The IMF and its boosters like to bill it as having 'seen the light.' Nowadays, we hear all about the IMF that has learned its lesson and is warm and cuddly. We are told that the IMF understands the importance of maintaining governance and government capacity. Why, we are even told they have a focus on poverty reduction. For a sterling example of this, you can see a discussion at enmasse.ca between me and several other posters going under the handles thwap, Rufus Polson, elmateo, Senor Magoo and A_J about the IMF, structural adjustment and whether or not Haiti should accept the loans offered by the IMF after the earthquake. You can read it here.
The notion that the IMF is not a heartless profit machine is, frankly, absurd. The conditions being imposed on Greece now prove this and put the lie to the notion that the IMF has changed from the cruel master of the 1980s and 1990s. All you have to do is look at the package of "austerity" measures that the Greek government (a quisling "Socialist Party" government at that) is trying to put through the parliament. The BBC has the details (see here and here), and the thing that is immediately noticeable is that the vast majority of the pain from these reforms is going to be felt by disadvantaged groups: the poor and the elderly.
In a crisis, the government needs to look to both its income and cost situation. Clearly, the IMF and the European Union are demanding action on the cost side of the ledger. But the government is doing almost all of its actions on this side, trying to cut expenditure without substantially increasing long term revenue. These measures don't even include a hike in income taxes, the most progressive way a government has of raising revenue. The government ought to be hiking taxes on its top income brackets to ease its balance of payments crisis, not cutting services and raising taxes that have disproportionate impacts on the poorest people in society. The government should also be raising taxes on banks and other corporations - the ones who actually caused the crisis. Instead, all there is is a one-off tax on profits and hikes in VAT (the Greek sales tax) and increased taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco. For the elderly, these cuts will be a double-whammy as they will see their pensions cut, and their costs rise.
The BBC also mentions privatization. Privatization is stupid at the best of economic times, killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. In times like these it would be a fire sale, giving away valuable state enterprises for pennies on the Euro. Privatization represents just another way of transferring capital accrued by the people in common to the owning class. Transferring control away from democratically accountable institutions like Parliament to the kleptomanic classes that caused this problem. But this is another hallmark of the reckless profit-lust of the IMF. It seems that in their view and Naomi Klein's words, the state should be nothing more than a conveyor belt moving public money to private interests.
The IMF remains the same villain it has been for decades. What is happening now shows no indication that the IMF cares a whit about reducing poverty, in fact these actions will without a shadow of a doubt increase poverty in Greece. The IMF cannot viably claim to be new, warm and fuzzy when it is pursuing policy options that could well have been tailored to cause more poverty and misery. The IMF should just admit that it is what it is, a shill for the global capitalist class, seeking to open countries to exploitation by capital.
Showing posts with label Labour and Economic Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour and Economic Justice. Show all posts
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
The Budget, and the Coalition's Last Chance
Tomorrow, Finance Minister and Flim-Flam-Artist-in-Chief Jim Flaherty will deliver the federal budget for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Much of the budget has already been leaked, in defiance of long-standing trends of budget confidentiality. The Conservatives appear to be set to spend like drunken sailors on a variety of areas. The spending seems, for the most part, to be focussed on good things (though as the NDP has been pointing out all day, the Conservatives can't really be trusted to deliver on this stuff, since they keep re-announcing the same money over and over). Concerningly, however, is that it has been indicated that the budget will contain broad-based tax cuts.
As I wrote a while ago, tax cuts are not stimulus, no matter how much the government would like us to believe the Chicago School, neo-liberal orthodoxy that if you free the market, greater prosperity will follow. That has been proven time and again, from the Southern Cone of Latin America to the post-Communist economies of the former Soviet Block, to the former Asian Tigers. Neo-liberal orthodoxy produces fantastic riches for an elite few, but produces planned misery for the vast bulk of the population. Neo-liberalism produces a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and produces the most astonishingly unequal societies on the face of the earth.
If this budget includes broad-based tax cuts, those will not be stimulus, those will drag the federal curent accounts budget into a structural deficit. Reducing revenue is the most astonishingly inappropriate thing for the government to do when major fiscal stimulus is needed.
The Liberals have this one opportunity to prove that they have grown a spine. If they vote for this budget, and for the con artists who have put it together, they will have proven themselves cowards, shrinking in the face of Conservative lies and bullying. However if they vote against, they will have proven a willingness to find an alternative within our constitutional structures, and without forcing the expense of another election on the people of Canada. Of course, all of that depends on the Governor General not disgracing herself again when Harper asks her for dissolution and a new election.
If the Liberals knuckle under, that will be it for the coalition. There is no point in any kind of cooperation with a Liberal Party that is staggering drunkenly to the right under Michael Ignatieff who is quickly proving once again that the Liberals will say anything and stand for nothing.
Tomorrow will be interesting.
As I wrote a while ago, tax cuts are not stimulus, no matter how much the government would like us to believe the Chicago School, neo-liberal orthodoxy that if you free the market, greater prosperity will follow. That has been proven time and again, from the Southern Cone of Latin America to the post-Communist economies of the former Soviet Block, to the former Asian Tigers. Neo-liberal orthodoxy produces fantastic riches for an elite few, but produces planned misery for the vast bulk of the population. Neo-liberalism produces a massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and produces the most astonishingly unequal societies on the face of the earth.
If this budget includes broad-based tax cuts, those will not be stimulus, those will drag the federal curent accounts budget into a structural deficit. Reducing revenue is the most astonishingly inappropriate thing for the government to do when major fiscal stimulus is needed.
