.

- Pamela Cowan talks to Ryan Meili and Tom McIntosh about the importance of a national pharmacare program as part of a fully functional public health care system. And Moira Donovan weighs in on the dangers of ambulance fees in discouraging people from calling an ambulance even when needed. 

- Finally, Lee Berthiaume writes that a Saudi arms deal seen as an unqualified plus for a cynical, militaristic Con government is something else entirely for anybody who even pretends to care about human rights. But Steven Chase and Daniel Leblanc report that the Libs may not bother keeping up the charade much longer, as they're not only pushing through the sale but suppressing human rights assessments to do it.

On common values

There's reason to be wary about the Libs' handling of the Senate, as Thomas Walkom writes in his latest column. But it's also worth noting that contrary to Walkom's conflation of the two, there are important differences between selecting prospective Senators based on whether they "back the Liberal government", versus evaluating whether they are "amenable to passing bills the Liberal government wants enacted".

Indeed, if the Libs want to defuse any potential for controversy while avoiding Senate obstruction, the one key requirement should have nothing to do with support for their government in particular.

Instead, any new senators could be screened (among whatever other criteria the Libs want to apply) based on their willingness to generally support all legislation passed by the House of Commons regardless of its party of origin. That could be subject to variation in exceptional cases, such as where MPs who have actually contributed to passing the bill signal a need for a bill to receive further review or amendment - but the overarching principle should be that the Senate will not get in the way of the decisions of elected representatives of any partisan stripe.

If the Libs limit their appointments to new Senators fitting that description, that strategy would simultaneously avoid the Cons' cynical obstruction and set the groundwork for an institution designed to function on a non-partisan basis in the future. But if they listen to Walkom's concurrent message about looking for political supporters, then we're all too likely to end up with yet another set of faux reformers (much like Harper's nominees themselves) who end up serving as nothing more than partisan tools.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Justin Fox explores why it took the economic field in general (with some noteworthy exceptions) decades to start dealing with burgeoning inequality. And Bryce Covert discusses the latest study showing that in looking beyond tax data alone, the level of inequality is even worse than it's appeared in past research.

- Meanwhile, Rebecca Rosen traces the links between increased inequality and extended hours of work. And Jamie Klinger notes that Uber and other businesses designed to avoid normal employment relationships may only make matters worse.

- Wendy Glauser, Joshua Tepper and Jill Konkin offer some suggestions to address the alarming health inequities between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.

- Derrick O'Keefe duly criticizes the Libs' insistence on pushing ahead with an eleven-figure arms deal with Saudi Arabia with no regard for its ongoing human rights abuses. 

- Finally, Charles Taylor talks to Sonali Campion about the dangers of exclusionary themes which are all too easily used for political advantage:

Democracies need a very strong sense of common goals, more than autocracies, because they have to call on citizens to show solidarity, to discuss together, so there has to be some sense they are talking about the same thing or trust begins to fall apart. In that sense they need what I call a “political identity”. This is a mixture of key principles, such as democracy and human rights, and something particular to the individual state.

These elements of the political identity can easily be turned into measures of exclusion: “these other people don’t really fit”, “they aren’t part of the ethnic background of this particular national project”, or “they don’t really seem to accept the basic principles of our democracy”. In many cases these are not really founded judgements, but they are still very powerful because as long as people perceive things in that way it seems right to exclude certain groups, or make special demands of them – for example that they assimilate totally.

So this of course is something that democracies can’t very easily cope with because it produces great rifts, even a sense of second-class citizenship, which clashes with the ethic that we include everyone. So people have to be willing to consider redefining their political identity in order to really bring together the degree of diversity that actually exists on the territory.

New column day

Here, on how people generally have a better idea about the facts underlying our political choices than they suggest in response to an ordinary poll - and how we can make better decisions by looking to the root causes of that distinction.

