Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- The Guardian's editorial board writes that stagnating and even declining life expectancies and nother indications of declining social health are the result of purely political choices:

In 2010 a government-commissioned review looking at the relationship between health and wealth – only the third officially sanctioned attempt to do so in 30 years – came to the conclusion that life expectancy is linked to social standing and so is the time spent in good health. Lower life expectancies in the UK were not those associated with destitution but rather despair and expectation. Poorer people suffer diseases because of bad diets, a lack of exercise, smoking, poor pay and job insecurity. Its message was twofold. First, government intervention was necessary to ensure that people’s freedoms were not bad for their health. Second, the state had a responsibility to assure people’s material security. Tory health secretaries did no more than pay lip service to such ideas. The result has been rising death rates.
...
...In terms of length of life, the UK lags behind other developed nations. Young people are now less likely to live longer than their parents. Ministers initially blamed the figures on flu deaths. A more plausible explanation is the politics of austerity, which had an excessive impact on the poor, the disabled and the elderly. Local councils cannot pay for home visits, cuts have led to rising levels of homelessness, fuel poverty and food bank visits. It is shocking that 18-year-olds with learning disabilities may well not live long enough to draw their pension.
...
At the heart of this debate is the government’s refusal to engage with inequality. This is an error borne out of ideology. We know that children from poorer backgrounds are more affected by the rise in childhood obesity. So why allow the number of children living in poverty to breach 5 million by 2022, up from around 4 million at present? It is because a key belief in free-market societies is that they reward the industrious and punish the idle. In this system, individuals must have the freedom to choose – and with that freedom would come responsibility. The market, in this system, would not only improve British society; it would remoralise it. To have faith in such an unfettered model of capitalism is a political choice. When applied to public health, the appalling price appears to be to stall progress in life expectancy.

- Meanwhile, Chris Buckley and Mary Marrone highlight how Doug Ford is going out of his way to make life even more precarious for Ontario workers. Noah Smith comments on the effect of crushing student loan debt on millennials. Paul Davidson reports on a new study showing that nearly two-thirds of U.S. jobs are insufficient to support a middle-class standard of living. And Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson and Ed Crooks discuss yet more evidence that tax giveaways to the rich have done nothing to even indirectly benefit anybody else.

- Andrew Jackson points out that rather than putting an end to Donald Trump's preposterous tariffs on steel and aluminum, the Trudeau Libs have actually handed the U.S. even more ability to control trade with unverifiable claims of "national security".

- Finally, Andrea Huncar reports on the observation of the Office of the Correctional Investigator that Canada's prison system far too frequently uses force as a response to mental health issues.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Alexi White points out how tall tales about "welfare fraud" have been used as excuse to trap people in poverty. And the Star's editorial board is rightly concerned about a social assistance review from a Ford government which couldn't care less about anybody besides its wealthy donors.

- Meanwhile, Dogwood looks into the big developer money behind the forces trying to fend off electoral reform in British Columbia. And Ben Protess, Robert Gebeloff and Danielle Ivory discuss the Trump administration's choice to forfeit billions of dollars in penalties for corporate wrongdoing as a prime example of what businesses buy with their political donations and influence.

- Bruce Campbell points out that Canada has failed to learn needed lessons from the Lac-Mégantic explosion even when it comes to rail safety - to say nothing of the broader problem with corporate self-regulation.

- Alex Ballingall discusses the prospect of a left-wing populist movement in Canada oriented toward empowering people while reducing the control of the corporate elite. And Joshua Zeitz notes that the most progressive policies on offer from the U.S. Democrats represent a return to the party's post-war roots.

- And finally, Doug Cuthand calls out the Saskatchewan Party for going out of its way to damage relationships between Indigenous peoples and the provincial government.

On strategic implications

One of the most worrisome aspects of first-past-the-post politics is the reality that a party can take what amounts to unaccountable power for an election cycle based on frivolous and/or misleading messages which just barely nudge public opinion against another option around election day. And parties which don't have any interest in the concept of honest government to begin with have been particularly unscrupulous in pushing the envelope.

It shouldn't then be any surprise to see the same dishonest tactic emanating from the billionaire-funded forces trying to avoid electoral reform in British Columbia. But for voters, the referendum should be seen as an opportunity not only to ensure that votes are fairly counted, but also to ensure that political parties have an incentive to prove themselves as trustworthy to voters and competing parties alike - rather than counting their ability to game a system which allows them to gaslight their way to power.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Gary Younge discusses how regardless of the outcome of the U.S.' midterm elections, democracy is on the defensive against a Republican attack on voting rights. Janet Reitman goes into detail about the consequences of the U.S.' law enforcement system failing to do anything about the dangerous buildup of violent white nationalism. And Tabatha Southey rightly points out the lack of any reason to hand a platform to a demagogue, while also offering some suggestions as to how any debate including Steve Bannon should have gone.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman comments that it's impossible to square support for the Republicans with either a clean conscience or any grounding in reality.

- The CCPA's latest Monitor examines the relationship between finance and the citizenry - including Michal Rozworski's piece on the connection between Canada's urban housing crisis and its increasing personal debt. And Al Jazeera interviews Leilani Farha about the global effects of treating housing as a means to accumulate wealth rather than a human right.

- Murray Mandryk writes that whatever plausibility the Saskatchewan Party has tried to claim for its Global Transportation Hub plans is going up on smoke as it appears more and more likely that the only private-sector participants had to be gifted land and services to go along.