The Liberals have this one opportunity to prove that they have grown a spine. If they vote for this budget, and for the con artists who have put it together, they will have proven themselves cowards, shrinking in the face of Conservative lies and bullying. However if they vote against, they will have proven a willingness to find an alternative within our constitutional structures, and without forcing the expense of another election on the people of Canada. Of course, all of that depends on the Governor General not disgracing herself again when Harper asks her for dissolution and a new election.
If the Liberals knuckle under, that will be it for the coalition. There is no point in any kind of cooperation with a Liberal Party that is staggering drunkenly to the right under Michael Ignatieff who is quickly proving once again that the Liberals will say anything and stand for nothing.
Tomorrow will be interesting.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Momentous Time
As we approach the end of the reign of George Bush II, it becomes evident, to all but the most-close-eyed conservatives the hell to which we've been carried in Bush's hand-basket.
Human disasters are unfolding across the world. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the imperial west is brutally occupying, whether to extract oil or to protect pipeline routes. In Gaza the Palestinians are being slaughtered for political gain, in an appallingly crass, hubristic and hypocritical display. The genocide in Darfur continues to unfold, and American ally states from Lebanon to Pakistan to Georgia have been declaring states of emergency and clamping down on democratic opposition.
The great glory of modern capitalism, our globalized economy, is coming apart at the seams as economies across the world melt down, throwing workers out on the street, and bringing new protestations of Keynesian faith, despite the fact that the supposedly socialistic policy of bailouts simply enriches those already bloated with ill-gotten wealth. Bush and his wild-eyed acolytes of laissez-faire and the unfettered free market have proven to be unspeakable failures at managing the economy, as the ideological bankruptcy of their economic ideologies is proven to be matched only by its moral bankruptcy as in engages in one last orgy of upward redistribution of wealth. Executives get golden parachutes and workers get the soup kitchen line.
As laid out by the late, great, and incomparable Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose in their book Bill of Wrongs, the Bush regime has encouraged an all out assault on the principles of constitutional government in the United States, and this has had knock-on effects across the world. Canada puts in place Gitmo North and imprisons four men for eight years without charge, the opportunity to face their accusers or to know the evidence against them. Great Britain collapses into an agonized security state in which the average citizen of London is recorded on camera three hundred times every day, which would make Big Brother jealous. States in eastern Europe hold and torture men who have been kidnapped by the American government, in a practice called, with a chilling sterility, extraordinary rendition. American puppet regimes in the Middle East torture others, including Maher Arar who was confirmed to have committed no crime.
Bush and his flunkies have radically undermined the emergence of an international legal order, attempting to scuttle the International Criminal Court after securing major concessions. They have sabotaged attempts to save our climate from radical and disastrous change by recanting America's signature on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They have undermined the Geneva Conventions on the Law of War by creating the status of illegal enemy combatant that has no basis in law and is simply an excuse to hold the racialized other forever in a legal black hole.
This is but a brief and incomplete catalogue of the worst excesses, and high crimes, of George Bush, called Dubya. But not all is dark.
In the election on Nov. 4, 2008 Americans spoke resoundingly of a desire for change. While they likely will get only cosmetic change out of Barack Obama, Americans were mobilized and involved in politics in a way not seen since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Americans have been jolted out of political apathy, and it is to be hoped that their awakening will be transmitted to the slumbering populations of the rest of the industrialized world.
In Latin America a radical transformation of both economics and politics is gaining steam. A truly democratic and socialist movement has arisen, and is demanding justice and equality for their people, and an end to the domination of their states by their wealthy paleo-colonialist elites and foreign corporations. The people of Venezuela resisted an American-sponsored coup in 2002 that was eerily reminiscent of the coups in the southern cone during the 1970s. The workers and the indigenous populations have reclaimed control of their countries in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Centre-leftists have been elected by wide margins in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. South America faces a revolutionary moment, and it provides a template that can be followed across the South.
As the economy melts down, that defining revolutionary moment spreads into the industrialized economies. It is a self-evident failure of capitalism. Socialists must be ready with alternatives to present, or we will lose this moment, as we lost the moment of the Great Depression.
The last days of George W. Bush are a time for celebration, as the global tyrant leaves the scene. But we can't stop at celebration. We must push for a true revolutionary moment, to bring democratic socialism to all the people of the world.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 6
Human disasters are unfolding across the world. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the imperial west is brutally occupying, whether to extract oil or to protect pipeline routes. In Gaza the Palestinians are being slaughtered for political gain, in an appallingly crass, hubristic and hypocritical display. The genocide in Darfur continues to unfold, and American ally states from Lebanon to Pakistan to Georgia have been declaring states of emergency and clamping down on democratic opposition.
The great glory of modern capitalism, our globalized economy, is coming apart at the seams as economies across the world melt down, throwing workers out on the street, and bringing new protestations of Keynesian faith, despite the fact that the supposedly socialistic policy of bailouts simply enriches those already bloated with ill-gotten wealth. Bush and his wild-eyed acolytes of laissez-faire and the unfettered free market have proven to be unspeakable failures at managing the economy, as the ideological bankruptcy of their economic ideologies is proven to be matched only by its moral bankruptcy as in engages in one last orgy of upward redistribution of wealth. Executives get golden parachutes and workers get the soup kitchen line.
