Wednesday Afternoon Links

This and that for your mid-week reading.

- Jeremy Corbyn writes about the denialism involved in refusing to deal with the climate crisis with language and action proportionate to its dangers. Zoe Schlanger discusses how the breakdown we're experiencing goes far beyond what was projected even by the models which have told us we should be doing far more. Bill McKibben points out the stark difference between Jimmy Carter's leadership and forward thinking as to the value of renewable energy, and the oil-fueled anti-science of Ronald Reagan which shut down any prospect of cleaner energy which wouldn't serve to enrich a small set of oil tycoons. David Roberts discusses the work of Greenlight America in seeking to organize people to support renewable projects. And Andrew Lam reports on new research showing a correlation between proximity to Alberta oil and gas infrastructure and respiratory and cardiovascular difficulties - while noting that the province has gone far out of its way to avoid accurately assessing the harms of fossil fuels.

- Peter Bloom examines the growing body of evidence showing that neoliberal "saviors" can't protect against the spread of authoritarianism - particularly as they seek to exacerbate the concentration of wealth and power. And Matthew Green and Joseph Gubbels discuss how Justin Trudeau's abandonment of electoral reform reflects his blinkered view of democracy as entitling people only to select which representatives of the elite will control them, while Christo Aivilis rightly argues that the NDP should be loudly committing to follow through where Trudeau broke his promise. 

- Nora Loreto writes about the concerted effort to infantilize younger adults in order to prevent the exercise of collective action. Miles Klee highlights how slurs which had long been treated as unacceptable are being revived as part of the alt-right's assault on human decency. And Rafael Behr writes that Kemi Badenoch is continuing the UK Cons' descent into conspiracy theory and fascist rhetoric.

- Finally, Katie Surma and Nicholas Kusnetz discuss Bolivia's long road to extricating itself from ISDS  corporate control agreements. 

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Thom Hartmann discusses how the selfish preferences of billionaires are almost invariably winning out over the public interest in the U.S. due in part to the treatment of advertising dollars as the most vigorously-protected form of speech. Jim Stanford highlights the obvious flaws in the spin being used by the uber-wealthy to oppose paying a slightly more fair share of taxes off of their capital gains.  And Arthur Nelson reports on the less-than-surprising finding that fossil fuel firms have used corporate trade agreements to impose their wishes on governments. 

- Meanwhile, Steve Ruvakina reports on the finding of the Institut de recherche et d'informations socioéconomiques that deregulation will do nothing to solve a housing crisis caused by the inherent reality that for-profit developers make more money building houses that most people can't afford.

- Jenaye Johnson discusses how extreme temperatures and other climate calamities are harming the mental health of children. And Denise Balkissoon writes that the combination of heat and smoke is making it unsafe for children to be outside for much of any given summer. 

- Stephen Maher examines how the ineffective government response to the Flu Trux Klan was the result of an utter failure to recognize the nature of the threat. And Bill Graveland reports on the testimony from a convoy murder conspiracy trial has revealed the participation of Edmonton police officers in the violent resistance to public health measures. 

- Finally, Aiden Simardone discusses how Pierre Poilievre is threatening the end of guaranteed rights and freedoms in Canada to serve the interests of those with high property values. 

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- The Globe and Mail's editorial board recognizes that any responsible government would be continuing to apply public health rules to prevent a fourth wave of COVID, rather than hyping partial vaccination as a cure-all. Zeynep Tufecki discusses how the U.S.' political dysfunction is limiting its ability to mount a full public health defence - though it's well worth noting that Canada and other countries are facing similar difficulties without the exact political barriers south of the border. avid Connett reports on the justified backlash against the UK Cons' attempt to portray responsible risk management as cowardice. Shondipon Laha writes that our growing level of experience in responding to COVID-19 doesn't mean it's getting any easier to ask ICU staff to deal with new waves. Rob Stein and Selina Simmons-Duffin report on new modeling showing how the Delta variant is set to cause a new wave of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.

