Politics and Entertainment

“Our House is on Fire,” and Carbon Taxes Are Not Enough to Save Us

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:51:00 +0000

“Our House is on Fire,” and Carbon Taxes Are Not Enough to Save Us

In 2008, British Columbia implemented North America’s first broad-based carbon tax. Between 2007 and 2016, provincial real GDP grew by 19%, while net emissions were reduced by 3.7%. Although GDP growth over nine years is impressive, the meagre 3.7% reduction in emissions over such an extensive period is, to say the least, dismal. Add another year, the results look even worse: in 2007, BC emitted 64.76 tons of Greenhouse Gas emissions; in 2017, 64.46 tons - a meagre .30 ton drop in emissions or 0.46%, less than one-half a percent, over ten years. And these recent figures do not take into account all the carbon emitting forest fires in BC over these years - a situation, one could easily surmise, that would add significantly to the total amount of emissions recorded over this ten year period.

Nonetheless BC’s initiative continues to be frequently looked to as a model strategy for carbon emissions reduction. But, in our current context of a climate emergency, it is not really, I would argue, an effective enough method for reducing emissions as aggressively as we must in order to have a truly habitable world. It is instead a good example of market based economics that has been successfully sold politically, especially by neoliberal economists, and that is why it continues to be pushed in at least 50 jurisdictions around the globe as a relatively comfortable method for dealing with emissions by those in particular who have a stake in the business-as-usual game that serves their economic interests.

It is this sort of strategy, that is, putting a price on carbon, that our current federal government has adopted as its main strategy in its Greenhouse Gas Pollution Act of 2018 and, with variations, some of the major federal parties advocate - specifically a fee-rebate structure - but it, like the BC initiative, is also woefully ineffective. We don’t have a recent report, but as of 2017 emissions in Canada (716 million tons of carbon dioxide) have been reduced by a mere 2% since 2005 levels, we are 79 mega-tonnes short of the Paris Agreement targets, and emissions in 2018 have risen 7% since 1997, the year we signed the Kyoto Agreement. It’s doubtful they dropped significantly in 2019.

The fee/tax is supposed to provide an incentive to change one’s carbon behaviour. What works against such an incentive, however, is a politically motivated tax credit payable to just about everyone to use as they wish - except the big industrial polluters who have a different market based scheme based on industry sector thresholds that is also inadequate. Such compensation, in effect, undermines any real incentive to change one’s carbon behaviour. Unless one is a committed environmentalist, why should one change one’s carbon behaviour when there’s little or no pain? And in what way are such fees an incentive, say, to drive less when one has no other choice but to do so, as many do, for example, in rural Canada, where there is no public transportation to speak of, or to opt for a green vehicle or home energy source when one cannot afford the capital outlay even with government subsidies, now only available from the federal government in Ontario? Not to mention that, despite the tax credit, any fee or tax on fossil fuels disproportionately wounds those with lower incomes who cannot afford to absorb increases even with a dividend.

Even if the fee were higher, as some have suggested it should be for the process to work effectively, is anyone who isn’t in the 10% going to stop driving a fossil fuel car? Is any medium size business suddenly going to switch its energy sources and green its infrastructure without significant subsidization? We’re all deeply locked into fossil fuel capital investments and inscribed in the global infrastructure of fossil fuels - our houses, our cars, our businesses - and because we’ve naturalized that situation so deeply, we won’t abandon them completely until we absolutely have to do so in order to survive.

That day may be coming: a report synthesizing all the recent research by the Science Advisory Group of the UN Climate Action Summit to coincide with the UN Summit on climate change reveals that 2014-2019 is the hottest five year period on record and that emissions reductions should really be three times what the Paris Accord recommends. Issued just two days later, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report co-written by 100 scientists synthesizing 700 recent scientific studies indicating that conditions are even worse than they anticipated in their 2018 report underscores once again the monumental crisis we’re facing without aggressive action.

Yet carbon tax strategies remain attractive to governments and political parties, and it would seem many climate conscious environmental organizations also think they are a good strategy. Why? Because they are more politically palatable and would seem to balance some effort against climate change with a business-as-usual economy. But it is, alas, no longer business-as-usual: there are no jobs on an uninhabitable planet.

There is of course considerable resistance, propagandistic and otherwise, from the vested interests of fossil fuel production corporations, their financial backers, and their friends in media and government to any efforts to wean us off fossil fuels and to shift us exclusively towards sustainable green energy sources. Ask yourself who benefits from political inertia? Who benefits from climate inaction? We have a considerable number of those especially in the Western world who indulge in classic whataboutism too: what about China? What about the recalcitrance of Brazil, Turkey, and Russia? What about all the developing countries still burning coal?

And there is also what has now become a desperate resistance from climate change deniers who, when they behave with a degree of civility on social media and elsewhere, masquerade as philosophical skeptics with a veneer of reason and dance around the massive amount of globally coordinated scientific evidence on the existential reality of global warming and climate change. (Check out the hashtag #climatebrawl.) Their goal is essentially to keep the issue in doubt and a contested state. Recent cooperative research from the University of Montreal and the University of California at Santa Barbara, however, reveals that the majority of people in every single federal riding in Canada with the exception of three accept the fact of climate change and suggest that some sort of action should be taken. Indeed, with the exception of the three all say their province has experienced climate change.

No wonder they say that. The planet’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest since 1880, when record keeping began. Nine of the ten warmest years in recorded history have occurred since 2005. This past June, the month ER visits in Ontario uncharacteristically but perhaps not coincidentally spiked, was the hottest June ever recorded, while July was the hottest month in human history, the four-hundred and fifteenth straight month of temperatures higher than the twentieth-century average.

The simple fact is that Canada is the ninth biggest emitter in the world, that Canada has the highest per capita carbon footprint of any country in the G20, and that Canada is warming at twice the global rate, among the major effects the devastation in the North about which we learned this spring and summer - melting ice and refreezing ice slabs, eroding permafrost, raging fires, warming oceans - and several sustained dome-like heat waves in the South.

And the effects of carbon emissions will be with us forever: the temperature we experience at the Earth’s surface will not decrease if/when we actually manage to stop carbon emissions. It will remain at whatever level it is at the precise moment when we fully stop emissions. That’s why net zero strategies are ineffective: they still allow for emissions to be produced, and the offsets never balance that output. Recent research on the significant carbon gap between old forests and new forests are a good example of that failure.

Our carbon dioxide* emissions are 415 parts per million and accelerating. We burn two-thirds more fossil fuels today than in 1990, and one-half of all fossil fuels burned in human history have been burned since 1990. Another way of saying that: emissions have gone up by 46% in the last 300 years, half that amount in the last 30 years! They will be with us for thousands of years. In other words, the longer we wait to get the process of aggressive decarbonization going, the hotter it will be and the more the economic fallout even if we finally do manage to stop emissions completely.