- Finally, Michael Mann comments on the connection between climate breakdown and the increasingly extreme weather seen this summer. And David Olive writes that Doug Ford and other climate change denialists and obstructionists are positioning themselves firmly on the wrong side of history.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Peter Gowan discusses UK Labour's plans for a more democratic and participatory economy. And Alex Ballingall reports on Jagmeet Singh's plan to prohibit the use of "bearer shares" which conceal the ownership of corporate wealth.

- Linda McQuaig rightly criticizes Doug Ford's moves to make work more precarious and take away hard-won minimum wage increases and personal protections. Erika Shaker and Chandra Pasma study the spread of precarious work within Canadian universities. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on some progress for workers on the federal front, while Chris Hannay reports on Hassan Yussuff's push for a pay equity system which addresses multiple forms of pay discrimination.

- Cherise Seucharan reports on how health care advocates are supporting proportional representation to ensure that British Columbia's care system is properly resourced and representative.

- Finally, Martin Wolf discusses the need for immediate action to avert catastrophic climate change, as well as the institutional obstacles standing in the way. Nadja Popovich maps out the broad public agreement even in the U.S. as to the need for carbon pricing as part of a plan to avoid climate breakdown, while Marieke Walsh reports on a new poll showing majority support for a carbon price across Canada. And Regan Boychuk reports on the nonsensical response from Alberta's captured energy regulator in the wake of news that it's been grossly understating the remediation costs of the province's oil industry.

Musical interlude

The War on Drugs - Thinking of a Place

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Chuck Collins discusses the obscene wealth being hoarded by the U.S.' few richest families. And Owen Jones comments on the need for UK Labour to plan to push for far more revenue - especially from the top end - than it's proposed so far.

- Meanwhile, Jim Stanford writes about the importance of addressing inequality through the labour market:

Fixing this problem requires an ambitious, multidimensional effort to rebuild the policy levers of inclusive growth. Minimum wages should be high enough that anyone working full-time can escape poverty. Supplemental measures like penalty rates and casual loading should be strengthened, not eroded. The award system should again aim to support wage growth for all workers, not just those at the bottom.

Relaxing Australia’s unique and punitive restrictions on collective bargaining and allowing workers to negotiate multi-firm or industry-wide agreements would also lift wages across the board. Instead of being vilified and persecuted, unions should be accepted and supported as an essential and constructive part of a normal labour market.

Unionists and social advocates are now forcefully prosecuting the argument to “change the rules” of Australia’s labour market. This will be one of the top issues in the run-up to the next federal election. And this debate is long overdue – because tackling inequality has to start in the labour market.

- Ben Parfitt exposes how British Columbia's Environmental Assessment Office makes a habit of offering corporations secret deals to bypass any scrutiny of hazardous projects, and calls for proper review processes which actually allow the public to have a say.

- And the Price of Oil project reveals that the Alberta Energy Regulator has developed but concealed studies showing that cleaning up the tar sands would cost an estimated $260 billion - more than four times what the public has been told before.

- Emily Eaton points out that in order to rein in climate breakdown, we need to make a rapid transition to clean energy - not merely put a modest price on small-scale fuel purchases. And Robert Jones reports that the Trudeau Libs are actually facilitating the continued use of the dirtiest power sources through their industrial exemptions from carbon pricing.

- Finally, Stephen Tweedale discusses the problems with any attempt to use Karl Popper's philosophy as a defence of first-past-the-post politics.

New column day

Here, on Scott Moe's choice to pursue strongman politics indistinguishable from the Donald Trumps and Doug Fords of the world.

For further reading...
- D.C. Fraser reported on Moe's willingness to stand with and behind Ford no matter how preposterous his claims. And Fatima Syed noted that both Moe and Ford are shoveling grossly inaccurate information in the name of exacerbating climate breakdown, while CTV's Question Period interview (see link in right column) featured Moe's declaration that he's not interested in facts.
- Andrew Coyne discussed the reality that a war on the truth is one of the defining features of the right - even when it occasionally backtracks on attacking the media directly. And Bob Hepburn noted that Ford and Andrew Scheer are following Trump's playbook.
- PressProgress has documented some of the Jason Kenney UCP's links to the explicitly racist right. And Gillian Steward wrote about his plan to go to war against environmentalists.
- Murray Mandryk and Tammy Robert highlighted the total lack of responsiveness from Moe's cabinet when faced with even basic factual questions. CBC reported on Moe's choice to meet with Ford alone rather than a national group of leaders - then to lie about his direction to pull Saskatchewan from any national talks while trying to claim national leadership. And Bryan Eneas reported on the sudden purchase of semi-automatic rifles for use in patrols in rural Saskatchewan.
- Finally, Mandryk argued that Moe is putting conservatism over the public interest - though I'd consider it worth distinguishing between ideological conservatism alone, and the strongman model which is actually taking precedence.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Mark Kaufman puts our continually-rising greenhouse gas emissions in historical context, with atmospheric concentrations exceeding what they've been in the previous 15 million years. Jason MacLean points out the folly of responding to an imminent and extreme threat with tepid pricing alone rather than an immediate transition to clean energy. And Gillian Steward discusses Jason Kenney's desire to use public funds to fight the oil industry's war against the planet as being as politically pointless as it is environmentally destructive.

- Ben Parfitt rightly argues against the use of secret deals to exempt major British Columbia projects from environmental assessments.

- Laurie MacFarlane writes that wealth accumulation tends to result more from power and privilege than from productivity. And Jake Johnson notes that the U.S. economy is thoroughly distorted by the influence of a few dynastic families.