As laid out by the late, great, and incomparable Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose in their book Bill of Wrongs, the Bush regime has encouraged an all out assault on the principles of constitutional government in the United States, and this has had knock-on effects across the world. Canada puts in place Gitmo North and imprisons four men for eight years without charge, the opportunity to face their accusers or to know the evidence against them. Great Britain collapses into an agonized security state in which the average citizen of London is recorded on camera three hundred times every day, which would make Big Brother jealous. States in eastern Europe hold and torture men who have been kidnapped by the American government, in a practice called, with a chilling sterility, extraordinary rendition. American puppet regimes in the Middle East torture others, including Maher Arar who was confirmed to have committed no crime.
Bush and his flunkies have radically undermined the emergence of an international legal order, attempting to scuttle the International Criminal Court after securing major concessions. They have sabotaged attempts to save our climate from radical and disastrous change by recanting America's signature on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They have undermined the Geneva Conventions on the Law of War by creating the status of illegal enemy combatant that has no basis in law and is simply an excuse to hold the racialized other forever in a legal black hole.
This is but a brief and incomplete catalogue of the worst excesses, and high crimes, of George Bush, called Dubya. But not all is dark.
In the election on Nov. 4, 2008 Americans spoke resoundingly of a desire for change. While they likely will get only cosmetic change out of Barack Obama, Americans were mobilized and involved in politics in a way not seen since the election of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Americans have been jolted out of political apathy, and it is to be hoped that their awakening will be transmitted to the slumbering populations of the rest of the industrialized world.
In Latin America a radical transformation of both economics and politics is gaining steam. A truly democratic and socialist movement has arisen, and is demanding justice and equality for their people, and an end to the domination of their states by their wealthy paleo-colonialist elites and foreign corporations. The people of Venezuela resisted an American-sponsored coup in 2002 that was eerily reminiscent of the coups in the southern cone during the 1970s. The workers and the indigenous populations have reclaimed control of their countries in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Centre-leftists have been elected by wide margins in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay. South America faces a revolutionary moment, and it provides a template that can be followed across the South.
As the economy melts down, that defining revolutionary moment spreads into the industrialized economies. It is a self-evident failure of capitalism. Socialists must be ready with alternatives to present, or we will lose this moment, as we lost the moment of the Great Depression.
The last days of George W. Bush are a time for celebration, as the global tyrant leaves the scene. But we can't stop at celebration. We must push for a true revolutionary moment, to bring democratic socialism to all the people of the world.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 6
Thursday, January 08, 2009
EI and Stimulus
On Wednesday, the Liberals decided to announce that they want the Harper government to improve EI as part of the budget in order to obtain their support. That's all well and good, but coming from the Liberals, it seems like a rather last minute trip along the road to Damascus. Liberals are the same party that effectively gutted EI in the 1990s to finance their deficit reduction. They stole billions from Canadian workers, and used it to pay down the debt and deficit. I'm glad they've finally seen the light, but it seems rather late.
Improving EI is an excellent way to stimulate the economy, because it keeps families who have lost jobs able to buy their essentials, and pay their bills, which flows money back into the economy. It's also the right thing to do, because these workers have been paying EI premiums for years, and deserve the security it brings, so that losing one's job does not mean an instantaneous disaster. Workers have given their sweat, tears and (far too often) their blood, for this county. It's time for the country to give back to them.
In their Alterative Budget, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called for the injection of $3.4 billion into the EI programme, to increase benefits to 60% of insurable income, and coverage to fifty weeks. EI is the very definition of counter-cyclical spending, since it spends money when the economy is bad, and saves money when the economy is doing well (at least it saves when the feds don't steal its surplus).
Canadian workers deserve the support of their government, and enriching EI is a good way to give that support. If the Liberals want to get on the pro-worker train, the more the merrier. But they're going to have to prove that they have earned their seats.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 12
Improving EI is an excellent way to stimulate the economy, because it keeps families who have lost jobs able to buy their essentials, and pay their bills, which flows money back into the economy. It's also the right thing to do, because these workers have been paying EI premiums for years, and deserve the security it brings, so that losing one's job does not mean an instantaneous disaster. Workers have given their sweat, tears and (far too often) their blood, for this county. It's time for the country to give back to them.
In their Alterative Budget, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called for the injection of $3.4 billion into the EI programme, to increase benefits to 60% of insurable income, and coverage to fifty weeks. EI is the very definition of counter-cyclical spending, since it spends money when the economy is bad, and saves money when the economy is doing well (at least it saves when the feds don't steal its surplus).
Canadian workers deserve the support of their government, and enriching EI is a good way to give that support. If the Liberals want to get on the pro-worker train, the more the merrier. But they're going to have to prove that they have earned their seats.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 12
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Tax Cuts Aren't Stimulus
The Finance Minister is an idiot. I'm going to put that out there now. He's also a liar and a crook, but that's a different story. This one is about how Jim Flaherty thinks that tax cuts are a form of counter-cyclical stimulus. He is talking about including tax cuts in the federal budget due at the end of January.
I'm sorry, this is a moronic move. The kind of tax cuts that Conservatives like are narrowly focused on the capitalist class, and emphasize trickle-down voodoo economics. Supply-side tax cuts are unequivocally not what we need in this economic climate. I don't think we generally ever need them, but that is, again, something for another entry, but we especially don't need them when our economy is staring massive over-production in the face. Providing tax cuts intended to increase capital investment is an inappropriate move in the current economic environment. If the Conservatives are bound and determined to have tax cuts in the budget, then cut marginal taxes for the lowest tax bracket, and maybe raise the basic personal exemption. This is the kind of tax measure that might be helpful. Those who would benefit from the measure are the people who live from paycheque to paycheque, and spend every cent they get. This money goes right back into the economy, and stimulates demand, easing the crisis of overproduction, without sacrificing jobs.