Much, much more than a carbon tax is required. We’ll find out soon enough that only binding government legislated regulations with legal consequences will actually work to reduce emissions and mitigate their effects with the dramatic intensity we need. We will learn that we need to shift the focus to the larger perspective of systemic change - no easy task given that the entire global economy is driven by fossil fuels. Carbon taxes can play a supporting role, to be sure, but the sooner all our political parties stop flirting with a price on carbon and market based solutions in general as their main climate change policies, the sooner we can get on with the job that needs to be done right now.

That job is -five-fold: 1) Recognize fully at every level of government the scale of the challenge and that we all have a moral responsibility to work against the undeniable harm being inflicted on our world. Global warming even now affects every single aspect of our lives. Its effects are economic, social, and psychological; and it is already emerging as the number one health issue in the world as conditions worsen. 2) Reduce carbon emissions radically now through legally binding regulations. 3) Aggressively mitigate through whatever methods available the effects of carbon emissions already present in the atmosphere. 4) As politically difficult as this might be, shut down through legislation the production of any and all fossil fuel infrastructure (no more pipelines no more new extraction, no more subsidies). And 5) develop adaptation and survival strategies in all our communities big and small. Why this last? Because we long ago reached the point of no return and there is no going back.

——-

*Why Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Problem

Two conditions are always in play with respect to Earth’s atmosphere: the amount of sunlight (solar radiation) that reaches the Earth’s surface through the electromagnetic spectrum and the amount of greenhouse gasses in the air.

Greenhouse gas levels control the amount of heat (infrared radiation) absorbed into the atmosphere as it radiates up from the Earth.

Nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere, but they really don’t have an effect on the Earth’s temperature because they do not absorb heat (infrared radiation). Carbon dioxide does indeed absorb heat, a process that prevents CO2 escaping from the atmosphere into space. Thus the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the hotter the Earth’s surface temperature. Fossil fuel emissions are the biggest source of C02 emissions, and C02 can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

A Disappointing Crop of Oscar Nominations

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:03:00 +0000

The oddsmakers have Roma winning, and I agree that it should - pure cinema, as Hitchcock would say - but Green Book will win because it has all those comfy, timely liberal sentiments the Academy loves: an American white man and an American black man together learn through helping each other that humanity transcends race on a journey, both literal and figurative, of self-discovery. Alas, every single scene is completely predictable, and there is not one single interesting shot in the entire film, though one could easily be sucked in by the 101 nostalgic colours.

As compensation, Roma will win Best Foreign Film, and Alfonso Cuarón Best Director and for Cinematography - all unequivocally deserved.

Glenn Close will win Best Actress and Rami Malek will win Best Actor.

Mahershala Ali will win Best Supporting Actor, though it should go to Richard E. Grant for actually being a supporting actor. Shouldn’t Ali have been considered for a Best Actor since he was unequivocally co-driving the film’s narrative?

Regina King will win Best Supporting Actress.

The Favourite will win for Production Design.

Shouldn’t all three actresses in The Favourite have been nominated for Best Actress? Weisz and Stone were not supporters; they were co-drivers.

Ethan Hawke should have been nominated for Best Actor for his brilliant performance in First Reformed. Hopefully Schrader will win for Best Screenplay.

Contrary to what some have said, Lady Gaga cannot act. She has absolutely no screen presence, and in every single scene, we know she’s “ACTING.” [Yes, I’m referencing SNL from a few years back.] It remains astounding that she received a nomination for Best Actress. Ditto for her “co-star” Bradley Cooper as Best Actor. Of course neither really had meaningful dialogue or a half-decent script with which to work. Was everybody high when A Star is Born got nominated for Best Picture or Cooper for directing?

And It’s hard to believe that either A Star is Born or Green Book received nominations for their screenplays. Among many classic weaknesses such as telling rather than showing, gaps in character development, and highly predictable plot points, they both give us disappointing conventional sentimental Hollywood endings. I mean, really? Our hero nobly sacrifices himself by way of suicide so that his Star may continue her wondrous career ascension, having more or less been directed to do so by her agent and thereby ironically undermining the self-sufficiency and value of that very act. And do I really have to explain that white on black hug in the final scene of Green Book, or such dialogue as “Let’s get this man a plate?”

BlacKkKlansman undermines itself by its unnecessarily didactic coda. It is a film that does not have enough faith in viewers to draw their own conclusions about race and white supremacy.

In my judgment, with the exception of Roma and The Favourite, none of the nominated films compares to last year’s extraordinary crop in terms of either cinematic practice or storyline. What a falling off!

P.S. Stardate 25.02.2019

1) Sad to say, my prediction about Green Book was dead on. Of course the subtext here is the Academy's fear that a film produced by a streaming service and/or a "foreign" film would win. The Academy has always felt that it owns film, but the game has indeed changed. Films are less and less being "consumed" in movie theatres, and hard media (blu-rays) are on their way out.
2) Olivia Coleman's win for Best Actress in The Favourite could be seen as compensation for a film that had 10 nominations, this being its only win. She was great, but no better than either Weisz and Stone. Close is now 7 times nominated with no win.
3) It pains a bit to see a CGI production design win out over a "real" production design.

The Force Awakens: One Big Politically Correct Recycling Machine

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:42:00 +0000

The Force Awakens: One Big Politically Correct Recycling Machine

Given all-time box office records for The Force Awakens, it’s pretty obvious almost all comic-con and Star Wars fans in particular do not bemoan in the least the lack of innovation in the latest franchise installment. In fact many seem to have enthusiastically embraced Abrams & Co’s decision to rework, with some new - but not too new - clothes of course, essentially the same trite story material of earlier films. For these fans, familiarly breeds praise. Still there is a considerable contingent of Star Wars fans who are deeply disappointed by this installment, arguing in fact that the film betrays the legacy of the original trilogy, IV, V, and VI, and is profoundly formulaic and unoriginal. The most analytic of these comes from Nicholas Spargo, whose youtube video, Why Stars Wars The Force Awakens is Worse than the Prequels, has gone viral.