- Emma Paling reports on Danyaal Raza's recognition that Doug Ford's regressive labour policies will lead to avoidable strain on Ontario's health care system.

- Finally, Kristin Eberhard points out how a proportional electoral system can ensure that low-income and marginalized people are able to fully exercise the voting power they deserve - and thus see their interests reflected in government policies:

ProRep is associated with more progressive tax policies, more aid for lower-income families, more investment in institutions that decrease inequality (such as public education), and decreased inequality, according to a 2006 statistical analysis of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states. Why? Partly because center-right governments tend to dominate in winner-take-all countries, whereas center-left governments fare better in ProRep systems. But regardless of party control, the analysis found, ProRep fosters greater equality. ProRep center-left governments are simply more ambitious in their policies to enhance equality than center-left governments in winner-take-all countries, probably because coalition dynamics in ProRep countries give more power to low-income voters. 

ProRep countries spend more on reducing poverty and public health. Public health scholars have pointed out that “poverty rates and government support in favour of health—the extent of government transfers—is higher when the popular vote is more directly translated into political representation through proportional representation.” In 2008, scholars concluded that the lack of proportional representation in Canada “is associated with higher poverty rates and less government action in support of health.”

Electoral systems that translate the will of the people to representatives, as ProRep does, pass policies that people want. When voters want a more equal society, ProRep countries deliver. Winner-take-all countries, with their distorted electoral results, also pass distorted policies that exacerbate inequality. 

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Costumed cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Andrew Jackson argues that Canada has nothing to gain in trying to race Donald Trump to the bottom when it comes to corporate taxes:

While marginal effective corporate-tax rates are clearly a factor in business investment decisions, they are by no means the only or most decisive factor.

Non-tax factors such as access to natural resources, skills, energy costs, house prices, urban amenities and other locational advantages play a major role in investment decisions, especially in the knowledge-intensive sectors. And investment will be limited if demand is sluggish, even if the after-tax cost of capital is relatively low.

Further, cuts to the corporate-tax rate are costly since most of the benefit goes to existing firms making profits from past investments, rather than to new firms or those thinking about expansion. A cut in the tax rate is also irrelevant to companies earning so-called rents or above-average profits compared to the international norm. For example, during the resource-boom companies would have invested in the oil sands even if the corporate-tax rate had been much higher, since expected profits were very high.

Canadian banks, utilities, airlines, railways, retailers and cultural industries among others all have to operate mainly in Canada to serve the Canadian market, so they are not very responsive to changes in tax rates compared to other countries.

It is striking that the level of business investment in Canada as a share of GDP remained almost unchanged in recent years as the Harper government cut the federal corporate-income-tax rate to 15 per cent today from 22.1 per cent in 2006, at a cost of about $12-billion in annual tax revenue.

Deep corporate-tax cuts came at the price of foregone public investments in areas such as infrastructure, research, education and skills that could have contributed more to productivity growth. Introduced at a time of deficits, these tax cuts also increased the public debt.

- Stuart Trew points out how the USCMA is designed to prevent regulators from fulfilling their mission of protecting the public interest. And Jeremias Prassl offers some suggestions as to how to bring collective bargaining into the gig economy.

- Cory Doctorow writes that the researchers whose first outlier study was initially used to criticize Seattle's minimum wage increase have clarified that all kinds of lower-earning workers were better off for the boost.

- Matt Ford discusses the growing gap in civil rights under the Trump administration. And Tyson Brown explains how discrimination and associated social factors lead to long-term disparities in health outcomes.  

- Emily Chung reports on the findings of the Living Planet Report of a 60% decline in vertebrate populations since 1970 due to overdevelopment and climate change.

- Finally, Andrew Coyne writes that the most important question on British Columbia's referendum ballot is the first one - and that there's no justification for clinging to the unrepresentative status quo based on process complaints.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Gavin Kelly writes that the UK's welfare state has been shaped by the Cons to prevent working households from being able to aspire to anything better than precarity:

According to a recent analysis for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the combined effect of the changes to the tax and benefits system between 2010 and 2021 will be average losses for a couple with children of £3,000 a year, rising to more than £5,000 for a lone-parent family – almost a fifth of their income. Families with disabled members, or with three or more children, tend to lose more.

These are life-altering sums. In every corner of Britain, we see the symptoms of these and other cuts as growing numbers fall through the gaping holes in our safety net: the rise in food banks, street-sleeping, temporary accommodation and problem-debt. Tax-credits for those on middle incomes have been steadily chipped away and child benefit for the better off axed altogether – though it’s still the case that the support on offer to middle Britain remains more generous than it was in the mid-1990s, prior to the Labour government. The use of the benefits system has also changed: jobseeker’s allowance, which has withered in value compared to earnings, is claimed by only six out of 10 of today’s unemployed, compared to almost 100% in the early 1990s.

 

The cold calculus of cash losses is vitally important, of course, but only tells us part of the story. A core idea of the welfare state was that it provided the bedrock of security needed for people to take economic risk. Increasingly, however, it has the opposite psychological effect. Take universal credit for example. It’s not just that 3.2 million working households will be £2.5k worse off than under the old system (though 2.2 million will be better off). Moving today’s benefit claimants on to UC over the next five years will involve several million families knowing they face big losses if their personal circumstances alter – the birth of a new child, separation from a partner, a boost in earnings. An idea conceived in the name of “aspiration” has yielded a policy that will pressure families to stand still.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board notes that Doug Ford's "business-friendly" messaging in fact reflects nothing more than enmity for the working poor. And PressProgress documents how workers will be worse off if Ford gets his way.