- Blake Murdoch and Lorian Hardcastle point out that there's no reason why a vaccine passport can't be designed to protect privacy while also achieving the public health goals of encouraging vaccination and protecting against community spread.

- Arthur White-Crummey reports that the Saskatchewan Party's attack on the solar industry has achieved its goal of destroying an immediate renewable alternative to fossil fuels - as well as the jobs that went with it. And if we needed to be reminded as to how corporate-friendly regimes have worked to tie the hands of anybody trying to implement effective climate policy, Josephine Moulds reports on a UK oil company's use of ISDS provisions to try to force Italy to approve offshore drilling or hand it hundreds of millions of dollars of free money.

- Meagan Day interviews Carol Burris about the use of "nonprofit" charter schools to transfer education funding into the hands of the corporate sector.

- Finally, Paul Krugman calls out the corporatist politicians in then U.S. who are insisting that tax laws should only be enforced against the working class.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Ashley Renders reports on the Canadian mining companies which are using corporate trade deals to threaten developing countries with billion-dollar claims to stifle environmental protections. And Mike Blanchfield and Andy Blatchford report that China wants any trade deals to similarly privilege investors alone while making no allowances for workers or the environment.

- Chantal Hebert notes that there are few options to paper over the conflict between the reasonable expectations of British Columbians - based on political promises and environmental interests - and his subsequent attempt to push through the Trans Mountain expansion. Linda McQuaig argues that there's no reasonable way to compromise about the health of our planet - which is what's ultimately at stake in debating large fossil fuel infrastructure. And David Climenhaga writes about the dangers of looking to Ottawa to override provincial authority.

- Alana Semuels exposes the predatory lending practices which are perpetuating the U.S.' racial divides in housing and wealth.

- Richard Foot points out that a tragedy such as the Humboldt Broncos' bus accident should spur discussion of ways to make highways safer. And Terra Ciolfe observes that Saskatchewan's track record has long been one of extreme danger compared to other provinces.

- Finally, Tom Parkin writes that Ontario's election looks to be a battle for working-class votes - with the main question being whether Andrea Horwath's NDP can win over enough voters to ensure that Doug Ford can't win as a perceived default alternative.

Monday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your Family Day reading.

- Gloria Galloway reports on Jagmeet Singh's strong case for fair tax revenues as a key highlight from the NDP's federal convention:

In his speech to delegates, Mr. Singh lamented income inequality, urged the protection of pensions, called for publicly funded pharmacare and dental and eye care, and said it is time to take on "a rigged tax system" that allows foreign internet companies to avoid paying their fair share.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail on Sunday morning, he said that he wants to "change the frame" on taxation because taxes are necessary in a society where people aim to lift each other up.

"My mom always told me that we are all connected and we all suffer together or we rise together so there is a connection that we have," Mr. Singh said. "So, if we look at what we pay into our society as an investment, it's a different way of looking at it. You don't look at it as something that's being taken away from you, as taxes that are being taken away from you, it's something that's being given back to everybody."

Taxes, he said, are investments. "And investments are good. You make investments because you want your home to be better. You invest in your home, you invest in your local park to make it a prettier park, and you invest in society to make it better."

- Meanwhile, Caroline Newman points out Peter Belmi's research on the sources of inequality within both particular organizations and society at large. And Gaby Hinscliffe comments on the UK's sad attempt to substitute a voluntary "guilt tax" for the collection of reasonable revenue from its wealthiest residents.

- Brent Patterson notes that Justin Trudeau is actively trying to push India to sign away its sovereignty through ISDS trade provisions. And Marianne Lavine exposes the U.S.' reliance on the honour system to enforce worker protections - which surely won't be the subject of anywhere near as much pressure from Trudeau.

- Jessica Elgot reports on the hundreds of millions of pounds the UK will be paying in windfall profits to the corporate sector as a result of privatized schools.