But it’s hard to deny that Stars Wars: The Force Awakens, no matter what the film’s audience reception, is one big mother of a recycling machine. And not just in storylines and innocuous themes culled from the first two movies in particular, which in turn culled from countless other recycling literary and film factories, but in obvious character types who have not - as they could have been - repurposed, including a recycled dark side guy called Kylo Ren, with a redesigned black mask but the same flowing black cape and megaphonic voice (the flip side of the dark side father, a dark side son) but with a politically correct cast: one young black male lead (Finn), one young “strong” woman lead ( Rey, the flip side of Luke), two old people (four if you count the bonus characters, Lor San Tekka and Maz Kanata (named after a suburb of Ottawa [lol] and the the flip side of Yoda), one a woman (Princess Leia) and one a man (Han Solo) - both played by purposely recycled actors - one (two if you count the new flip side of Darth Vader, Kylo) young white dude (Poe, channeling Luke in the Top Gun sequences even as Ray and Finn channel Luke in countless scenes), one unintelligible tall hairy purposely recycled endearing guy (Chewbacca) and of course a cute recycled asexual droid standing in functionally for a plucky, courageous child, BB-8 (the flip side of R2-D2).

So what politically correct categories can we safely check off? Racism, gender balance, feminism, ageism, token young and old white males, big hairy guys, and very short rotund asexual droids.

May I suggest, then, that in addition to the strategy to recycle familiar-to-fans story material, which will inevitably turn out to be a mistake I predict, such adroit character choices might have something to do with marketing the film to every conceivable being - including hairy guys and droids or at least people who dress up like that - in the entire film galaxy?*

*Despite this obvious effort to be politically correct, notice the absence of a gay character - no doubt also a marketing decision for various reasons.

Comic Con Dominates both Theatres and TV

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:45:00 +0000

Comic Con Dominates both Theatres and TV

In Canada, the only prominent national venue left for indie films would seem to be Superchannel though it too is beginning to drift in the comic con direction with shows like the over the top Ash. Regular broadcast, cable, and streaming services have moved more and more towards the comic con films already dominating our movie theatres: Gotham, The Arrow, The Flash, Agents of Shield, Jessica Jones, DC Legends of Tomorrow , Supergirl, Daredevil, Agent Carter, etc. And these films and TV shows seem to appeal to an audience much bigger than the 18-24 year old demographic and teen market. Men in their 70s know who Magneto is.

I suspect they appeal to all those whose values have been shaped by neoliberalism and its naturalization in our culture over the last forty years or so, though there is an unconscious fear in this embrace of comic con culture, I think: the fear that this wholehearted embrace of comic con pop culture might not be fully justified, the nagging feeling that something isn’t just right in such a full endorsement and that high or at least an alternative culture does in fact still exist recessed though it is, to be sure, but nevertheless still providing a different choice - in short, a troubling lack of confidence in even one’s “taste” in movies.*

This lack of confidence is abundantly evident in the recent fierce and absolute, sometimes outright neurotic defense of such comic-con fare as The Force Awakens on social media platforms or even in the wish to see politically correct feminist value in the now well established trend for "strong" women leads in both film and tv comic-con projects. An illusion of the ideology of individualism, this is a taste of course totally constructed by corporate marketing strategies with budgets bigger than production costs in most cases. Resistance is futile, or, if you do have the social courage to resist, “you spend a lot of time in the corner,” as Joel Rubinoff laments, “keeping to yourself.”

Hollywood of course relies on the sequel both to avoid financial risk and exploit already established markets more expeditiously. There is thus little doubt that we will be suffering from comic con and animated sequelitis for many years to come, but these established, known fictional worlds also generate a deep degree of psychological comfort for the comic con audience in more than one way.

Nora Loreto wrote recently in the CCPA Monitor, “Neoliberalism has… created an environment where young people believe that success and failure hinge solely on an individual’s capacities” - the illusion of individual power and choice inevitably resulting, however, not in freedom but in frustration and defeatism, she argues, because of socio-economic realities.

These movies, as I’ve implied in another post, are pure escapist fantasy - marketed of course as “just entertainment” - dreams of individual choice and power, if you will, delusional fantasies in one sense but therapeutic in another and driven by desire if not need. And perhaps, ironically, given the socio-economic reality for their primary viewers - the prospect of secular stagnation and precarious work forever - useful if not necessary to survive psychologically. In this they repeat the primary psychological role of Hollywood in the 30s and 40s, which offered useful escapism galore against the socio-economic reality of the Depression and the horrors of WWII.

One could argue, however, that in perpetuating the illusion of individual power and choice so massively these films in fact generate a deleterious effect by reinforcing the very values of neoliberalism from which escape is desired. Escapism in this instance cuts both ways: that is, these films are both an escape from neoliberal socio-economic reality and in fact, paradoxically, an endorsement of neoliberal socio-economic values.

Film is never “just entertainment.”

* Cf Andrew O’hehir’s take on fan insecurity referenced elsewhere on this blog.

Is a Referendum the Best Way to Determine an Electoral System?

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:42:00 +0000

.Is a Referendum the Best Way to Determine an Electoral System?

Theoretically a referendum may seem like the most obvious and democratic way to determine whether electoral reform is desirable in Canada; but, as we have seen with referendums at the provincial level in BC, PEI, and Ontario, the results almost always render the status quo, not change, largely because of the nature of the choices: the known against the unknowns. That is, first-past-the-post, whether on the referendum ballot or not, is stacked in a binary structure almost always against both a ranked ballot system and proportional representation. There is of course a built in psychological bias for the known in such a situation, and inevitably the unknowns tend to split the alternative vote. Those who want a referendum and favour FPP would seem to be aware of this potential structural deficiency, recognizing that first-past-the-post would inevitably be triumphant either by choice or default. In this context, then, a referendum is an illusion of democracy.

And so it’s clearly in the interests of those who enjoy a substantial degree of power through first-past-the post to maintain it. In this case, that would be the good old Conservative Party of Canada, who - let’s be honest - don’t really want a referendum because in fact they really don’t want electoral reform.* Instead, they just don’t want Parliament to consider the issue,** for their real concern is maintaining the power they enjoy through the status quo. Their call for a referendum, in other words, is a mere political ploy, not a genuine gesture in the direction of real democracy; and, sad to say, they’ve sucked in quite a few on the left of the political spectrum. THE CPC know that were proportional representation, for example, to be established, in many of the ridings where they have won by FPP - particularly rural ridings - their power would be significantly eroded.***

A referendum offers a second advantage to those who don’t want electoral reform in that it provides a much more straightforward opportunity to lobby if not propagandize against whatever systems are presented as alternatives to FPP by way of various media, editorials,**** op eds, radio talk shows and advertising - a much more difficult task to execute if reform were to be considered through a consultative all-party parliamentary process that would have the sanctioned weight of the representatives Canadians have elected to govern them. It is certainly one of the reasons some want a referendum rather than parliamentary consideration: it allows for substantial direct “partisanship” spin.