- Mitchell Anderson discusses the corrupting influence of the fossil fuel industry generally. And David Roberts points out the tens of millions of dollars it's poured into attacking citizens' initiatives in a single U.S. election cycle.

- Meanwhile, Tristin Hopper discusses the effect a carbon price will have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But Nic Rivers and Leah Stokes note that there's limited evidence to suggest a Lib-style rebate scheme will help to build popular support for stronger climate policy.

- Finally, David Climenhaga examines the backstory behind the sale of Jason Kenney's UCP platform to car dealerships.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- CBC News examines the state of consumer debt in Canada. Jake Johnson writes that despite the growing recognition of inequality as an issue, 2017 saw an unprecedented amount of money funneled into the fortunes of billionaires. And Owen Jones highlights the importance of requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share toward genuinely social programs, rather than relying on their charity to meet public needs.

- Meanwhile, Noah Smith comments on the danger of trying to demonize social benefits (or a Republican view of "socialism") based on the level of popular support for government spending to benefit citizens. Which goes a long way toward explaining Paul Krugman's observations about the Republicans' refusal to honestly debate policy choices.

- Sarah Boseley discusses the stark difference in mortality rates between wealthier and poorer regions of England.

- Finally, Chantal Hebert wonders whether British Columbia's referendum will represent the first step toward electoral reform across Canada. And Libby Davies and Katrina Pacey discuss the reasons why we'd be better represented as a result of that change.

Musical interlude

Frou Frou - Let Go

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- David Moscrop discusses the need for a more meaningful definition of "progress" which doesn't hand-wave away the long-term harms and risks created by the single-minded pursuit of immediate gains in top-end wealth.

- Rajeev Syal reports that the UK Cons pushed through public-sector austerity with full knowledge of the increased poverty that would result. CBC reports on at least one private-sector employer, Quebec's Simons, which is recognizing the benefits of paying employees more than the bare minimum. And Mike Crawley notes that Doug Ford's list of attacks on workers includes delaying even a modest level of pay transparency.

- Meanwhile, Kwame McKenzie discusses the predictable public health costs of Ford's minimum wage freeze. And as a memo to the Saskatchewan Party: those problems with leaving the return on work at $14 per hour are all the worse when the minimum wage is nearly three dollars less.

- Brent Patterson criticizes the Libs' attempt to reframe the Trans-Pacific Partnership as "progressive", rather than a massive giveaway of wealth and power to the corporate sector. And David Schneiderman argues that the only truly progressive response to anti-social investment pacts is to decline to sign them.

- Finally, Ryan Maloney reports on Charlie Angus' plan to extricate Canada from any deal to contribute military weaponry to Saudi Arabia's human rights abuses. And Michael Harris writes about the costs of failing to stand up for human rights.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rupert Neate reports on new research showing that the world's billionaires saw their wealth increase by 20% in 2017 alone.

- Pete Evans discusses the increasing debt facing most Canadians as ever more net wealth is diverted to the extremely privileged few. And Alex Hemingway comments on the role of a speculation tax in making housing more affordable while also funding social needs.

- Paul Summers reviews the UK's continued wage stagnation for most workers compared to soaring executive salaries. And Mike Crawley examines the evidence and finds that Doug Ford's excuse for repealing a minimum wage increase has no basis in reality, while Ricardo Tranjan points out that workers are nothing but worse off when fair wages are replaced with tax gimmicks.

- Meanwhile, Michael Coren writes that Ford's agenda is based on little more than punishing the poorest Ontarians:

(T)here is something deeper, darker, and more sinister going on. It’s an attack upon human dignity, a scapegoating of the “other,” which is a classic hard-right tactic. The ghost of capitalism past and the ghost of capitalism present, where decency and compassion are dismissed as mere humbug.

It’s surely no coincidence that the same week as the most powerless of workers were humiliated, the same government announced that plans to build three university campuses in the suburbs or outer towns of Toronto were cancelled. These are frontline colleges, providing young people with vocational training as much as academic excellence.

Because of the location of the central campuses, it’s expensive, extremely time-consuming, even impossible, for many to become students. These are often the less privileged and less wealthy kids, and as such it was a direct assault on equality of opportunity.

Earlier in the month, the Ford administration removed funding to the Roundtable on Violence Against Women, designed to help government support those escaping domestic violence. It also scrapped funding to a Toronto after-school program for at-risk young youth. And the list goes on.
...
...(T)he rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the call for justice and fairness is dismissed as extreme and unreasonable. Remember that cruelty, and remember that we will be judged by how we treat those less fortunate than ourselves.

- Finally, Dorothy Woodend interviews Chris Hedges about the precarious state of the U.S.' global hegemony.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Campbell Robb laments the persistence of in-work poverty in the UK - though it's of course worth noting the reality that poverty of all kinds is worth combating. Pat Thane points out that increasing poverty can be traced directly to deliberate and avoidable austerity, while the Real News talks to Matt Gardner about the U.S.' exacerbation of inequality through tax giveaways to the rich. And Susan Delacourt wonders what happened to Justin Trudeau's supposed interest in alleviating inequality in Canada.

- Jesse McLaren points out how Doug Ford's attacks on workers will only make the hallway medicine problem worse by foisting more social problems onto the health care system. And Martin Regg Cohn writes about Ford's choice to target younger Ontarians.