- Finally, Robinson Meyer discusses the massive subsidies which underpin the oil industry and its massive profits. And Norman Farrell offers a reminder of the multiple ways in which fossil fuels pollute our environment.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Elizabeth Kolbert comments on the psychology of inequality, and particularly how the current trend in which a disproportionate share of gains goes to a small number of wealthy individuals produces no ultimate winners: 

As the relative-income model predicted, those who’d learned that they were earning less than their peers were ticked off. Compared with the control group, they reported being less satisfied with their jobs and more interested in finding new ones. But the relative-income model broke down when it came to those at the top. Workers who discovered that they were doing better than their colleagues evinced no pleasure. They were merely indifferent. As the economists put it in a paper that they eventually wrote about the study, access to the database had a “negative effect on workers paid below the median for their unit and occupation” but “no effect on workers paid above median.”

The message the economists took from their research was that employers “have a strong incentive” to keep salaries secret. Assuming that California workers are representative of the broader population, the experiment also suggests a larger, more disturbing conclusion. In a society where economic gains are concentrated at the top—a society, in other words, like our own—there are no real winners and a multitude of losers.
...
(Payne) has come to believe that what’s really damaging about being poor, at least in a country like the United States—where, as he notes, even most people living below the poverty line possess TVs, microwaves, and cell phones—is the subjective experience of feeling poor. This feeling is not limited to those in the bottom quintile; in a world where people measure themselves against their neighbors, it’s possible to earn good money and still feel deprived. “Unlike the rigid columns of numbers that make up a bank ledger, status is always a moving target, because it is defined by ongoing comparisons to others,” Payne writes.

Feeling poor, meanwhile, has consequences that go well beyond feeling. People who see themselves as poor make different decisions, and, generally, worse ones.
...
Preschoolers, brown capuchin monkeys, California state workers, college students recruited for psychological experiments—everyone, it seems, resents inequity. This is true even though what counts as being disadvantaged varies from place to place and from year to year...

Still, there are choices to be made. The tax bill recently approved by Congress directs, in ways both big and small, even more gains to the country’s plutocrats. Supporters insist that the measure will generate so much prosperity that the poor and the middle class will also end up benefitting. But even if this proves true—and all evidence suggests that it will not—the measure doesn’t address the real problem. It’s not greater wealth but greater equity that will make us all feel richer.

- Timothy Taylor charts the state of inequality in countries around the globe. And Branko Milanovic comments on the farce that is a discussion of inequality at Davos by the people who have put in place the policies most responsible for its spread.

-  David Olusoga discusses the return of Victorian-era slums to the UK, while Lucy Pasha-Robinson reports on declining life expectancies arising out of austerity.

- Rajeev Syal reports on a study from the UK's National Audit Office showing how privatization has resulted in the government paying more to get less. James Bloodworth notes that the Carillion privatization model amounted to little more than a Ponzi scheme which depended on a continually-increasing flow of public money to enrich its executives. Tom Pride observes that one of the prime culprits in (and profiteers from) Carillion's collapse has been rewarded by being put in charge of nuclear safety. David Climenhaga discusses the connection between Carillion, the Klein government and Alberta's privatized highways which rely on a now-failed corporation for their maintenance. And Will Hutton rightly questions why we'd ever trust the corporate sector to manage public services again.

- Finally, Thomas Walkom questions Justin Trudeau's determination to keep the NAFTA dispute resolution provisions which have been used primarily to tie the hands of Canadian governments.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Yves Engler discusses how Justin Trudeau is now the face of the exploitation of poor countries and workers by the Canadian mining industry. And Penny Collenette writes that governments and business should both bear responsibility for human rights - though it's worth being skeptical of her use of that theme to try to undercut what little corporate accountability currently exists.

- George Monbiot examines some options for a more participatory democracy - with a particular focus on public involvement in policy decisions on a far more regular basis than elections alone. And the Mound of Sound notes that many of Monbiot's criticisms would be met by a more fair and proportional electoral system.

- Meanwhile, Kenneth Andrews takes a look at how protest movements can bring about social change.

- Don Braid points out that Jason Kenney's latest attempt to whitewash history involves laying claim to the legacy of Peter Lougheed after shrieking hysterically about it through most of his political past. And Justin Ling exposes how Andrew Scheer is trying to build his party using Rebel Media's model of fomenting hate while denying any connection between the two.