________________________

*Cf. Robin Sears: “The Conservatives are already demanding a referendum on any change to the electoral system, secure in the knowledge that that would mean certain defeat for any reform. Some gullible journalists have defended a referendum as an essential democratic test. What that naively fails to recall, of course, is that there has never been a non-partisan “democratic” referendum. The final choice will inevitably be political and require partisan approval.”
**Why would they? First-past-the-post is not on the agenda, as the Liberal election platform clearly says: “We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.”
***Under FPP, less populated rural ridings carry as much representational weight in parliament as do densely populated urban ridings. Because of that discrepancy, they are really less democratically representational. Both a ranking ballot system and PR in particular would in fact be more representational of all voters in a given riding and thus more democratic.

****This has already begun in rural newspapers and even The Globe and Mail.

why focus on inflation when there is little evidence of a inflationary trend while there are abundant statistics revealing just how bad things are for both the unemployed and the underemployed.

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Mon, 06 May 2013 14:57:00 +0000

One of the official goals of central bank monetary policy is supposed to be low employment fostered through what is known as an expansionary policy by lowering interest rates with the hope that low credit rates will encourage businesses to expand their operations by way of capital investment in hard assets or capital expenditures of some sort and new hirings. We've had this policy in place for quite some time now, and yet employment really hasn't improved one iota. If anything it’s merely gotten worse along with - because of the incentive of low interest rates - an astounding increase in personal debt to the unseemly tune of a 165% income to debt ratio.

While some businesses are moderately expanding their operations, they do not seem to be increasing employment. Instead, they are either retaining cash and letting it grow - Carney’s so-called hoarding ‘dead money’ - or off shoring/third-partying employment at lower wage standards. Using low interest rates to try to control both inflation* and encourage employment, in other words, simply isn’t working.

But why focus on inflation at all when there is little evidence of any sort of inflationary trend while there are abundant statistics revealing just how bad things are for both the unemployed and the underemployed.** The focus should clearly be on increasing employment, but since low interest rates appear not to be working, printing money to monetize our national debt is just about the only worthwhile option left for a central bank to consider, and just about every central bank in the developed world is doing just that with the exception of Canada. Why not Canada? Because of a neurotic, ideological fear of inflation that might be generated by a larger money supply - too much money chasing too few goods and thereby raising prices and potentially distorting the price of some financial assets. We are ruled by true believers.

But with that twisted caveat in mind and bearing in mind that this would constitute only a technical solution, not the genuine transformation we really need, printing money for a determinant period of time is still a good choice; for it would allow the government to spend with a bit of comfort in order to build, say, infrastructure and other employment generating programs that both stimulate the economy and employ people as well as potentially lower the Canadian dollar and thereby increase exports.

The problem is that strategy is a political choice, one that would require an intelligent government interested in generating employment rather than imposing wage-suppression and sustaining asset stability.* But the new head of the Bank of Canada apparently plans on maintaining the same old failing monetary policies of his predecessor and his CEO, Flaherty, by privileging inflation over employment as a primary policy direction - albeit a mandated policy but one that nevertheless serves only the neoliberal investor class, not ordinary Canadians. This narrow, misguided perspective is no doubt the reason Stephen Poloz has been chosen as the new Governor.

‘Growth’ and ‘inflation’ are prominent in the news stories about the new Governor with a wish to increase employment nowhere to be found. He’ll get along just fine with Steve and Jim.

________________

* Inflation is an enemy of neoliberalism for two reasons: it erodes the monetary value of already held assets such as bonds and creates pressure to increase wages. Quantitative easing of any sort is a no no under our strict neoliberal regime, though I would not be surprised to see it applied to private sector financial organizations should they need bailing out of some sort.

** For example, "the number of temporary workers in Canada hit a record two million last year, according to Statistics Canada. That amounts to 13.6 per cent of the work force compared with 11.3 per cent in 1997, when such record-keeping began.

And since the recession, temporary work has grown at more than triple the pace than permanent employment – up 14.2 per cent for temp work between 2009 and 2012, versus 3.8 per cent for permanent workers." http://goo.gl/DkBDm

Why are governments addicted to neoliberal #austerity?

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:58:00 +0000

The key to deficit reduction is not austerity - reducing government spending by cutting programs and personnel - but good old-fashioned employment. Stanford’s argument is in the Krugman reformist, Keynesian tradition. He doesn't seek a transformation, merely a technical economic readjustment, but, given our failure to transform capitalism so far - which can be brought about, in any case, only with a political strategy, not mere economic tinkering - it has value within the framework of a capitalist reality - a stopgap of sorts.

As I've said many times in that context:

Without employment, no income; without income, no spending; without spending, no demand; without demand, no production; without production, no economy.

And thus no tax revenue to pay down the deficit. Frighteningly simple, especially when one realizes that government itself instead of firing people could be employing them and establishing employment programs in an effort to stimulate the economy when the private sector is failing to do so during these stagnating times.

Still, the question remains: why is it that so many governments continue to drink the austerity koolaid when it is so evident from countless global examples that it simply doesn't work? Because of course, as the main partner in corporatocracies, they serve their corporate brethren and their plutocratic masters. Austerity always privileges this investor class, and, while it may seem counter-intuitive, recessions, as Robert Pollin has suggested, actually benefit this class*. Ontario is no exception in its allegiance to the financial sector - after all Bay Street isn't in Boise - especially since it necessarily controls so much of Ontario’s industrial economy too. As long as industrial economic activity is fulled by debt/credit, the financial sector and its capital will be in control.

We should nevertheless be grateful, I suppose, that the Ontario Liberals chose to ignore Don Drummond’s highly dubious classic neoliberal recommendations. Who knows the horrors they might have wrought.

------------------------------------------

* In the eyes of the investor class, austerity presumably generates confidence by working to maintain government solvency and asset value, especially long-term government bonds, by way of keeping inflation in check through reduced spending. Thus Canada’s neoliberal fiscal policy complements the Bank of Canada’s monetary policy of low interest rates, which also keep inflation in check. This is important to the investor class because government is of course the final guarantor of the plutocrats’ investments and their banking institutions. The outsourcing of government services if they happen at all under austerity is only an incidental benefit as is increased neoliberal freedom in the “marketplace,” for spending, whether intended by the policy or not, is also seriously inhibited in the general economy..