- David Climenhaga comments on Jason Kenney's used-car-salesman brand of politics. And Murray Mandryk discusses how the Saskatchewan Party is refusing to cut the province's losses on the Global Transportation Hub by throwing busing subsidies at Loblaws even after cutting off transportation for Saskatchewan's citizens.

- Finally, James Wilt interviews Bruce Campbell about his new book on the Lac-Mégantic explosion - and the real danger to the public posed by continued regulatory capture.

New column day

Here, on British Columbia's electoral reform referendum - and the need for a political system where voters have more say than simply a yes/no vote on an incumbent government.

For further reading...
- For examples of the attempt to defend first-past-the-post based on the desire for accountability for a majority government, see Peter Shawn Taylor's column as well as Gordon Hoekstra's backgrounder.
- Pat Carl expands on the value of continuity among cooperating parties, rather than the whiplash of single-party governments trying to undo each other's work.
- Finally, Matthew Shugart examines the anticipated effects of proportional representation in British Columbia.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Barry Ritholtz comments on Donald Trump's choice to model his budgetary policy on the combination of freebies for the rich and attacks on everybody else that produced nothing but misery in Kansas:

Kansas has been a disaster, with giant budget shortfalls, service cuts, slashed education budgets and a brain drain with young people leaving the state. The economy has failed to keep up with growth in the rest of the country and is much weaker in terms of job gains, wage increases and gross domestic product growth than neighboring states with similar economies. In 2015, for example, Kansas had one of the worst job growth rates in the country, at 0.8 percent, adding just 10,900 nonfarm jobs.

In the five years before Donald Trump was elected president in 2016, no state economy performed worse than Kansas. Things became so bad that Kansas decided to simply stop updating the public about state economic news. There's no reason to do this other than to obscure the obvious: Kansas's wounds were self-inflicted.

Compare that record with California's robust economy, increased tax base, balanced budget and job growth that exceeds the national average. The president may criticize the politics of the state, but there is little to find fault with its economy. If California were its own country, its $2.75 trillion economy and would be the world’s fifth largest, after the U.S., China, Japan and Germany.

Yet despite the obvious failures in Kansas, Trump has championed that state, and not California, as his preferred model for economic growth via big tax cuts and deregulation.
...
(T)here are obvious lessons to be learned. When Jerry Brown retires as governor next year, part of his legacy will be leaving the state with a $6.1 billion budget surplus. Kansas, meanwhile, is trying to dig itself out from the deficits that are a consequence of tax cuts -- cuts that the state legislature has since reversed.

Between the two, there's really no choice. Take California.

- Bruce Campion-Smith reports on a new study by the Parliamentary Budget Office showing how minimum wage increases have been an important factor limiting income inequality over the past couple of decades.

- David Roberts discusses the Republicans' gaslighting on climate change - which of course matches the longtime strategy of Canada's oil-backed right-wing parties. And Frederic Simon reports on the International Energy Agency's latest data confirming the continued rise of greenhouse gas emissions (and increased difficulty reining them in quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown).

- Meanwhile, J. David Hughes makes the point that conducting a fire sale of non-renewable resources isn't a viable energy plan.

- Finally, Gaby Hinscliff points out new research showing that the spread of microplastics in the environment has predictably resulted in their being ingested by people - signalling the need to both assess their effects, and limit their continued disposal.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Bagged cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Eric Levitz discusses the glaring gap between Americans' policy preferences, and the outcomes from a political system which falls far short of representing most people in the face of the influence of the ultra-rich. And Matthew Yglesias comments on the hack gap between the U.S.' two main political parties. 

- Robert Reich highlights how Donald Trump has only further enriched the wealthy while making life more precarious for the rest of the U.S. Mike Crawley reports on Doug Ford's plans to strip Ontario workers of their already-minimal gains in wages and employment standards. And Don Braid comments on Jason Kenney's promises to run roughshod over Alberta workers and consumers in exchange for corporate cash.

- Meanwhile, Sally McManus writes about the need for more fairness for Australian workers:

The problem of excessive corporate power and greed is far wider than two or three industries. Across the economy, we have seen wages go backwards in real terms over the past year, whereas profits grew 9.7 per cent, seasonally adjusted, based on the National Accounts. This is no accident – we have lost the power needed to bargain for fair wages because big business now has too much power.

Increasingly workers' capacity to bargain for better pay and conditions is hampered by a system that allows employers to frustrate the process.

Even the International Monetary Fund has pointed to the disempowerment of workers to negotiate fair pay with the deregulation of the labour market, saying this has underpinned the sluggish global recovery for workers’ wages since the global financial crisis.
...
There are a lot of changes required to fix the broken rule book of Australia’s workplace relations system, but the reforms should be built around laws that rebalance the system and give working people a fairer share of the wealth they create.

Our laws should give working people power, to negotiate fair pay and job security and create a balance between the power of the employer to say “no” and the needs of working people to have job security and decent pay for decent work.

- Andrew Nikiforuk discusses the spread of non-disclosure agreements as a means of forcing the people able to expose issues of public importance to refrain from doing so.

- Finally, Andrew Simms and Peter Newell propose a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. And we can only presume that anybody trying to deflect from any action at home in favour of reducing global emissions will be entirely on board.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Thom Hartmann writes about the billionaire-funded push toward outright fascism in the U.S. as a response to the growth of the middle class in the 20th century:

(U)nregulated markets—particularly markets not regulated by significant taxation on predatory incomes—invariably lead to the opposite of a healthy middle class: they produce extremes of inequality, which are as dangerous to democracy as cancer is to a living being.