- Finally, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood points out how Donald Trump's NAFTA posturing offers a much-needed opportunity to extricate Canada from some aspects of corporate rule. And Michael Geist likewise notes that life after NAFTA means far more freedom to set intellectual property policy in the public interest.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sarah Anderson studies how corporate tax cuts enrich CEOs, but don't do anything to help workers. And she then follows up with this op-ed:

If claims about the job-creation benefits of lower tax rates had any validity, these 92 consistently profitable firms would be among the nation’s strongest job creators. Instead, we found just the opposite.

The companies we reviewed had a median job-growth rate over the past nine years of nearly negative 1 percent, compared with 6 percent for the private sector as a whole. Of those 92 companies, 48 got rid of a combined total of 483,000 jobs.

At the companies that cut jobs, chief executives’ pay last year averaged nearly $15 million, compared with the $13 million average for S&P 500 companies.

Instead of tax-rate cuts for these big corporations, the coming tax debate in Congress should focus on making wealthy individuals and big corporations pay their fair share.

American multinationals hold $2.6 trillion in profits “offshore,” on which they would owe $750 billion in federal taxes if the money was repatriated. In most cases, these foreign profit stashes are merely an accounting fiction. Companies retain full access to these funds for use in the United States and could, if their executives so chose, use them to create jobs here.

Ordinary Americans have to pay all the taxes they owe each and every year. Offshore corporations should be required to do the same.

- Meanwhile, Bryce Covert points out how the Amazon-Whole Foods takeover - like other unchecked corporate consolidation - can be expected to harm workers in the long run.

- Jerry Dias discusses how NAFTA served to convert desirable jobs in Canada (and the U.S.) into exploitative ones in Mexico. But Sean Higgins reports that it's the Trudeau Libs who are fighting to preserve corporate-biased dispute resolution systems which have been used mostly to challenge Canadian governments.

- Scott Santens reminds us of the devastating ripple effects of personal financial insecurity which could be solved with a basic income. And Frances Ryan writes about the UK Cons' thoroughly inhumane policy of punishing people for being too ill to report for social services appointments.

- Finally, Selena Randhawa talks to Indigenous people about the suicide epidemic among First Nations youth and the hopelessness which drives it.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Charles Mathewes and Evan Sandsmark write that it's long past time to start treating the excessive accumulation of wealth as something to be questioned - rather than accepted as an inevitability, or worse yet admired:

The idea that wealth is morally perilous has an impressive philosophical and religious pedigree. Ancient Stoic philosophers railed against greed and luxury, and Roman historians such as Tacitus lay many of the empire’s struggles at the feet of imperial avarice. Confucius lived an austere life. The Buddha famously left his opulent palace behind. And Jesus didn’t exactly go easy on the rich, either — think camels and needles, for starters.

The point is not necessarily that wealth is intrinsically and everywhere evil, but that it is dangerous — that it should be eyed with caution and suspicion, and definitely not pursued as an end in itself; that great riches pose great risks to their owners; and that societies are right to stigmatize the storing up of untold wealth..
...
Over the past few years, a pile of studies from the behavioral sciences has appeared, and they all say, more or less, “Being rich is really bad for you.” Wealth, it turns out, leads to behavioral and psychological maladies. The rich act and think in misdirected ways.

When it comes to a broad range of vices, the rich outperform everybody else. They are much more likely than the rest of humanity to shoplift and cheat , for example, and they are more apt to be adulterers and to drink a great deal. They are even more likely to take candy that is meant for children. So whatever you think about the moral nastiness of the rich, take that, multiply it by the number of Mercedes and Lexuses that cut you off, and you’re still short of the mark. In fact, those Mercedes and Lexuses are more likely to cut you off than Hondas or Fords: Studies have shown that people who drive expensive cars are more prone to run stop signs and cut off other motorists. 