Maybe its time to begin thinking about withdrawing our patronage from all retailers and services that offshore labour

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:46:00 +0000

"Yes, the Conservatives are focused on what they call the economy. But their economy is a ruthless, inhuman task-master. It demands that the very profitable Royal Bank be even more profitable. It demands that 45 highly trained people lose their jobs. It demands that Canada’s visa system allow all of this to happen. The government serves this economy faithfully. Whom does this economy serve?" - Thomas Walkom, Toronto Star
_________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe its time to begin thinking about withdrawing our patronage from all retailers and services that offshore labour - including perhaps even call centres, which are the most inefficient offshore labour* of all. That might be hard to do, but choices can be made on the scale of evil, even though it’s true, as Phil Soubliere once told me, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

One could also continue to educate one’s family, neigbours, and friends about the exploitative practices that lie behind their shiny new mobile phone or computer, their wonderfully au courant clothing, their expansive new internet service, and their friendly neighbourhood bank. I find, however, that most people, wanting to get on with their necessitated drudge lives, could care less. Yes, of course you’re right, my dear fellow, but what can I do about it? So good luck with that. Maybe your mother will listen.
———————————————-
*English is indeed the language of business and global commerce thanks to U.S. imperial control of global finance, but the cultural differences, the nuances, the subtexts, the connotations, the rhythms among English language speakers are significant when it comes to communication efficiency - which is what a call centre should be all about. An English-speaking German really doesn’t speak the same language as an Indian or Texan. This is why offshoring call centres in the interest of profit and wage cost cutting is a failed business practice. It frequently if not always alienates clients. The neoliberal habit of displacing domestic workers is also of course in and of itself morally reprehensible.

Continuing our way to aggregated no growth economy

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:24:00 +0000

Cdn sheds  54,500 full-time jobs in March, most since Feb 09, & trade deficit widens #Austerity does wonders, Jim tinyurl.com/cpeeq5n

8:59am · 6 Apr 13 · PressReader

Barry Cameron @AppalledBC

@AppalledBC Of course decreasing taxes combined with austerity programs and concentrated deficit reduction shrinks government 1/2

Barry Cameron @AppalledBC

@AppalledBC 2/2 ... thereby shifting when possible services to private sector & theoretically buoying investor confidence. 3p is an example.

Barry Cameron @AppalledBC

@AppalledBC Remember, too, that the Regime's so-called economic policies, including #austerity, are really the false fronts of #ideology

Change will not come from government and this policy or that - only from extra-congressional, extra-parliamentary strategies.

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:53:00 +0000

Here is a two-part interview with Stephanie Seguino, who, though focusing squarely on income inequality and its racial and gender implications, is not a revolutionary transformer of capitalism but a technical reformer in the Krugman Keynesian tradition. Like Krugman, she advocates closely monitored public spending as a way to stimulate the economy. An interesting argument - especially on how profoundly youth, blacks, Hispanics and single mothers are disparagingly affected by income inequality resulting from the 2008 crisis - but one, alas, that simply asks for better management, not change to the very system itself. It remains clear that change will not come from government and this policy or that - only from extra-congressional, extra-parliamentary strategies.

The issue is not #capitalism under new management, but the transformation of #capitalism itself. #neoliberalism #cdnecon

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 22:30:00 +0000

More and more I tend to agree with George Monbiot that it is not neoliberalism in and of itself as an ideology or economic theory that is the root cause of our economic/political/social woes, but the ruling oligarchy’s alibiing use of that model to further their own wealth no matter the harm that results from that quest. (Is it any wonder they’re called “the feral rich.”) The distinction is important because it shifts the strategic focus to the plutocratic investor class itself and in turn their banking, regulatory, and corporate institutions - their agents of destruction - which are served of course by compliant governments everywhere and nowhere more so than right here in Canada. Our banks are now “too big too fail.” This is, sad to say, the point to which the financialization of the Canadian economy has descended: 80% of financial assets are held in these institutions. Be prepared for the socializing of bank debt down the road now that the framework's in place; that is, you'll pay for any bailouts.

More and more too I find myself in agreement with both Greg Albo and Leo Panitch, who have argued persuasively that progressives groups here (including the Council of Canadians) and elsewhere are very big on tactics and “micro-politics” but woefully lacking in overall strategy and considerations of long-term consequences. I would add to their basic argument that the self-interest of the progressive groups each with its own agenda determined largely by their executives - as is the case with political parties - will no doubt continue to inhibit any collectivizing co-operative movement towards a larger, focused pragmatic goal of institutionalizing social democratic controls.

For a brief moment, there was a ray hope with the establishment of CommonCauses, but apparently all they wish to do is replicate the actions of other progressive groups and to replace the Harper Regime. The issue of course is much larger than that simplistic goal. The issue is not capitalism under new management, but the transformation of capitalism itself. Else all is lost.

Is it hopeless? Perhaps not. Perhaps all that is required is patience, As Richard Wolff has said, "As has happened often in human history, what provokes change is less any clear vision of where we go next and more the intolerability of where we are. Capitalism is no longer "delivering the goods" for most people. The circle of its beneficiaries grows smaller and richer and more out of touch with the mass of people than ever."

Inform your "fiscally conservative" friends please of this astounding failure

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:41:00 +0000

#neoliberalism Under Flaherty the #cdnecon since 2006 has been a debt-fuelled financialized one only with little real production, productivity, or significantly increased employment to drive demand. Credit card debt has gone from $35.6 billion in February 2006 to $77.4 in February 2012, a staggering 117% increase.

Mortgage debt has gone from $672.5 billion to $1111.8 billion in February 2012, an eye-popping 65.3%. And these figures do not account for the past 12 month period, in which we already know personal debt has substantially increased even more. The personal debt to income ratio is 165% - which ought to be an embarrassment to all Canadians not just the so-called Finance Minister.

Why has Flaherty remained credible to the mainstream media? Because he's enabling them to make record profits, we know why he has to the financial community, especially since all his private sector economic consultants are from the banking sector. And of course it is these same consultants to whom the press turns for its stories. They're both inside the neoliberal bubble.

Yes, I'm repeating myself.

To begin the process of democratizing the economy step 1 is to restore the banks to their status as public utilities

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:53:00 +0000

More at The Real News

This is Part 2 of a three part discussion with James K. Galbraith and Leo Panitch on whether any sort of New Deal is now possible in America. This segment crystallizes for me the difference between Keynesian reformers like Galbraith and Krugman, say, and revolutionaries like Panitch. Galbraith continues to have faith in regulation and the government institutions that are capable of controlling economic and financial policies, claiming in effect it’s just a question of reform, of having the right personnel in those institutions and a reasonable government in power. Panitch recognizes that the problem isn’t a mere issue of personnel or government. It’s a structural problem because these institutions are embedded in Wall Street, maintaining the financialization of the economy and undermining thereby a real industrial economy based on supply and demand. These institutions in fact serve Wall Street.

What we need, Panitch argues - and I could’t agree more - is to begin the process of aggressively democratizing the economy. The first step would be to restore banks to their status as public utilities, for it is the oligarchical control of banking corporations with their destructive neoliberal policies that is the root cause of all our social and economic malaise.