With so-called “unregulated free markets,” the rich become super-rich, while grinding poverty spreads among working people like a heroin epidemic. This further polarizes the nation, both economically and politically, which, perversely, further cements the power of the oligarchs.

While there’s a clear moral dimension to this—pointed out by Adam Smith in his classic Theory of Moral Sentiments—there’s also a vital political dimension.
...
The Republican candidates’ and their billionaire donors’ behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, “In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for.” President Roosevelt and Vice President Wallace’s warnings are more urgent now than ever before.

If Trump and the billionaire fascists who bankroll the Republicans succeed in destroying the last supports for America’s enfeebled middle class, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—and succeed in blocking any possibility of Medicare for All or free college and trade school—not only will the bottom 90 percent of Americans suffer, but what little democracy we have left in this republic will evaporate. History, from Greek and Roman times through Europe in the first half of the 20th century, suggests it will probably be replaced by a violent, kleptocratic oligarchy that no longer shrinks from words like “fascist.”

- And Toni Hassan discusses the need to reduce inequality in order to allow for individual security and well-being.

- Bloomberg's editorial board offers a few (if less-than-ambitious) suggestions to rebalance employment relationships which have become increasingly distorted in favour of giant corporations. And Claire Tran reports on Generation Progress' mapping of the U.S.' student debt, including the observation that unmanageable debts are most common for students who need to pursue degrees in order to overcome other structural disadvantages.

- CBC reports on Apple's extreme measures to try to avoid any affordable or consumer-based repairs to its products.

- Finally, the New York Times' editorial board laments the disenfranchisement of voters for nothing but bare political gain.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Jennifer Pagliaro and David Rider report on Toronto's longstanding internal knowledge of the costs of austerity. And Ed Conway highlights a new budget showing the austerity gap in the UK - though as the Equality Trust points out, that could be made up with a fraction of the wealth hoarded by by the UK's richest 1,000 people.

- Meanwhile, Richard Vize writes about the UK's increasing infant mortality rates caused by needless cuts to social benefits and services. Maia Szalavitz examines the connection between more severe inequality and higher homicide rates. And Richard Florida notes that geographic inequality in the U.S. is only getting worse with time.

- Brooke Harrington comments on the lack of any consequences attached to bad behaviour by the wealthiest Americans.

- Peter Dietsch and Michael Guenco suggest a few first steps to make sure that Canada collects a fair share of revenue from the people who have the most wealth to contribute.

- Finally, Matthew Yglesias discusses how proportional representation could solve the most glaring problems with the U.S.' decaying political system.

Saturday Morning Links

This and that for your weekend reading.

- Kate Aronoff interviews Mariana Mazzucato about The Value of Everything, including some important discussion about the relationship between governments and markets:

Aronoff: You talk a lot about the power of the state in shaping markets. What does the idea that the government should only intervene to tweak markets get wrong?

Mazzucato: How we talk about governments and markets is very problematic. In traditional economic theory, governments are just fixing market failures. And I talk about governments—if they’re actually well organized—as different types of public institutions in society. I see them as co-creators of wealth. They co-create and co-shape markets, not just fix them. Regulation is even a problematic phrase, because it sounds like the market is just there and created by others, and the government is just there to regulate it and make it a bit more stable. Redefining markets is central to what I believe we should be doing, and that leads to very different types of policy.

Aronoff: Are there any places where you think the private sector simply shouldn’t play a role? What’s the balance?

Mazzucato: There are two issues. Whether it’s public or private ownership, a key problem is how public and private meet, right? So in the UK—take the railways. Forget for a minute whether they should be public or privately owned. If you are going to privatize them, you better get the contract right. In exchange for what he got in the contract to buy the public railway system, [Virgin CEO] Richard Branson—who bought the rails—should have been forced to promise that he would invest in the rail system and make it more efficient and more green. Whether it’s water or energy, companies should be made to invest profits in, for example, renewable energy, but also in methods that will improve the product itself and the value to the consumer. In the drive for outsourcing and privatization, these contracts have been written problematically.

Then the question is, should some areas be fully public? Well sure, those areas which are absolutely fundamental. I believe medicine is one of them. Essential medicine like vaccines are a human right. It’s very hard to apply the profit model there. Instead of companies just trying to charge a lot of money in order to recoup their cost, you could have the government set a prize for any company that wants to come in and produce this drug that will solve a certain disease, and lay out the metrics for evaluating whether that drug is what we’re looking for.

- Don Lenihan writes that climate change represents the ultimate example of an issue where obvious long-term needs are being ignored due to short-term political motivations on the part of voters and politicians alike.

- Chuka Ejeckam highlights how British Columbia's electoral reform referendum could be a first step toward change across Canada, while Andrew Coyne notes that London, ON's municipal election will offer a first example of ranked ballots in action. And Seth Klein offers his take on the three more proportional systems on the ballot.

- And finally, Martin Regg Cohn's criticism of Doug Ford's patronage highlights one of the main problems with first-past-the-post: when elections are seen primarily as a means of saying "no" to incumbents, it's all too easy to get stuck with an even worse alternative.

Musical interlude

The Postal Service - Such Great Heights

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rupert Neate reports on the latest Credit Suisse study showing that wealth continues to concentrate in the hands of a few ultra-rich individuals. And Lawrence Mishel and Julia Wolfe take note of a similar trend for U.S. wages, particularly when it comes to the soaring amount being claimed by CEOs.