For further reading...
- The studies referred to in the article are here (pdf) and here. And as previously linked, Neil Irwin discussed them here.
- And while I didn't work it into the column, I'll wonder whether something akin to the dual process theory might play a role in the different findings - with the objective reward of even a small payoff leading people to use more rigorous analysis in response to a question.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Mariana Mazzucato comments on the need for the public sector to play a significant and direct role in sustainable economic development:

The debate about the relative roles of the state and the market in capitalist economies tends to swing from side to side in the hearts and minds of public opinion: periods when the state is defended for its role in economic development are always superseded by an attack on its intervention into ‘well functioning’ markets. It has been like this throughout the twentieth century. And it is what has happened since the most recent global financial crisis and economic recession: a brief period right after its outbreak, when there was consensus that the state had a key role to play in both saving the banks and using fiscal policy to promote growth, was quickly apprehended by those who feared rising levels of public debt. Indeed, this debt was mistakenly seen as the cause rather than the result of the crisis—due to lower tax receipts, rising bailouts, etc. So austerity became again the flavour of the day, while any sort of serious economic and industrial policy became anathema.

What is missing from the public perception is how through the history of modern capitalism, the state has done, and continues to do, what markets simply won’t. This is not about its role in simply fixing ‘market failures’, but its role in directly shaping and creating markets.
...
Key to Italy’s future is to get rid of the static public versus private sector debate. Both sectors are crucial. The question is how to promote synergetic partnerships which allow the public sector, in its engagement with the private sector, to remain courageous, strategic and set the direction of change, rather than only de-risking, facilitating, administering, subsidizing and incentivising. Whether we are looking at education, health, transport, culture, renewable energy or the future of micro-electronics, the problem should not be ‘opening up to the market’...but how to structure and shape the market, through public and private investments, in such a way that allows a sector to become more dynamic, innovative and investment driven. Instead, because we pretend that investment is for the private sector, and the public sector is there to only regulate, subsidize or save the day when things go wrong (bringing into the public sector the ‘bad’ toxic side of the equation, allowing the ‘good’ to be absorbed privately), this leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy where precisely because we don’t see a real ‘public role’ beyond, it becomes under financed, but also under “imagined”. When a sector lacks imagination, it dies. It becomes irrelevant, and of course easier to attack. This vicious cycle is happening in Italy’s public sector and it is contributing to its demise.

- Michael Hiltzik discusses the connection between the obsession with short-term share values and the increasing precarity of work, while Andrew Callaway writes that workers are getting little but instability from a "sharing" economy. And Jonathon Gatehouse reports on the growing chasm between Canadian CEOs and the rest of us - as well as the fact that we're likely underestimating that gap to begin with.

- Jeremy Nuttall notes that new federal funding announcements for export development figure to pale in comparison to the harm done by the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade deals. And Michael Geist is writing a new series on the harms done by the TPP in particular.

- Meanwhile, Robert Fife breaks the news that rather than seriously examining the impact of handing perpetually more power to the corporate sector, the Libs are instead bent on signing an even more restrictive deal with China than the one the Cons signed onto a year ago.

- Finally, Ralph Surette points out the need to progress from a mere statement of intentions to actual, global-scale action to rein in greenhouse gas emissions and limit the effect of climate change.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Skirting cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Nicholas Fitz observes that inequality is far worse than the U.S. public believes - even as it already wants to see significant action. And Thomas Piketty updates his policy prescriptions arising out of Capital:

As I look back at my discussion of future policy proposals in the book, I may have devoted too much attention to progressive capital taxation and too little attention to a number of institutional evolutions that could prove equally important. Because capital is multidimensional and markets are imperfect, capital taxation needs to be supplemented with other asset-specific policies and regulations, including for instance land use and housing policies and intellectual property right laws. In particular, as rightly argued by Elizabeth Anderson in this symposium, monopoly power and the regulation of intellectual property rights play an important role in the dynamics of private wealth accumulation. Given the central role played by changing real estate values and rent levels in the aggregate evolution of capital-income ratios and capital shares in recent decades, it is clear that land use and housing policies have potentially a critical role to play, in particular to regulate and expend access to property. On the other hand, it is equally clear that such policies are sometime difficult to implement (e.g. public construction policies or housing subsidies have not always been very successful in the past), so they should certainly be viewed as complementary rather than substitute to progressive taxation.