...
So the rich are more likely to be despicable characters. And, as is typically the case with the morally malformed, the first victims of the rich are the rich themselves. Because they often let money buy their happiness and value themselves for their wealth instead of anything meaningful, they are, by extension, more likely to allow other aspects of their lives to atrophy. They seem to have a hard time enjoying simple things, savoring the everyday experiences that make so much of life worthwhile. Because they have lower levels of empathy, they have fewer opportunities to practice acts of compassion — which studies suggest give people a great deal of pleasure. They tend to believe that people have different financial destinies because of who they essentially are, so they believe that they deserve their wealth , thus dampening their capacity for gratitude, a quality that has been shown to significantly enhance our sense of well-being. All of this seems to make the rich more susceptible to loneliness; they may be more prone to suicide, as well.
...

The story of how a stigma fades is always murky, but contributing factors are not hard to identify. For one, think tanks have become increasingly partisan over the past several decades, particularly on the right: Certain conservative institutions, enjoying the backing of billionaires such as the Koch brothers, have thrown a ton of money at pseudo-academics and “thought leaders” to normalize and legitimate obscene piles of lucre. They produced arguments that suggest that high salaries naturally flowed from extreme talent and merit, thus baptizing wealth as simply some excellent people’s wholly legitimate rewards. These arguments were happily regurgitated by conservative media figures and politicians, eventually seeping into the broader public and replacing the folk wisdom of yore. But it is hard to argue that a company’s top earners are literally hundreds of times more talented than the lowest-paid employees.

As stratospheric salaries became increasingly common, and as the stigma of wildly disproportionate pay faded, the moral hazards of wealth were largely forgotten. But it’s time to put the apologists for plutocracy back on the defensive, where they belong — not least for their own sake.

- Meanwhile, Matt Bruenig discusses how right-wing "success sequence" spin tries to gloss over the real causes of poverty with moralistic additions.

- Claire Bott discusses Evelyn Forget's new research on the salutary effects of a basic income in the Mincome experiment. And CBC News reports on a new study showing the high costs of addressing homelessness and mental health issues only on a reactive basis, rather than giving people a stable base from which to start.

- Finally, Jean-Frédéric Morin, Laura Mordelet and Myriam Rochette discuss how the environment has been treated in Canadian trade agreements - noting particularly how modern agreements contain stronger and more thorough protections than Canada's default language. And David Dayen points to a recent award against Argentina as a glaring example of how the ISDS which Justin Trudeau is fighting to keep privileges the financial class over the general public. 

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Sarah O'Connor examines the inconsistent relationship between job quantity and quality as another example of how it's misleading to think of policy choices solely in terms of the number of jobs generated. Angela Monaghan discusses how wages continue to stagnate in the UK despite a low unemployment rate. And Patrick Butler writes about the "relentless financial tightrope" which keeps far too many households from ever avoiding the stress of imminent ruin:

Low-income families are going without beds, cookers, meals, new clothes and other essential items as they struggle to cope with huge debts run up to pay domestic bills, according to a survey highlighting the cost-of-living crisis experienced by the UK’s poorest households.

Clients of the debt charity Christians Against Poverty (CAP) had run up an average of £4,500 in debts on rent or utility bills, forcing them on to what the charity described as a “relentless financial tightrope” juggling repayments and basic living costs, leaving many acutely stressed and in deteriorating health.

The pressure of coping with low income and debt frequently triggered mental illness or exacerbated existing conditions, with more than a third of clients reporting that they had considered suicide and three-quarters visiting a GP for debt-related problems. More than half were subsequently prescribed medication or therapy.
...
There are widespread concerns about rising pressure on living standards for low-income households as wages fall, working-age social security benefits remain frozen and inflation rises. The survey’s findings indicate that households are increasingly turning to high-cost credit to stay afloat, which CAP said was “an unsustainable solution”.

Nearly seven out of 10 clients helped by CAP in 2016 had fallen behind with payments for gas, electricity and rent, and 90% had taken out loans, run up overdrafts or used credit cards to meet domestic bills. There was a year-on-year increase in the proportion of clients using credit cards stay afloat, from 49% to 64%.