- Sharon Treat discusses how the USCMA only figures to put large corporations even further beyond the reach of any regulation in the public interest. And Marie Aspiazu points out its effect on digital rights, including its extension of already-excessive copyright terms.

- The Star's editorial board takes a look at the costs of Doug Ford's cancellation of Ontario's cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. And both Lars Osberg and the C.D. Howe Institute make the case for full fee-and-dividend systems - though it's still worth raising the value of ensuring that some money collected as a result of carbon pollution actually gets applied to reducing the scope of the problem.

- Finally, Simon Enoch argues that climate sanctions may be needed to ensure that the worst offenders don't undermine any effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And George Monbiot writes that in the absence of sorely-needed government action to avert a total climate breakdown, there looks to be little alternative but civil disobedience.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Don Pittis writes that the disastrous results of the U.S.' giveaways to corporations and wealthy individuals - including a ballooning deficit which isn't contributing to any improvement in the rate of economic growth, together with an expectation that people will pay the price in cuts to health and social programs - should serve as an important warning to anybody pushing Canada to join the race to the bottom. And Jim Tankersley refutes the predictable claim that Donald Trump's tax cuts for the rich have represented anything but a needless cut to public revenue.

- Matt Henderson writes that our choice in dealing with imminent climate breakdown is between making needed contributions now, or forcing future generations to pay a far heavier price later. And Tony Coulson notes that there's general support for carbon pricing as part of a plan to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. But David Climenhaga points out the concentration of ownership in the fossil fuel sector which leaves a wealthy elite with little interest in caring about either public opinion or the future of our planet. And Roy Culpeper and Susan Tanner discuss how that tiny group of selfish oil barons has thus far dictated the terms of Canadian climate policy.

- Terry Parker responds to corporate objections to community benefit agreements by pointing out the importance of ensuring that major construction projects help the community at large.

- Finally, Meghan McDermott highlights the flaws in a few of the arguments being pushed by the "no" side in British Columbia's electoral reform referendum. And Seth Klein points out why voters should be happy to see minority legislatures which are both more cooperative and more accountable - in addition to actually reflecting voters' preferences.

New column day

Here, discussing the Price of Oil collaborative's latest report on how the Saskatchewan Party is requiring provincial regulators to keep the public at risk in order to avoid having oil operators answer for their sour gas pollution.

For further reading, I've previously written about the the same issue based on an earlier series of reports here; see also my related post, including links to previous media work dating back to 2015.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Robert Cribb, Patti Sonntag, Michael Wrobel, P.W. Elliott and Carolyn Jarvis examine the Saskatchewan Party government's utter refusal to monitor or regulate pollution caused by the oil industry - and the people who have been kept at risk as a result. And Geoff Leo takes a look at the anti-regulation and pro-austerity dogma that led to the collapse of a brand-new bridge in the RM of Clayton.

- Leslie Hook and Caroline Binham report on the warning by central banks around the globe of the need for financial decisions to both minimize and mitigate the risk of climate breakdown. And Fatima Syed reports on the billions of dollars Ontario will lose as a result of Doug Ford's destruction of cap-and-trade carbon pricing.

- Annika Koljonen points out that while the U.S. and UK are seeing stagnant or falling life expectancies as a result of corporatist political decisions, Finland is seeing the largest improvements among affluent countries in the world due to needed social investment. And Aditya Chakrabortty discusses how even the IMF has had to recognize that the UK's privatization schemes were nothing more than a neoliberal scam:

Let’s start with the IMF itself. Last week it published a report that barely got a mention from the BBC or in Westminster, yet helps reframe the entire debate over austerity. The fund totted up both the public debt and the publicly owned assets of 31 countries, from the US to Australia, Finland to France, and found that the UK had among the weakest public finances of the lot. With less than £3 trillion of assets against £5tn in pensions and other liabilities, the UK is more than £2tn in the red. Of all the other countries examined by researchers, including the Gambia and Kenya, only Portugal’s finances look worse over the long run. So much for fixing the roof.

Almost as startling are the IMF’s reasons for why Britain is in such a state: one way or another they all come back to neoliberalism. Thatcher loosed finance from its shackles and used our North Sea oil money to pay for swingeing tax cuts. The result is an overfinancialised economy and a government that is £1tn worse off since the banking crash. Norway has similar North Sea wealth and a far smaller population, but also a sovereign wealth fund. Its net worth has soared over the past decade.

 

The other big reason for the UK’s financial precarity is its privatisation programme, described by the IMF as no less than a “fiscal illusion”. British governments have flogged nearly everything in the cupboard, from airports to the Royal Mail – often at giveaway prices – to friends in the City. Such privatisations, judge the fund, “increase revenues and lower deficits but also reduce the government’s asset holdings”.

Throughout the austerity decade, ministers and economists have pushed for spending cuts by pointing to the size of the government’s annual overdraft, or budget deficit. Yet there are two sides to a balance sheet, as all accountants know and this IMF work recognises. The same goes for our public realm: if Labour’s John McDonnell gets into No 11 and renationalises the railways, that would cost tens of billions – but it would also leave the country with assets worth tens of billions that provided a regular income.

Instead, what this IMF research shows is that the Westminster classes have been asset-stripping Britain for decades – and storing up financial trouble for future generations.