A 516.7 billion increase in personal debt and 140 billion in federal debt since Flaherty took over

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:52:00 +0000

#cdnecon An Appalling Performance from a Finance Minister. »

Whatever economic movement we've had has been fuelled by essentially personal debt, an astonishing 516.7 billion increase since 2006, at a staggering 165% debt to disposable income ratio. Only #banksters and the investor class benefit from such a financialization of the economy. And we’re 140 billion deeper in federal financial debt since Flaherty took over with a net debt balance of 650 billion and a stagnating global economy - the effects of which will be hard to escape since, lacking a diversified domestic economy, all our economic growth eggs are in export markets and in particular commodities - namely oil and mining. The classic neoliberal agenda has failed miserably. Time for Drummond, Hyder, O’Leary and Co. to wake up from the dream.

Where is the $14-billion from the GST rate cut now? #cdnpoli soa.li/MOQwOlB
— barrie mckenna (@barriemckenna) March 25, 2013

Economic Forecast: Canada To See Years Of Stagnation, BMO Report Predicts

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:49:00 +0000

Economic Forecast: Canada To See Years Of Stagnation, BMO Report Predicts

Deeply, dangerously indebted “consumers” (aka Canadian citizens) at a 156% debt to income ratio aggressively imposed upon us by banksters motivated by bottom line greed, an overpriced (by at least 10%) declining housing market with a potential bubble waiting to burst, the waning of a diversified export market and eroding commodity (read oil and minerals) prices, the absence of business (corporate or otherwise) investment plans, failing austerity and deficit reduction programs at all levels of government, an impoverishment of economic government policy and meaningful stimulus programs, stagnating wages necessitating the recessing of “consumer” spending* and the effect of that on demand, deepening income disparity and anti-union sentiment, the gradual disappearance of the middle class and the evil tenacity of the 1-10% plutocracy in clinging to their destructive neoliberal investor-oriented economic agenda - in short, we have a stagnating economy until at least all the oil runs out in 50 to 90 years and the inevitable forced shift to local economies the absence of that energy infrastructure will bring. Without a real revolution, we must wallow in this slough of despond for at least a generation unless global warming and climate change do us in first - which seems increasingly likely.

*“Canadian consumers were the linchpin of the economic recovery, contributing more than half of total GDP growth in 2010 and 2011,” the report says. “Unfortunately, a good chunk of that consumption was fuelled by debt, making it unsustainable.”

Note: Much of what I enumerate here applies to the U.S.. of course and other western capitalist countries.

P.S. I sometimes like to think that moment of revolution is soon upon us with both the Canadian and global economies now settling into permanently stagnant conditions. An economic-social crisis would seem imminent. The complete and utter vacuousness of the neoliberal monster and all its evil tentacles will emerge of necessity from the dark pool of greed and avarice to be seen as the destructive horror it really is. And so every contribution to public discourse about this source of our all woe, this powerful engine of all our misery, helps - and that despite the embarrassing inadequacy of our Canadian media to deal with the matter in any meaningful way. How can they when they’re inscribed in the neoliberal myth as much as any true believer like the banksters, Flaherty, Harper, et al, though it's difficult not to wonder whether these last really know it’s fundamentally a Ponzi scheme and always has been since at least 1970.

Economic Reality

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:00:00 +0000

#nogrowth #cdnecon - let me reiterate - for the foreseeable future with no more than a relative 2% forever

Even if one were a true believer worshipping daily at the altar of neoliberalism and its side altars the Dow and TSX, how can a mere 0.7% growth of the Canadian economy in the last half of 2012 be remotely considered acceptable? Isn't such a distressing figure an index of failing economic policy - of a failure to encourage and develop a diversified domestic economy instead of the weighted “natural resources” (read oil and mining) export economy we have? One can only take blaming appalling global economic conditions so far since it is the same neoliberal agenda responsible for those dire conditions. The global neoliberal agenda with its “market-based solutions” is slowly but surely imploding - which, with peak oil, may lead to a forced but desirable shift to local economies.

"Sustainable Economy" an Oxymoron

All this talk of a “sustainable economy” swirling around the tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline lately should remind us of just how oxymoronic such a concept is in the context of a non-renewable ”natural resources” based Canadian economy. For such a deep exploitative capitalist agenda is destructive at its core and even its perpetrators know this is so. With the exception of the wilfully ignorant, the world knows that the damage done to the land, to nature, to the environment and the social and political radiating effects of that evil can never be repaired. And for what is this destruction wrought? To feed the bottom line of corporations, the 1%, the investor class, the plutocracy and those who gleefully serve it such as the Obama administration and the Harper Regime. Time perhaps for something beyond petitions, rallies, marches, and social media.

Why a completely unremarkable film called Argo won the Oscar

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:31:00 +0000

How ironically fitting that Michelle Obama announced the Oscar for the winning picture. Argo is a putative "true" story from the not too distant U.S. past - a past to which American viewers can easily relate - a feel good story of American perseverance, ingenuity, courage, an inspiring version of U. S. exceptionalism resulting in a bloodless American victory with only, according to the script but not Ken Taylor, a smidgen of help from Canadians. Such an uplifting image was far more appealing to mean-age 63 Academy voters.

Does Argo deserve the Oscar? Depends on what "deserves" means.

For the film is remarkably unexceptional in every way including the Howard Hawks overlapping dialogue and suspense building cross-cutting sequences, this last a sequence structure we've see a hundred times before. There are no outstanding scenes, no notable performances - just workmanlike stuff from mostly television actors - no innovative shooting strategy or editing, no production design worthy of note, no serious moral or political challenges offered - only a fiction of another young CIA agent bucking the system to do the right thing thereby exhibiting once again American courage and creativity. (Cf. Homeland and Zero Dark Thirty.) Voters preferred this image to the dry debates about the dark past of slavery and the questionable conduct of the CIA.

Postscript: to add insult to injury as it were, Argo was not even shot on film. What possible aesthetic rationale justifies the choice of digital over film for such a conventional project?

Zero Dark Thirty Leaves Plenty of Space for Viewer's Moral Judgment

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:50:00 +0000

Spoiler alert: The U.S. Navy SEALS murder Osama Bin Laden and several others in his Pakistani compound without mercy and with vengeful malice.