Damon Gibbons, director of the Centre for Responsible Credit, said: “Once again this report lays bare the human costs associated with debt problems. Debt affects health, including mental health; contributes to relationship breakdown; makes it harder to get back into and sustain employment, and has a host of negative impacts for children.

“With the continuing squeeze on household incomes and the failure of the Financial Conduct Authority to curb irresponsible lending resulting in greater indebtedness, we desperately need a national strategy to raise wages, restore the welfare safety net and provide better debt solutions.”

- G. Elijah Dann implores Canadians not to be taken in by Justin Trudeau's public relations schemes when they're being used in support of Trumpian policy. And Bob Baldwin and Richard Shillington examine how the Libs' retirement income changes may do nothing - or even be outright damaging - for low-income earners in particular.

- Brent Patterson highlights how the Libs are insisting on including corporate-biased dispute resolution provisions in trade deals even as our trading partners seek more balanced options. And Dean Beeby reports on Canada's role in facilitating tax evasion through lax disclosure requirements, while Canadians for Tax Fairness highlights how the federal government is rewarding tax haven users with public contracts.

- Meanwhile, Michael Hiltzik examines the role of tax cheating in exacerbating inequality. Annette Alstadsæter, Niels Johannesen and Gabriel Zucman discuss how global inequality is even worse than has previously been assumed once hidden wealth is included in the picture. And Robert E. Litan and Ian Hathaway comment on the U.S.' growing tendency toward rent-seeking rather than productive entrepreneurship.

- Finally, Andrew Sheng writes that our political and social systems have failed to keep up with an increasingly complex world.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Larry Beinhart argues that aside from the gross unfairness and economic harm from growing inequality, there's a basic problem trusting the uber-rich to make reasonable decisions with massive amounts of wealth. And George Monbiot makes the case that even as he pretends to be an outsider, Donald Trump epitomizes the problems with a political culture designed to serve those who already have the most.

- Leo Panitch points out that more "trade" deals such as the CETA being pushed by self-proclaimed progressive governments will only strengthen the prejudiced right. Thomas Walkom writes that we shouldn't see a slightly modified side deal as reason to be satisfied with the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - and notes that in fact, additional protections for European signatories only confirm that Canada is giving up more sovereignty than it needs to. And the Mound of Sound weighs in on the Libs' obsession with trade over people:

Trudeau's Harperesque pursuit of CETA and TPP demonstrates that he means business. This goes straight back to those mandate letters he issued to his freshly minted cabinet ministers as they were sworn in. Even Catherine McKenna's marching orders stipulate that her priorities are to be the economy and the environment. There's no doubt that she meant it when she said she was "as much an economic minister as an environmental minister."

Trade it is then. But, if you're going to make trade your priority, your dominant responsibility, then surely you have to accept full responsibility for the fallout from that pursuit. That's on you, Slick.

One element of that fallout is the rise of Canada's homegrown "precariat." It's a term used to describe the future this free-trading government has bequeathed to our youth. In case you're wondering, that's a future fraught with insecurity and economic peril.
...
Morneau won't mention how his own government and its predecessors laid the foundation for this upheaval and uncertainty through its obsessive pursuit of neoliberalism and global free trade, the constant downward spiral. He won't explain why, when even the World Bank and International Monetary Fund can no longer remain silent on the social and economic damage inflicted by globalism, his government remains a faithful adherent to this toxic ideology.

I'm sorry Morneau and you too, Trudeau, but, when you tell Canadians to forego their hopes and resign themselves to a future in the precariat, what you're really telling them is that you won't change course and liberal democracy be damned.

- Kelly Rose Pflug-Back and Ena͞emaehkiw Kesīqnaeh write that one person's accumulation tends to be directly linked to another's dispossession - particularly when it comes to resource extraction over the objections of affected First Nations communities.

- Ryan Maloney reports on Charlie Angus' continued efforts to get the Trudeau Libs to stop discrimination against children on reserve - this time by having to point out that tribunal-ordered funding to meet children's basic needs is not "confetti". And Jonathan Charlton notes that the Saskatoon Health Region's own research show the Lighthouse homeless shelter saving more than twice what it costs - meaning that the Saskatchewan Party's arbitrary cuts to it represent nothing but gratuitous harm to everybody concerned.