Also, in my book I do not pay sufficient attention to the development of other alternative forms of property arrangements and participatory governance. One central reason why progressive capital taxation is important is because it can also bring increased transparency about company assets and accounts. In turn, increased financial transparency can help to develop new forms of governance; for instance, it can facilitate more worker involvement in company boards. In other words, “social-democratic” institutions such as progressive taxation (see Miriam Ronzoni in this symposium) can foster institutions that question in a more radical manner the very functioning of private property (note that progressive capital taxation transforms large private property as a temporary attribute rather than a permanent one – already a significant change). However these other institutions – whose aim should be to redefine and regulate property rights and power relations – must also be analyzed as such...

- Meanwhile, David Heinemeier Hansson writes from experience that extreme wealth is overrated even for those who accumulate it.

- Rebecca Green rounds up some reasons for hope and despair on the economic front. And Maximiliano Dvorkin notes that jobs involving routine tasks - whether manual or not - are in the midst of an extended stagnation.

- Andrew Learmonth discusses the devastating effects of austerity in creating child hunger in Scotland. And Naomi Lakritz rightly points out that Alberta's precarious fiscal situation can be traced back to Ralph Klein's obsession with slashing taxes and public services alike.

- Finally, Anita Nickerson argues that everybody ultimately loses out under a winner-take-all electoral system - meaning that it's long past time to ensure a more fair proportional system.

On countermovements

Alison is right to highlight the latest right-wing astroturf group in Canada. But we shouldn't assume that mere exposure will meaningfully affect the growth of corporate-owned politics alone.

As is typically the case, Canadian politics tend to be influenced strongly by U.S. trends due to the overlap in culture and media. And there, privately-owned political structures are beginning to exceed the reach of political parties.

That makes for a serious problem to the extent the model is adopted on a similar scale in Canada - as a fairly modest amount of money by business standards could drown out nearly all other political voices between elections without any legal restraints.

But it also signals that citizens' movements can likewise work across and beyond party lines with relative freedom (at least for the moment). And so while we call out the astroturf in our midst, we should also recognize the opportunity to sow real seeds of change for the better.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Ian Welsh summarizes why inequality is intrinsically problematic:

Even where people’s needs are met, the more unequal a society the more unhealthy everyone is and the more unhappy they are.

Those who feel lower on the totem pole also perform worse than they otherwise would.  Remove the feeling of inequality, and they perform better.

This is before we get to the social effects, which are pernicious.  Those who are at the top of the heap distort politics to keep themselves at the top of the heap, and engage in repression.
...
Inequality is thus a political and organizational negative. It ensures that more effort goes into unproductive and destructive activities which are of benefit to a few at most than would otherwise.

Inequality is unhealthy, makes people unhappy, and distorts politics in terrible ways.

This is intrinsic to inequality.  Beyond a relatively low level, there is no such thing as “good” inequality.

- And Joseph Stiglitz discusses how austerian economics have caused global economic stagnation. 

- Roger Annis laments the Libs' refusal to follow through on their promise to ensure that the Canada Pension Plan provides a reasonably secure retirement for all Canadian workers. And the New York Times' editorial board rightly concludes that a lack of retirement savings represents a reason to expand public pensions, not to slash them in the hope that people will find money to put away if only they otherwise stand to suffer enough.

- Finally, Doreen Nicoll writes that we have ample resources to end child poverty - but that we need to start by designing policy to help children rather than squeeze parents. 

On rebuilding steps

I've posted before about the NDP's strong progressive stance since the October election - which looks to be a positive move in terms of principles and politics alike. 

But there's also a great deal of work to be done on the party side. And I'll suggest a couple of points which strike me as important in advance of the spring convention where Tom Mulcair's leadership is up for review.

First, there's the seemingly simple matter of the party's policy book (which I believe is found in an updated PDF here) and other member-generated documents.

As a reminder, the policy book was originally developed as part of Jack Layton's effort to professionalize the party - providing a statement of core values which could then form the foundation for platform development (while being general enough to allow plenty of room for maneuvering).

Nothing has been done to make the policy book any less authoritative than it ever was in reflecting the policy set by NDP members. And it would thus seem important both as a standing expression of values, and a starting point for resolutions which riding associations may want to develop.