Most of the controversy swirling round the film revolves around whether the filmmaker, Kathryn Bigelow - positioned as auteur by most commentators - endorses torture or whether the film’s narrative raises the moral issue of torture for contemplation. There is, in my reading, no overt moral position offered by the film on torture or even the morality of CIA procedures in general. Many commentators have unwittingly bemoaned this absence or taken it as a tacit moral endorsement of torture - their right as viewers - but it is is overwhelmingly clear that torture and CIA investigative procedures, as morally problematic as they might be to us as viewers, are judged - are valued - in the film only in terms of their pragmatic effectiveness in what is for both viewers and participants a classic revenge narrative structure. "Do these procedures and practices work to help us catch terrorists, and in particular do they work to help us get Bin Laden so that we will be able to murder him in a bloody act of revenge?"

Representations of torture are recessed in the second half of the film, it should be noted, not because of a moral awakening by any given character but only because of a policy decision by a new administration. The Obama TV moment presented in the background in the context of a CIA war or situation room makes this crystal clear. Even Dan’s warning to Maya - relatively early in the film - about the possible repercussions of “enhanced” methods of detainee interrogations comes in the form of a political warning about saving her CIA ass, not moral reprehension.

The devastating loss of American lives on 9/11 is the initiating narrative event that rolls out a straightforward revenge structure ending in the murder of Bin Laden and several of his domestic companions. Before the film proper begins in earnest, however, we are exposed to an introductory screen text informing us that the representations we are about to watch are based on "firsthand accounts of actual event." There is an implicit moral distancing in this textual strategy - “I'm just showing you the way it was” - but certainly one of its other effects is to suggest that what we are about to see carries the weight of authenticity and is therefore important if not “real.” The now conventional use of handheld cameras is meant to reinforce this effect with a documentary-like style of shooting. In other words, the “realism” of the film is not an allegiance to “truth” or reality,” whatever those may be since neither is a given, but a filmic effect resulting from a well-established set of film conventions creating an illusion, a fiction, of “what really happened.” It seems appropriate to evaluate the film as such.

The film proper opens with a black screen over which we hear the dying voices of only American victims of the twin towers, a restriction thus positioning us emotionally if not ideologically as American viewers. Immediately after this audio text, we are treated to roughly forty-five minutes of extensive torture sequences, including several instances of the infamous water-boarding technique. Juxtaposing the first visual torture scene of al-Qaeda’s No. 3 leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, with the voices of the twin tower Americans who are about to die creates a structural effect implying a retaliatory cause-effect relationship - “I am torturing you because of 9/11” - and that effect is sustained throughout the entire 45 minutes of multiple scenes of torture and implied throughout the entire film.

These kind of scenes are gradually recessed as we move in the second half of the film towards interrogations without torture - but nonetheless grounded in bribes or threats - and sequences of CIA group intelligence analysis: the so-called “hard work” some critics want to see as the reason for discovering Bin Laden. But the dialogue reveals on several occasions that the analysis - the “hard work” - really results from information received from interrogated detainees, on screen and off, and those detainees, we know, were abused in some form or other if not overtly tortured. "Does our treatment of detainees work? You bet."

Inter-cut with these intelligence analysis scenes is a revenge justifying history of major terrorist attacks against westerners since 9/11, but especially against Americans, each successfully gaining more screen time and thus significance until the final, climactic suicide bombing in Afghanistan of one of Maya’s closest colleagues, Jessica, who has been betrayed by her al-Qaeda connections. Now it’s “personal” is the implication as we move towards the final bloody revengeful act of murder in Pakistan.

But, in truth there has been little if anything personal in the film - no character development for anyone let alone Maya who has been merely the driving agent of revenge. We know little more about her by the end of the film than we do at the beginning, and the final scene of Maya in a giant U.S. army transport plane alone, isolated, and small is telling in its ambiguity. "Where do you want to go?" asks a crew member, his question unanswered. And what do we read on her face? Relief? Satisfaction? Sadness? An unwinding? Anxiety now that her obsessive-compulsive revenge narrative has come to its end? Plenty of room for the the viewer’s meaning.

Following that final character scene is another screen text rounding out the ideological thrust of the film in its acknowledgement of the victims of 9/11 once again and all those who serve the American exceptionalist project. Closure is provided by that framing text confirming the essence of the film as an apologia of sorts, a justification of policy, of strategy: “Revenge and all that that entails, including torture, are okay because they drove us to get Bin Laden, and we did that for you.” Whether this is a impaired moral justification is the viewer’s decision.

In the end, it matters little what the filmmaker or commentators say about Zero Dark Thirty. You are the site of meaning: it’s your reading of the film conditioned though it may be by your cultural, moral, and social inscription that matters. Like any text, film texts are unstable, dynamic, their meaning put in motion by your engagement with them. In a sense there is no film without you.Zero Dark Thirty is provocatively open enough - disturbing in so many ways - to allow for a variety of ways to read it, and that makes it a challenging, ideologically complex film well worth viewing - far more exciting than some of its straightforward conventional Oscar challengers.

The Unintended Consequences of Military Intervention:

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 01:32:00 +0000

The Roots of Mali and Algeria Crisis in Libya. And let's not forget Canada's gung-ho involvement in Libya - which might partially explain the interest in Mali now. what was unleashed in Libya is coming home to roost.

Bill McKibben on #IdleNoMore | The stakes couldn’t be higher, for Canada and for the world

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:52:00 +0000

"The stakes couldn't be higher, for Canada and for the world. Much of this uprising began when Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper rammed through Parliament an omnibus bill gutting environmental reviews and protections. He had no choice if he wanted to keep developing Canada’s tar sands, because there’s no possible way to mine and pipe that sludgy crude without fouling lakes and rivers. (Indeed, a study released a few days ago made clear that carcinogens had now found their way into myriad surrounding lakes). And so, among other things, the omnibus bill simply declared that almost every river, stream and lake in the country was now exempt from federal environmental oversight. Canada’s environmental community protested in all the normal ways – but they had no more luck than, say, America’s anti-war community in the run up to Iraq. There’s trillions of dollars of oil locked up in Alberta’s tarsands, and Harper’s fossil-fuel backers won’t be denied. But there’s a stumbling block they hadn’t counted on, and that was the resurgent power of the Aboriginal Nations. Some Canadian tribes have signed treaties with the Crown, and others haven’t, but none have ceded their lands, and all of them feel their inherent rights are endangered by Harper’s power grab. They are, legally and morally, all that stand in the way of Canada’s total exploitation of its vast energy and mineral resources, including the tar sands, the world’s second largest pool of carbon. NASA’s James Hansen has explained that burning that bitumen on top of everything else we’re combusting will mean it’s “game over for the climate.” Which means, in turn, that Canada’s First Nations are in some sense standing guard over the planet."

| Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters

Mission Accomplished for the shrewd person who decided on the Deloitte Audit Release

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:50:00 +0000

It’s difficult not to think that the timing of the release of the Deloitte financial audit of Atawapiskat was calculated in its anticipation of a potential backlash against Spence and, by association, #idlenomore. The audit prompted Spence to shut down media relations, a closed door thus leading to the media’s usual the-people-deserve-to-know resentment and dog-with-a-bone mentality about being squashed. That in turn led to bad press, especially from the Coyne, Blatchford, and Wente types, and bad press led to an apparent shift in public opinion. The squabbling over today's meeting doesn't help.