But I don't think tax cuts are the way to go right now. Tax cuts aren't a good method of counter-cyclical stimulation of the economy. Counter-cyclical stimulation, in the typical Keynesian mode, requires that the stimulation be capable of easing off when the economy no longer requires stimulation. Tax cuts cause a major problem in this regard, because in the current political climate it is very difficult to raise taxes, when the economy no longer needs the stimulation. We have seen a practical example of this in Canada. In the last election, Stephane Dion mused about the possibility of raising the GST back to 7%, and the howling across the country was deafening.
The best way to stimulate the economy is infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending has five aspects that make it good for counter-cyclical stimulation:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 14
I'm sorry, this is a moronic move. The kind of tax cuts that Conservatives like are narrowly focused on the capitalist class, and emphasize trickle-down voodoo economics. Supply-side tax cuts are unequivocally not what we need in this economic climate. I don't think we generally ever need them, but that is, again, something for another entry, but we especially don't need them when our economy is staring massive over-production in the face. Providing tax cuts intended to increase capital investment is an inappropriate move in the current economic environment. If the Conservatives are bound and determined to have tax cuts in the budget, then cut marginal taxes for the lowest tax bracket, and maybe raise the basic personal exemption. This is the kind of tax measure that might be helpful. Those who would benefit from the measure are the people who live from paycheque to paycheque, and spend every cent they get. This money goes right back into the economy, and stimulates demand, easing the crisis of overproduction, without sacrificing jobs.
But I don't think tax cuts are the way to go right now. Tax cuts aren't a good method of counter-cyclical stimulation of the economy. Counter-cyclical stimulation, in the typical Keynesian mode, requires that the stimulation be capable of easing off when the economy no longer requires stimulation. Tax cuts cause a major problem in this regard, because in the current political climate it is very difficult to raise taxes, when the economy no longer needs the stimulation. We have seen a practical example of this in Canada. In the last election, Stephane Dion mused about the possibility of raising the GST back to 7%, and the howling across the country was deafening.
The best way to stimulate the economy is infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending has five aspects that make it good for counter-cyclical stimulation:
- It is capable of getting to work quickly, since most cities and counties have some kind of infrastructure project just waiting for funding to go into effect. An example is the Transit City proposal in the City of Toronto, envisioning many more streetcar lines to greatly increase the available transportation in the city.
- It puts people to work, both in the immediate construction industry and in the feed-in system, creating a ripple effect across the economy. By putting people to work, more money is earned, and that helps to ease the overproduction crisis.
- It stimulates demand for products manufactured in Canada, helping to keep well-paid manufacturing jobs in Canada.
- Building infrastructure leaves something that will be useful for decades. A new subway line can be used for a hundred years or more (see London and New York), a new streetcar line for decades. Building infrastructure is a part of long-term economic planning.
- It can be easily eased off when the economy recovers.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 14
Friday, November 28, 2008
Harper Scampers to Save His Government
Craven Stephen Harper, the true small-man of Confederation has pushed back the opposition day scheduled for Monday by a week in a desperate attempt to save his government that is suddenly on the rocks. Flim-Flam Flaherty's economic update included more poison pills than the opposition could ever have been rationally expected to swallow, including not only the elimination of public campaign financing, but also a frontal attack on collective bargaining rights and the equal rights of women.
Flaherty took union busting to the next level, declaring that the government would use the power of the Crown to roll back collective bargaining and arbitral gains on wage increases, and eliminate the right to strike over wages until 2010-11. Not only is this piece of legislation mean spirited in the extreme, it is quite possibly illegal in light of the Supreme Court decision made last year that overturned BC's Bill 29 which tried to do much the same thing. Workers have a right to the gains they have made, and they have the right to withhold labour over whatever they please.
The government has also made a frontal assault on the pay equity of women, by stating in the economic update that pay equity would not be retroactive, and the right to recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be removed. This is insane. In the years since the courts forced the government into pay equity, this is the biggest attempt to go back on what was ordered. I don't know where the government gets off trying to eliminate the rights of women retroactively.
This stuff is red meat right out of the reform party platforms of the mid-1990s. This is our "moderate" Prime Minister. The opposition parties were never going to accept this, and it was a red flag. This is our government's way of kicking their opponents when they are down, like a bully on the school yard. We are being governed by people who behave like maladjusted eight year olds.
Dipper Chick summed up my feelings about the coalition quite nicely:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 53
Flaherty took union busting to the next level, declaring that the government would use the power of the Crown to roll back collective bargaining and arbitral gains on wage increases, and eliminate the right to strike over wages until 2010-11. Not only is this piece of legislation mean spirited in the extreme, it is quite possibly illegal in light of the Supreme Court decision made last year that overturned BC's Bill 29 which tried to do much the same thing. Workers have a right to the gains they have made, and they have the right to withhold labour over whatever they please.
The government has also made a frontal assault on the pay equity of women, by stating in the economic update that pay equity would not be retroactive, and the right to recourse to the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be removed. This is insane. In the years since the courts forced the government into pay equity, this is the biggest attempt to go back on what was ordered. I don't know where the government gets off trying to eliminate the rights of women retroactively.