- Finally, Emily Peck discusses the World Economic Forum's latest report showing that women work far more than men while being paid significantly less.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- George Monbiot discusses the importance of recognizing our social connections in making our political choices, rather than treating the world as merely a collection of unconnected individuals:

It is not hard to see what the evolutionary reasons for social pain might be. Survival among social mammals is greatly enhanced when they are strongly bonded with the rest of the pack. It is the isolated and marginalised animals that are most likely to be picked off by predators or to starve. Just as physical pain protects us from physical injury, emotional pain protects us from social injury. It drives us to reconnect. But many people find this almost impossible.

It’s unsurprising that social isolation is strongly associated with depression, suicide, anxiety, insomnia, fear and the perception of threat. It’s more surprising to discover the range of physical illnesses it causes or exacerbates. Dementia, high blood pressure, heart disease, strokes, lowered resistance to viruses, even accidents are more common among chronically lonely people. Loneliness has a comparable impact on physical health to smoking 15 cigarettes a day: it appears to raise the risk of early death by 26%. This is partly because it enhances production of the stress hormone cortisol, which suppresses the immune system.

Studies in both animals and humans suggest a reason for comfort eating: isolation reduces impulse control, leading to obesity. As those at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder are the most likely to suffer from loneliness, might this provide one of the explanations for the strong link between low economic status and obesity?

Anyone can see that something far more important than most of the issues we fret about has gone wrong. So why are we engaging in this world-eating, self-consuming frenzy of environmental destruction and social dislocation, if all it produces is unbearable pain? Should this question not burn the lips of everyone in public life?

- Meanwhile, Meghan Joy and John Shields discuss the folly of putting programs in the hands of the corporate sector through social impact bonds which prioritize single contractual metrics over broad social outcomes. And Murray Dobbin criticizes corporate control over hospital food as a prime example of necessities being turned into cash cows, with no benefit for either the public purse or the people being served.

- Jim Stanford points out that implausible denials of the downside of corporate globalization will only strengthen the rise of divisive and destructive alternatives. Paul Waldie reports that two of Belgium's regions may put the ratification of the CETA on hold indefinitely. And Rob Ferguson highlights one of the reasons that's for the best, as the largest award ever under NAFTA has just been ordered due to Ontario's change in renewable energy policy. 

- Finally, Sam Levin reports that multiple social media sites handed over access to user data to a private security firm to track individual Black Lives Matter protesters.

Sunday Morning Links

Assorted content for your Sunday reading.

- Tim Harford discusses how insurance and other industries are built on exploiting people who are risk-averse due to the inability to absorb substantial costs as "money pumps" for those who have more than they need:

(L)et’s step back and ask ourselves what insurance is for. Classical economics has an answer: people are risk-averse, which means that they will pay good money to reduce the variability of outcomes they face. If home insurance guards against the loss of a million pounds when my house burns down, I’m happy to buy the insurance even though the insurance company expects to make a profit from it.

But this risk aversion emerges from the fact that money is worth more to poor people than to rich people. Gaining a million pounds would make me rich but losing a million pounds would make me poor. I should not gamble a million pounds on the toss of a coin, because the million pounds I might lose is more precious to me than the million pounds I might gain.

As so often with classical economics, this is an excellent description of how we should behave. It is not such an excellent description of how we actually do behave. Risk aversion can only explain why we insure large risks. It cannot explain why we insure small ones. 

...

A money pump is a person whose irrationalities can be systematically exploited for financial gain. The simplest money pump is a person who prefers an apple to a doughnut, prefers a doughnut to a chocolate bar, and prefers a chocolate bar to an apple. Just offer them an apple in exchange for their doughnut plus a penny. They will accept. Then offer them a chocolate bar for their apple plus a penny. Then offer them a doughnut for their chocolate bar plus a penny. They end up with their original doughnut and are three pence poorer. Repeat for ever.