Mission accomplished for whoever it was who decided to release the audit.

First Nations meeting with PM thrown into disarray – Politics – CBC News

Harper May Have his Coalition but he doesn’t have Canada

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:31:00 +0000

Stephen Harper keeps support of ‘coalition’ of voters: poll

“Among the findings in the Dec. 7-12 Ipsos Reid poll:

* 44 per cent of Canadians think Harper’s majority government is “working well,” while 56 per cent don’t think it is.
* 45 per cent like the way Harper is “handling his job as prime minister,” while 55 per cent don’t.
* 44 per cent share Harper’s “values” on where Canada should be headed, compared to 56 per who don’t.
* 48 per cent think Harper’s “approach to politics” has been good for Canada, while 52 per cent don’t think so.
* 44 per cent think Harper’s approach to politics has been good for Parliament, while 56 per cent don’t think so.
* 43 per cent think Harper should run for office again in the next election, set for 2015, while 57 per cent think he should quit.”

—

Stephen Harper keeps support of ‘coalition’ of voters: poll

Yes, he has his coalition of old white men living in rural Canada, much of the immigrant “market” of suburbia, and the #BigOil country of Western Canada. But, as the poll makes clear, he still hasn’t got the majority of Canadians – which means he does not really have a fundamentally democratic mandate. He rules only because of flawed electoral and riding systems. See my post on this issue elsewhere on this blog:

The Agonizing Challenge of Voting in 2015

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 16:24:00 +0000

#HarperRegime's neoliberal immigration policy: we help only those who can help us, not those who need help. bit.ly/THkytI #cdnpoli
— Barry Cameron (@AppalledBC) January 2, 2013

Premiers Goal to Increase CPP both Pragmatic and Desirable

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:26:00 +0000

“Flaherty said Friday the federal government is concerned about increasing CPP contributions at the current time because it would slap an additional financial burden on employers during fragile economic times, potentially threatening their ability to hire workers. The federal government can’t unilaterally change the CPP; amending it requires the backing of two-thirds of the provinces representing two-thirds of the population. “This is not the time to put another burden on employers and dampen employment prospects for Canadians. That’s my view. Not everyone agrees with that view,” Flaherty told reporters Friday in Ottawa.

Flaherty open to growing CPP — if all the provinces agree | canada.com

Notice that Flaherty’s concern is the employer, the boss, the corporation, not the worker and certainly not the average Canadian whom most of the premiers actually want to help: “It is estimated six in 10 Canadian workers in the private sector have no private pension plan, while approximately only one-third of Canadians make contributions to registered retirement savings plans.” So far the premiers outnumber Flaherty and have the constitution on their side, and their goal is both pragmatic and desirable given the other pension options.

The Precedent Setting Nature of the Robocalls Case is the Legal Issue

noreply@blogger.com (AppalledBC) — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:14:00 +0000

In my view, the outcome of this case hinges on the nature of any legal precedent that could be set by a final ruling. Judge Richard Mosley is no doubt fully aware of this possibility. In that respect, I don’t think the six ridings in question will be getting new elections. And here’s why.

In order for the results in these ridings to be set aside and a new election called, the plaintiffs must prove that they were electorally disenfranchised. I think this is the real and only burden of proof. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there was indeed a systematic, patterned effort to prevent people from voting in many riding, but all of the plaintiffs before the court did in fact vote despite these efforts. This was one of Hamilton’s key argument yesterday, and it’s persuasive. None of the eight plaintiffs was disenfranchised - which doesn’t mean other people in these particular ridings and others weren’t, but those other people are not before the court. It would be difficult for any judge, in other words, to set a precedent for setting aside an election on the basis that there was an effort to prevent some constituents from voting. Some concrete evidence that someone actually was would seem to be required. Had the plaintiffs themselves standing before Judge Mosley actually been prevented, a precedent setting ruling could be made with some legal comfort.

Just something to think about, but maybe Judge Mosley will fool us all.

#legal precedent #robocalls

Addendum:

Here’s a bit of a follow-up to my post of yesterday. McIsaac certainly makes an interesting point about a judge’s opportunity to rule favourably and set aside an election result if he or she were to believe fraud has occurred in a given riding “on the balance of probabilities.” But, as I’ve suggested, given the extraordinary power of any precedent that might be set in this case, it is highly unlikely for Judge Mosely to base such a game-changing decision on “probabilities.” Hard evidence of disenfranchisement is required.

Loss of ‘one voter’ enough to overturn election outcomes, robocalls hearing told

"A judge can overturn the outcome of an election if he believes “at least one voter” in the riding did not vote as a result of electoral fraud, a lawyer for Elections Canada argued in Federal Court on Friday.

The applicants in the “robocalls” election challenge of 2011 election results in six ridings have not presented evidence of specific individuals who were prevented from voting by deceptive poll-moving calls.

But if the judge hearing the case agrees with Elections Canada’s reading of the law, he could overturn the results in any of six ridings at issue if he believes that fraud occurred “on the balance of probabilities,” an easier standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard required in criminal cases.

Lawyer Barbara McIsaac made the presentation on behalf of Marc Mayrand, the chief electoral officer, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in the unsuccessful recent challenge of the election of Conservative MP Ted Opitz.

If the judge finds that there was fraud in a given riding, and if a greater number of votes were suppressed than the margin of victory, the court should balance those considerations with the reality that overturning the result would disenfranchise those who did cast ballots in the election, McIsaac said."

Update: December 18

Robocall Trial Wraps Up

"As Shrybman concluded his case, Justice Richard Mosley asked whether he agreed with Elections Canada counsel Barbara McIsaac, who last week argued that the Supreme Court’s recent Opitz decision showed that to overturn an election, he would have to show a voter in each riding who didn’t vote as a result of the calls.

Shrybman accepted McIsaac’s argument.

“We have the onus to establish beyond the balance of probability, that fraud occurred, and affected the outcome of the election, which the Supreme Court has told us means that at least one voter didn't cast a vote,” he said."
------------------------------------

So Shryman accepts that the plaintiffs must established beyond the balance of probability that fraud did indeed occur. The question is will Judge Mosley consider the EKOS study and the ongoing Election Canada's investigation sufficient evidence to rule in their favour. It is telling in my view that Mosely has returned to McIsaac's point so often.