This stuff is red meat right out of the reform party platforms of the mid-1990s. This is our "moderate" Prime Minister. The opposition parties were never going to accept this, and it was a red flag. This is our government's way of kicking their opponents when they are down, like a bully on the school yard. We are being governed by people who behave like maladjusted eight year olds.
Dipper Chick summed up my feelings about the coalition quite nicely:
A month or so ago, I never thought that there would be a set of circumstances that would make me supportive of the NDP forming a coalition with the Liberals. But here we are.This coalition is necessary, but Stephen Harper will do everything he can to avoid it. He's going to take the week of grace he fabricated for himself and try to turn the Canadian people against his bully-boy government. I have faith that the Canadian people will see through the thing tissue of rationalizations, excuses and lies that Harper is putting forth.
...
I am not feeling the slightest bit complacent about any of this. The Conservatives need to be stopped. I still don't trust the Liberals, and I still believe that an NDP government is what Canadians really need. But right here and now, with things being as they are, a Liberal-NDP coalition is the best option.
My apprehension comes from wondering if the Liberals can be fair while negotiating the terms of the coalition. I have a hard time believing that they can put their sense of entitlement aside and offer the NDP a significant enough role to form a true coalition. But if they can come to an agreement that is fair, I say take Harper down.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 53
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Harper, the Coming Deficit and Conservative Class Warfare
Stephen Harper continues to move away from his declarations during the election campaign that if we were going to have a recession here in Canada we would already have had one, and that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. Today at the APEC summit, he was, to use the Toronto Star's language, "[drawing] on memories of the Great Depression." Is it not strange, that he can change his tune so radically over the course of a month and a half, from excoriating Stephane Dion for refusing to absolutely rule out running a deficit, to making the arguments for why we should be deficit spending.
There are two explanations for this incongruity, when you take into consideration that many economists saw this recession coming down the pipes at least a year in advance, and some saw it coming longer away than that (Marx saw it coming 130 years ago). The first possible explanation is that Harper is fundamentally incompetent at the role of managing the economy. If he, with an MA in economics, was unable to see this coming 45 days ago, when the majority of the western world could, then he is entirely incompetent to be making the big decisions. Of we adopt this explanation, he was too focused on blind partisanship to actually see that the train was about to go off the rails. The second possible explanation is that Harper deliberately deceived the Canadian people, that he lied to us. This explanation is supported by the rapid about-face he performed when it became undeniably clear that the economy of the western world was headed into the shitter.
Harper has already committed the country to a $50 billion bank bailout, which when you consider the proportional sizes of the Canadian and American economies is actually a bigger bailout than the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. He wants to send the country further into debt to bail out the auto industry by handing them a no-strings-attached cheque. And mark my words, this deficit that he created to bail out failing capitalists is going to be used as an excuse to cut services for the working class. This is the Conservative modus operandi. Transfer wealth to capitalists. Use resulting deficit to justify programme cuts. Rinse. Repeat.
Now, I think that so long as we are operating under a market-capitalist system, Keynesian spending is a good way to stimulate the economy, but it has to be targeted correctly. Shovelling money into the gaping maw of transnational capital is not correct targeting. The best way to stimulate the economy is through direct transfers to the most impoverished. These are the people living pay cheque to pay cheque, and spending every cent that comes in on necessities of life like food, clothing and rent. These people will not take the transfers and squirrel them away. They will put every last cent back into circulation, thus getting maximum value for the government's stimulus dollar. Whereas transfers that benefit the rich wind up being saved, taken out of circulation and ultimately sent overseas to nontaxable Swiss bank accounts. Supposed stimulus measures targeted at the rich are a deception. They will not stimulate the economy because the money won't go into circulation, it will go into bank accounts to be inactive and gather interest.
I understand that many people are worried about the looming failure of the big three American automakers. So am I, since there are plenty of jobs that will be lost, with the resulting knock-on effects through the economy. That is why I support finding a way to save them, but not in their present form. The only way I would ever support a bailout is if it resulted in the public acquiring, on a permanent basis, majority equity and voting control over the companies. That way, the government can insure that the bailout money goes to the right places, not into paying dividends and obscene executive pay packages. The government can make sure that the companies are serving the public interest by building fuel-economical (not the same as fuel-efficient, though generally fuel economy requires fuel efficiency) vehicles for sale to the public, as well as retooling some plants to produce public transit vehicles like buses, street-cars, light-rail vehicles and trains to meet the longer-term requirement for effective, efficient and widespread public mass transit.
Nationalization is ultimately the best bet precisely because the nationalized companies can be made to serve the needs of the people, rather than the people serving the needs of the companies and their controlling capitalists. Government ought to be for the people, not for capital, but I can't call to mind a time when Canada truly had government for the people. In fact, the only government I can think of that was ever really for the people in Canadian history was the CCF government of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan that introduced many great programmes, built many strong Crown corporations, substantially increased the standard of living across Saskatchewan, and managed to do all of this while running 17 straight balanced budgets, making that government the most effective manager of public funds in Canadian history.
Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the mantle of sound fiscal management, but their version of sound management is transferring wealth to the wealthy, and making up for it by cutting services to the working class. That isn't sound fiscal management, that is the class warfare for which they so readily decry socialists. The only difference is that conservatives around the world wage class warfare on the working class. Since the capitalists and their political puppets on the right are waging class warfare on the workers already, it is time that the working class said "enough already" and started to wage class warfare back. Enough sitting around and passively taking it. It's time to organize and fight back.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 58
There are two explanations for this incongruity, when you take into consideration that many economists saw this recession coming down the pipes at least a year in advance, and some saw it coming longer away than that (Marx saw it coming 130 years ago). The first possible explanation is that Harper is fundamentally incompetent at the role of managing the economy. If he, with an MA in economics, was unable to see this coming 45 days ago, when the majority of the western world could, then he is entirely incompetent to be making the big decisions. Of we adopt this explanation, he was too focused on blind partisanship to actually see that the train was about to go off the rails. The second possible explanation is that Harper deliberately deceived the Canadian people, that he lied to us. This explanation is supported by the rapid about-face he performed when it became undeniably clear that the economy of the western world was headed into the shitter.
Harper has already committed the country to a $50 billion bank bailout, which when you consider the proportional sizes of the Canadian and American economies is actually a bigger bailout than the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. He wants to send the country further into debt to bail out the auto industry by handing them a no-strings-attached cheque. And mark my words, this deficit that he created to bail out failing capitalists is going to be used as an excuse to cut services for the working class. This is the Conservative modus operandi. Transfer wealth to capitalists. Use resulting deficit to justify programme cuts. Rinse. Repeat.
Now, I think that so long as we are operating under a market-capitalist system, Keynesian spending is a good way to stimulate the economy, but it has to be targeted correctly. Shovelling money into the gaping maw of transnational capital is not correct targeting. The best way to stimulate the economy is through direct transfers to the most impoverished. These are the people living pay cheque to pay cheque, and spending every cent that comes in on necessities of life like food, clothing and rent. These people will not take the transfers and squirrel them away. They will put every last cent back into circulation, thus getting maximum value for the government's stimulus dollar. Whereas transfers that benefit the rich wind up being saved, taken out of circulation and ultimately sent overseas to nontaxable Swiss bank accounts. Supposed stimulus measures targeted at the rich are a deception. They will not stimulate the economy because the money won't go into circulation, it will go into bank accounts to be inactive and gather interest.
I understand that many people are worried about the looming failure of the big three American automakers. So am I, since there are plenty of jobs that will be lost, with the resulting knock-on effects through the economy. That is why I support finding a way to save them, but not in their present form. The only way I would ever support a bailout is if it resulted in the public acquiring, on a permanent basis, majority equity and voting control over the companies. That way, the government can insure that the bailout money goes to the right places, not into paying dividends and obscene executive pay packages. The government can make sure that the companies are serving the public interest by building fuel-economical (not the same as fuel-efficient, though generally fuel economy requires fuel efficiency) vehicles for sale to the public, as well as retooling some plants to produce public transit vehicles like buses, street-cars, light-rail vehicles and trains to meet the longer-term requirement for effective, efficient and widespread public mass transit.
Nationalization is ultimately the best bet precisely because the nationalized companies can be made to serve the needs of the people, rather than the people serving the needs of the companies and their controlling capitalists. Government ought to be for the people, not for capital, but I can't call to mind a time when Canada truly had government for the people. In fact, the only government I can think of that was ever really for the people in Canadian history was the CCF government of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan that introduced many great programmes, built many strong Crown corporations, substantially increased the standard of living across Saskatchewan, and managed to do all of this while running 17 straight balanced budgets, making that government the most effective manager of public funds in Canadian history.
Conservatives like to wrap themselves in the mantle of sound fiscal management, but their version of sound management is transferring wealth to the wealthy, and making up for it by cutting services to the working class. That isn't sound fiscal management, that is the class warfare for which they so readily decry socialists. The only difference is that conservatives around the world wage class warfare on the working class. Since the capitalists and their political puppets on the right are waging class warfare on the workers already, it is time that the working class said "enough already" and started to wage class warfare back. Enough sitting around and passively taking it. It's time to organize and fight back.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 58
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Disappearance of Protest Songs, and the Left's Loss of Its Roots
I have been thinking lately about how the left has become largely disconnected from it's ideological roots. The left arose in the context of union activism, of workers pushing for a fair distribution of the wealth of society, based on the work one does, rather than on the family into which one was born. This was represented by the great struggles of the 19th and 20th century for workers rights, such as the right to strike, the right to withhold labour, the right to keep scabs out of the workplace and job security.
The modern left seems to have largely abandoned this fight. Sure, leading lights in the NDP will occasionally show up at a major workers rights protest, such as the shut-down of GM Canada's headquarters by the CAW. This loss of interest in the plight of the working class has been parallelled by the loss of traditional protest songs, expressing both outrage and hope. Songs like "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize", "We Shall Overcome" (a socialist song before it was a civil rights anthem), "Solidarity Forever" and "Union Maid". These songs relate powerfully to the efforts of capital to stomp out any vestige of a movement for workers' rights.
Capital, and its cronies in government, at first sought to suppress the working class by sending in soldiers and police to kill strikers, like any number of coal miners' strikes in Cape Breton or West Virginia, or manufacturing workers strikes in Montreal, Toronto, New York, Chicago or Pittsburgh. That didn't work. The workers were willing to risk the rifles and bayonets of the soldiers to defend their rights. Then, there was the phase of McCarthyism, and the attempt to smear all labour rights activists as Bolsheviks and anti-democrats. And sadly, this largely worked. North Americans became convinced that unions were synonymous with big-C Communism, and in the face of the hysteria worked up by capital about the Cold War, turned away from fighting for their rights. Unions never stood for any such thing, rather standing for democratic socialism and for horizontal, democratic, control of the economy to produce just outcomes for all.