Money-pump arguments are sometimes deployed to object that people cannot be irrational, otherwise they would be bankrupted by money pumping. But economists are increasingly coming to realise that, instead, we should be looking for money pumping in action.

Given our anxiety about small risks, what would the money pumping look like? It would be an insurance policy focused on the narrowest possible slice of risk. It would be sold alongside another product or service, often at the last moment. It would be marketed by creating anxiety and then offering the product to make the anxiety go away. In short, it would look like the collision damage waiver, the extended warranty, and PPI. These bespoke slices of insurance are among the largest money-pumping projects in the modern economy. No wonder the banks abandoned their principles to join in.

- Jared Bernstein and Lori Wallach highlight (PDF) the need for an international trade regime which serves the public interest, not only the greed of the people who already have the most. And Yves Smith theorizes that the public backlash against corporate-centered trade deals may lead both to changes in how international trade is managed, and the identity of the countries at the forefront of developing the standards to be pursued.

- Needless to say, the Libs' devotion to the current trade model figures to exclude Canada from that group for the foreseeable future. And the Alberta Federation of Labour laments the Libs' determination to exploit foreign labour at the expense of both easily-abused temporary workers, and the Canadians who would otherwise fill the positions.

- Derek Thompson makes the case for a long-overdue round of trust-busting to reduce corporate power over innovation and economic development.

- Finally, Ed Finn writes that our health system should focus far more on maintaining wellness rather than responding only once an illness develops.

New column day

Here, examining how Chris Hamby's brilliant reports on the effect of investor-state dispute settlement terms in past trade agreements should inform our choices in discussing new ones.

For further reading...
- Haley Edwards offers another worthwhile look at the effects of ISDS provisions. 
- Marc Montgomery reports on the reasons to doubt a Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement with Europe would offer any real benefits for Canada.
- Nika Knight offers a summary of the Trade in Services Agreement which has largely gone undiscussed - and indeed, was planned to be so secretive as to suppress any information about its negotiation for five years after coming into effect.
- And Julian Rose examines the dangers of the combination of CETA, the mirror agreement between the U.S. and EU, and the TISA.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Chris Hamby starts off what looks to be a must-read investigation on the effect of ISDS rules by discussing how they're used to prevent governments from punishing corporate wrongdoing:

(A)n 18-month BuzzFeed News investigation, spanning three continents and involving more than 200 interviews and tens of thousands of documents, many of them previously confidential, has exposed an obscure but immensely consequential feature of these trade treaties, the secret operations of these tribunals, and the ways that business has co-opted them to bring sovereign nations to heel.
...
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation, bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.

Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi, and the Russian oligarch known as “the Kremlin’s banker.”

Some are at the center of notorious scandals, from the billionaire accused of orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme in Mauritius to multiple telecommunications tycoons charged in the ever-widening “2G scam” in India, which made it into Time magazine’s top 10 abuses of power, alongside Watergate. The companies or executives involved in these cases either denied wrongdoing or did not respond to requests for comment.

Most of the 35-plus cases are still ongoing. But in at least eight of the cases, bringing an ISDS claim got results for the accused wrongdoers, including a multimillion-dollar award, a dropped criminal investigation, and dropped criminal charges. In another, the tribunal has directed the government to halt a criminal case while the arbitration is pending.

- And Dharna Noor interviews James Henry about the need for international cooperation - at both the government and public level - to crack down on tax evasion.

- Tyler Hamilton discusses the health effects of climate change. And Joseph Erbentraut examines how a changing climate is affecting both the quantity and quality of the water we depend on. 

- Kev responds to the spread of #goodriddanceharper by pointing out that as satisfying as it was to turf the Cons from office, we're still facing most of the same anti-social policies with a more media-savvy face. And Doug Nesbitt reminds us that the Trudeau Libs are no friends of labour - with Canada Post's appalling attacks on vulnerable workers serving as just the latest example.

- Finally, the Canadian Press reports on a much-needed push for resources to address mental health in Canada.