- Finally, Maryse Zeidler reports on the Elizabeth Fry Society's push to ensure that the Canada Child Benefit is actually accessible to the vulnerable children who need it most.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Expectant cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Ben Chu reports on the conclusion from the chief economist of the Bank of England that decreased unionization in the UK is responsible for reducing wages for all workers by .75% per year over the past 30 years.

- Hassan Yussuff warns that Doug Ford's insistence on reversing any gains for workers at the first opportunity will put many women in avoidable danger. And David Climenhaga comments on Jason Kenney's plans to similarly launch an all-out attack on workers, with no regard for evidence or public input.

- Eliza Barclay and Umair Irfan offer a list of suggestions to avert climate breakdown, while Noah Smith discusses the importance of clean energy development in China as part of the global fight against climate change. Matt Henderson points out the unfairness of pushing carbon debts onto future generations, while Brent Patterson makes the case for holding corporations to account for their carbon pollution.

- The Star's editorial board weighs in on the need to reduce traffic congestion in Toronto. And Kim Willsher reports on the success of Dunkirk's implementation of free public transportation.

- Finally, Sheila Block comments on the absurdity of obsessing over artificial limits on tax revenue:

Any politician promising better public services without touching property taxes isn’t telling the whole story.

Just to maintain the status quo — which shouldn’t be the goal in an expanding city — Toronto would need property tax increases that grow with both population and inflation. That would be about 50 per cent higher than inflationary increases only.
...
We see the impact of this unsustainable fiscal approach all around our city: dangerous crowding in subway stations, a desperate need for repairs in Toronto Community Housing, flooded streets during climate events, insufficient shelter beds in the height of winter, timid investments in the city’s poverty reduction strategy, and digital line ups to get kids into recreational programs.

Did I mention $30 billion in unfunded capital projects?

Even worse, each year that we delay increasing property taxes has an impact on both our current and future capacity to fund essential city services.

But what if we approached property taxes in a grown-up fashion?

As grown ups, we know that we’re better off changing the oil in our cars on schedule as part of a good maintenance program. We know that dealing with the mould in the basement as soon as possible is the best financial and health strategy. And when we can, we know that putting money aside for our retirement is the prudent thing to do.

We are doing none of this for our larger home, the City of Toronto. We are letting the mould spread. We are emptying our saving accounts. We are not investing in our children’s futures.
...
As residents, we also don’t get a free pass. Voters who choose tax-freezing candidates must come to terms with deteriorating public services and sticking the bill to our kids and grandkids.

Monday Morning Links

Assorted content to start your week.

- Chris Turner rightly recognizes the urgency in implementing effective policies to avert climate breakdown - though he does set the bar too low in the process. The Star's editorial board highlights how the latest IPCC report confirms the danger of politicians fighting against climate action rather than exercising power responsibly. And Rebecca Solnit reminds us that the most important chapters in our fight against climate breakdown remain to be written.

- Lana Payne writes that the benefits of a more fair and proportional electoral system would set up needed incentives for leaders to think past the next election cycle on issues such as climate change.

- Alex Himelfarb discusses the need for an antidote to apathy and despair - both to encourage participation by people now disenchanted with politics, and to prevent those who do remain engaged from falling prey to demagoguery.

- Finally, Noah Smith comments on the difficulties associated with uncertain incomes, particularly for people already facing the risks associated with poverty:

If risk is scary for the rich, think how much more terrifying it is for the poor. The kind of event that causes a low-income American to suddenly need money isn’t a wedding or college or a comfy retirement — it’s coping with an eviction, or getting robbed, or a broken pipe in their house, or their car breaking down. The life of a poor American is a nonstop sequence of sudden disasters and looming threats. If you don’t understand this, read “Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City” by Matthew Desmond. For a middle-class American, the situation is less awful, but big medical bills and other surprise expenses are still a very significant risk, and many Americans have little savings in the bank to cushion the blows life throws at them.

Given the risks of life in America, and the paucity of savings, a consistent income is very important. The more you live paycheck to paycheck, the more you need to be sure that the paychecks won’t stop coming — and that their size will be relatively constant from month to month and year to year. Unfortunately, during the past 40 years, income volatility has risen for the average American.
...
So what’s to be done about income volatility? A big part of the job, of course, is avoiding repeats of the Great Recession. Beyond that, financialization, especially private equity’s practice of taking over companies and imposing mass layoffs, has to be thoroughly reexamined. And it may also be useful to encourage the creation of new kinds of work contracts that offer more long-term stability. In any case, though, it seems clear that income volatility is a problem that has received too little attention.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- David Wallace-Wells writes that even "genocide" may be too gentle a word for the consequences of a climate breakdown. Josh Gabbatiss discusses the insanity of approving - and even subsidizing - fracking and other means of exacerbating the climate crisis. And the Globe and Mail's editorial board weighs in on the need for carbon pricing as part of any viable climate change policy.

- Larry Elliott argues that a global economic crash exacerbated by climate breakdown could be worse than any we've seen yet. And Barry Ritholtz writes that a combination of growing debt and risk mismanagement is making another financial crisis inevitable.

- Andrew Van Dam discusses new research showing that parental wealth is already a stronger determinant of post-secondary graduation than genetic advantages.

- Wanyee Li reports that Vancouver's housing shortage and price inflation have reached the point where the workers needed to ensure access to housing are themselves priced out of the city.

- Finally, Brent Patterson comments on Max Siegelbaum's report about Canadian pension funds putting their money into U.S immigration detention centres. And in a somewhat dated report, John Aglionby points out the World Bank's recommendation that refugee camps also be turned into a means of extracting corporate profits.