The loss of the old protest songs is a sad reflection of the modern tendency in labour relations, and in the wider battle against global capital. This tendency toward giving up, and back-peddling on, the rights of workers continues up to this day. Under the leadership of quislings like Buzz Hargrove (who sold his soul to the Liberal Party, icons of capitalism, for a prospective seat in the Canadian Senate), unions have frittered away the rights of workers. For example, the CAW signed a collective agreement with Magna stipulating that the workers did not have a right to strike. That is heinous. If the workers have no right to strike, no right to withhold labour, there is no way to get concessions from management for better pay, benefits and job security.
Perhaps if we heard the old protest songs again, some of the moribund sections of the union movement might finally wake up. After all, as "Solidarity Forever" proclaims:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 119
The modern left seems to have largely abandoned this fight. Sure, leading lights in the NDP will occasionally show up at a major workers rights protest, such as the shut-down of GM Canada's headquarters by the CAW. This loss of interest in the plight of the working class has been parallelled by the loss of traditional protest songs, expressing both outrage and hope. Songs like "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize", "We Shall Overcome" (a socialist song before it was a civil rights anthem), "Solidarity Forever" and "Union Maid". These songs relate powerfully to the efforts of capital to stomp out any vestige of a movement for workers' rights.
Capital, and its cronies in government, at first sought to suppress the working class by sending in soldiers and police to kill strikers, like any number of coal miners' strikes in Cape Breton or West Virginia, or manufacturing workers strikes in Montreal, Toronto, New York, Chicago or Pittsburgh. That didn't work. The workers were willing to risk the rifles and bayonets of the soldiers to defend their rights. Then, there was the phase of McCarthyism, and the attempt to smear all labour rights activists as Bolsheviks and anti-democrats. And sadly, this largely worked. North Americans became convinced that unions were synonymous with big-C Communism, and in the face of the hysteria worked up by capital about the Cold War, turned away from fighting for their rights. Unions never stood for any such thing, rather standing for democratic socialism and for horizontal, democratic, control of the economy to produce just outcomes for all.
The loss of the old protest songs is a sad reflection of the modern tendency in labour relations, and in the wider battle against global capital. This tendency toward giving up, and back-peddling on, the rights of workers continues up to this day. Under the leadership of quislings like Buzz Hargrove (who sold his soul to the Liberal Party, icons of capitalism, for a prospective seat in the Canadian Senate), unions have frittered away the rights of workers. For example, the CAW signed a collective agreement with Magna stipulating that the workers did not have a right to strike. That is heinous. If the workers have no right to strike, no right to withhold labour, there is no way to get concessions from management for better pay, benefits and job security.
Perhaps if we heard the old protest songs again, some of the moribund sections of the union movement might finally wake up. After all, as "Solidarity Forever" proclaims:
When the Union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,Capitalists would have the people believe that pushing for labour rights will simply see more jobs flee to China. That's bullshit. Jobs are fleeing to China anyway, and if the workers aren't organized, there's nothing they can do about it. But if they do organize, workers can fight back. With the flight of good jobs to China, and the proliferation of crappy, un-unionized, McJobs, workers are returning to the situation of the working class in the late 1900s. As Marx wrote at the end of the Communist Manifesto, "the proletarians of the world have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!"
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun.
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one?
But the Union makes us strong.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 119
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Transit Workers Strike in Toronto
On Friday evening, workers at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) walked off the job in a legal strike. Earlier in the day, the workers had, by a 65% to 35% margin, rejected the tentative contract reached at the end of last week. There are many who are angry and frustrated that the workers walked out, but those same people who are angry don't seem to appreciate that TTC workers are also angry and frustrated. They are frustrated that the TTC has done nothing to act on the complaints of the workers about personal safety when doing their job, and that the TTC seems unwilling to give the workers job security, so that they know their jobs will not be contracted out.
Contrary to the usual "greedy workers" meme that comes out of the usual capitalist sources, this strike isn't about money. It is about security, both personal and professional. These workers haven't walked off the job to try to get more money out of the city (and thus by proxy out of the populace). They have walked out to make sure that the city doesn't outsource their jobs, replacing stable and well paying jobs, allowing the workers to contribute to the economy, with unstable, poorly paid contract jobs.
And now the Ontario government proposes to legislate the workers back to work (and to my shame the Ontario NDP has gone along with this), by slapping a fine of $2000/day on any worker who stays off the job. The government implies by taking this action, that the TTC workers are providing an essential public service. Fine, I can go along with that. The hitch is that they want to do that without actually declaring them and essential service. If they were to do that, in exchange for stripping away the right to strike, they would have to replace it with a right to binding arbitration, and they are afraid of where that might lead. This way of handling the issue is conniving and deceitful. If they are an essential service, declare them so and give the right to binding arbitration. If they aren't an essential service, let the negotiation and strike process run its course, and don't legislate and end to the strike.
The members of the Ontario provincial parliament seem intent on squelching the concerns of the workers. They are probably worried that if to many other people realise what the TTC workers are striking about, they might demand job security in their own jobs, throwing the outsourcing craze off the rails. And goodness knows that global capitalism can't have that. Capitalism is, at its very core, exploitation. Capitalists take from the workers what the capitalists have not laboured to earn. And if too many people fought for their job security, that ability to exploit workers, and to pit one against another, would be compromised. That is why this strike is being stomped upon, not any faux concern about the people beyond the possibility that they might not get to work, putting a damper on capitalism for a little while.