But the policy book was removed from the NDP's website in advance of the election based on what still strikes me as a dubious rationale. And it doesn't seem to have been replaced since; in fact, the party's website no longer seems to point to any of the party documentation which was once available.

At best, that might be explained based on the party's priorities falling elsewhere in the immediate aftermath of the election. But if the issue was once one of a perceived lack of urgency, an impending resolution deadline for the convention surely makes it worth letting people know where party policy stands now. (And I'd also argue it's worth making sure that far more of the party's history in action, including convention resolutions past and present, is preserved and made available.)

Second, there's the concern about the central campaign's treatment of important parts of the progressive social movement - which arose both in candidate vetting, and in the message sent to some candidates during the campaign.

There's little way for the party to know what it can (or can't) accomplish by reaching out to the people who were refused a place within the election campaign. But at the very least, it should make the effort to do so on the basis that winning back past supporters and strengthening ties with the activist left need to be top priorities following a disappointing election.

If some of the key individuals who were turned away directly or who spoke out at the time can be brought back into the fold, that would go a long way toward confirming that Mulcair can win over some of the people who tuned out the NDP in 2015 and lead a movement-based party toward power. But even if Mulcair didn't find a receptive ear, he and the party would be better off for recognizing the need to try.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Paul Krugman discusses the connection between concentrated wealth and extreme anti-social political behaviour:

Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.

And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.

So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?

...

(T)he biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.

But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.

- Meanwhile, Michael Snyder weighs in on how precarious workers are being treated as things rather than people by employers - and how the resulting lack of security is affecting them. And Frances O'Grady makes the case for a meaningful industrial policy to make sure that everybody benefits from economic development.

- Neil Irwin comments on new research showing that an individual's view of the economy is based on partisan preference - but that most people in fact know the underlying facts when they're given even a tiny incentive to get it right.

- Gordon Pape examines the real impact of the Libs' upper-class tax cut - with an individual making $216,000 getting a handout, while somebody making a tenth as much gets nothing.

- Finally, Margaret Wente confirms that her preference for a first-past-the-post electoral system is based on a desire to limit voters' input to a periodic referendum on the incumbent. And Erich Jacoby-Hawkins makes a noteworthy point about the first-past-the-post apologists bleating about refusing to accept a new electoral system without a a referendum:

(W)hat's funny about this likely change are the demands, mainly from supporters of the status quo, that any electoral system reform come only after a successful referendum vote where more than 50% vote for the change. This flies completely in the face of the underlying value of our current electoral system, the one they would have us retain, where decisions aren't made by a 50%+ majority, but by the "majority" of MPs elected with a mere 39% of votes.
...
The basic principle behind first-past-the-post is that whichever party forms a "majority" based on enough local riding pluralities gets to make (and change) the laws. Anyone who argues that such changes should instead require support of 50%+ of voters in a referendum is, in effect, arguing for proportional representation, because under PR, only laws that have more than 50% voter support will pass. So which do you want, the "powerful, stable" false majority governments that FPP elects, or a proportional system that actually reflects voter desires? Because you can't use the latter principle to argue against the former.

Musical interlude

Royksopp - Here She Comes Again (DJ Antonio Remix)

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to start your new year.

- Paul Krugman points out that as tends to be the case, the U.S.' modest increase in high-end tax rates in 2013 managed to produce both more fair taxation and strong economic growth.

- But Michael Hudson notes that increasing inequality and wage suppression are still among the dominant economic forces in the U.S. And the New York Times' set of year-end charts features a stark example as to how the wealthiest Americans are still siphoning off more and more income at everybody else's expense.

- Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Inimai Chettiar study the costs of pointless mass incarceration, including its significant contribution to overall poverty.

- Finally, the Globe and Mail offers a list of laws calling for immediate rewrites by the federal government, with the extreme provisions of C-51 leading the way. And Bruce Cheadle notes that the cost of the Cons' bad judgment is still accumulating, as a challenge to their attempt to retroactively permit the illegal destruction of data is still making its way through the courts.