I stand with these workers. They have democratically decided to go on strike, and everyone who claims to respect the rights of workers must do the same, and if you live in Ontario, let your MPP know that you don't support this effort to stomp on the rights of workers, and you want them to vote against this bill. Together, the people are strong. Let's make sure that the elected representatives of the people know that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 266
Contrary to the usual "greedy workers" meme that comes out of the usual capitalist sources, this strike isn't about money. It is about security, both personal and professional. These workers haven't walked off the job to try to get more money out of the city (and thus by proxy out of the populace). They have walked out to make sure that the city doesn't outsource their jobs, replacing stable and well paying jobs, allowing the workers to contribute to the economy, with unstable, poorly paid contract jobs.
And now the Ontario government proposes to legislate the workers back to work (and to my shame the Ontario NDP has gone along with this), by slapping a fine of $2000/day on any worker who stays off the job. The government implies by taking this action, that the TTC workers are providing an essential public service. Fine, I can go along with that. The hitch is that they want to do that without actually declaring them and essential service. If they were to do that, in exchange for stripping away the right to strike, they would have to replace it with a right to binding arbitration, and they are afraid of where that might lead. This way of handling the issue is conniving and deceitful. If they are an essential service, declare them so and give the right to binding arbitration. If they aren't an essential service, let the negotiation and strike process run its course, and don't legislate and end to the strike.
The members of the Ontario provincial parliament seem intent on squelching the concerns of the workers. They are probably worried that if to many other people realise what the TTC workers are striking about, they might demand job security in their own jobs, throwing the outsourcing craze off the rails. And goodness knows that global capitalism can't have that. Capitalism is, at its very core, exploitation. Capitalists take from the workers what the capitalists have not laboured to earn. And if too many people fought for their job security, that ability to exploit workers, and to pit one against another, would be compromised. That is why this strike is being stomped upon, not any faux concern about the people beyond the possibility that they might not get to work, putting a damper on capitalism for a little while.
I stand with these workers. They have democratically decided to go on strike, and everyone who claims to respect the rights of workers must do the same, and if you live in Ontario, let your MPP know that you don't support this effort to stomp on the rights of workers, and you want them to vote against this bill. Together, the people are strong. Let's make sure that the elected representatives of the people know that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 266
Thursday, March 08, 2007
A $10 Minimum Wage
There is a campaign underway in Ontario to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. I think this is an excellent idea, because it simply is not possible for people to live on $8/hr (the current general minimum wage in Ontario) in many parts of the province. If anyone is interested in my living expenses calculations for Toronto related to the minimum wage, leave a comment and I will post more details of my reasoning. Suffice it to say, rents are so high in many cities in Toronto that even working 40 hours per week (and very few minimum or just-above-minimum wage jobs give 40 hrs/wk) will not allow people to live, even if heavy use is made of food banks. Obviously, $10/hr will not allow people to live comfortably, but it is a dramatic improvement on what has gone before and will help people have some degree of stability in their lives.
The Ontario NDP, the Federal NDP, many unions and a vast plethora of community and citizen groups are pushing this effort forward. A good measure of a society is how it treats the most abject of it's citizens. And right now we are treating the poor of our society like crap, to be frank. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr won't make that better, but it would be a good first step.
Now, the right wing will whinge about how raising the minimum wage like this will cause the sky to fall and cause every small business in Ontario to go out of business. Well guess what; doctor's said that socialized healthcare would cause the end of the medical system and that didn't happen. And business has been claiming that every increase to the minimum wage since the invention of such a thing will have catastrophic effects on business, and the economy has continued much as it ever has, cyclical as always. Frankly, a lot of the business sector is full of shit and not to be trusted on these issues.
Another objection that the right-wing will raise is that most people who earn minimum wage are teenagers living at home who don't need a raise. Nice try. That may be strictly speaking true, but a raise in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 would also help every person making between $8.01 and $9.99 per hour. And that is a lot of people in Ontario alone.
This is a good idea, and the reason the right fights it so strenuously is because they need a demoralized and abjected working class to produce wealth for them. As Ambrose Bierce said:
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 688
The Ontario NDP, the Federal NDP, many unions and a vast plethora of community and citizen groups are pushing this effort forward. A good measure of a society is how it treats the most abject of it's citizens. And right now we are treating the poor of our society like crap, to be frank. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr won't make that better, but it would be a good first step.
Now, the right wing will whinge about how raising the minimum wage like this will cause the sky to fall and cause every small business in Ontario to go out of business. Well guess what; doctor's said that socialized healthcare would cause the end of the medical system and that didn't happen. And business has been claiming that every increase to the minimum wage since the invention of such a thing will have catastrophic effects on business, and the economy has continued much as it ever has, cyclical as always. Frankly, a lot of the business sector is full of shit and not to be trusted on these issues.
Another objection that the right-wing will raise is that most people who earn minimum wage are teenagers living at home who don't need a raise. Nice try. That may be strictly speaking true, but a raise in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 would also help every person making between $8.01 and $9.99 per hour. And that is a lot of people in Ontario alone.
This is a good idea, and the reason the right fights it so strenuously is because they need a demoralized and abjected working class to produce wealth for them. As Ambrose Bierce said:
Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit, without individual responsibility.He was on to something there. Capitalists don't care about people, they care about profit. This is to put the cart before the horse in a dramatic manner. People should come before profit.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 688
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
