Ok... before I go any further, let's make it clear that I support Hillary, and staying in the EU (which doesn't really matter, because I'm Canadian, and can't vote for either thing anyway).
Trump has gained more support than anyone thought possible, and the UK just voted to leave the EU... How is this even possible?
Trump has said many ridiculous things, but his main message is consistently focused on how he's going to "make America great again". Which means, from what I can tell, he's going to make it so that white middle class families can get decent jobs again. That doesn't actually sound so bad if you're a white family who is struggling to maintain their middle class status. Heck, he hasn't even said white... you could actually pretend he isn't all racist all the time, and extend that to everyone.
Let's pretend that Trump actually had a clear policy platform and didn't contradict himself or spew racist and misogynistic views at every turn. The concept of "de-globalizing" the economy to reign in the established elite actually starts to sound reasonable. With the Panama papers, the exit of manufacturing jobs to cheaper labour markets, diminishing wages, and skyrocketing CEO salaries, you can quickly see why Trump's story is sticking. Brexit is tapping into the same story, as is Bernie (although with less racism and misogyny).
So how do we re-write the story? Is "de-globalising" the right way to go, as suggested by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump? Should we be putting up walls and trying to return to the whitewashed days of imagined glory? (the 50's for Trump, and the days of colonialism for Nigel) What is it about these days of imagined glory that appeals so strongly? If you're struggling in our society, either to make sense of the progressive social mores, the rapid expansion of technology, or the new economic reality that we are living in, then it becomes much easier to buy into the picture of past glory.
Bernie's brand of socialism aims to use government and taxes to try to reign in the wealth focusing. Unfortunately Chavez, Castro, and many others have soured the socialism soup, at least in the public eye. While Bernie was able to gain considerable support, he was not able to clinch the nomination, in part, I think, because of the incredible effectiveness of the anti-communist campaigns of the past.
So, how do we go forward? Our society is producing more and more wealth, but we can't seem to figure out how to share effectively. Big government and taxes seem like a good solution to some, but with the cronyism and corruption that has plagued other socialist governments, there is a legitimate reason to be skeptical. Going backwards seems like a good solution to others... but... well... it doesn't really work, and despite the effectiveness of the rose-coloured glasses, the past wasn't always that great.
I personally think a combination of government and transparency, combined with a negative income tax for lower earners seems like a good solution, but we're likely to disagree on that... Lets try to disagree with civil discourse, rather than violent thuggery, ok?
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Pipelines - Stop Protesting Them and Stop Encouraging Them
Ok, so we've got a hot topic here. How do we protect the environment and "encourage" pipelines and why?
Many of my friends and people that I look up to are against pipelines because they are infrastructure that requires extensive investment, which would be better spent transitioning to a more sustainable economy. Ok. Good point.
What is the response then to those who are looking for work, and being told that the economy is down because of oil prices, but getting access to tide water would make our oil production more competitive, and help revive that same oil economy that used to employ them?
For this reason, primarily, I think that we need to stop being anti-pipeline, and start being pro sustainable economy. I know that sounds like the same thing... but the message is not the same.
The first step is to continue to promote the message that global warming is expensive. The number of denialists is diminishing daily, but what does it mean? Well, it's going to be expensive to deal with the effects, by many estimates billions in Canada, and trillions globally. Let's start hammering that home, so that carbon taxes look like they're not going far enough.
Next, what does a sustainable economy look like? (and no, I'm not talking about us all becoming teachers) The jobs that the oil patch produces, jobs for people who don't mind working hard, for long hours, when the pay is good, and the necessary education is limited, those are the jobs we need to consider replacing. Those jobs will need to exist for some time to come, as those are the people that will drive the construction of the infrastructure that is needed to support a sustainable economy. Eventually though, we can expect a decline in jobs that require hard physical labour and little education as technology continues to innovate. At that point we need Mincome, or negative tax, or whatever you want to call a guaranteed income, which will allow people to work at whatever they want, including creative jobs that we haven't yet thought of.
The question is what will be the economic drivers of tomorrow? Infrastructure building, teaching, etc. are part of the economy, but they're not the fuel in the economic engine. Manufacturing, agriculture, and resources are Canada's historical strength. The number of jobs in agriculture is dropping as technology makes large scale farming more and more efficient. Resource jobs are tied to cyclical price trends, and can be difficult to make sustainable while competing in a global market, however, I think they are still a good chunk of the jobs of the future. Manufacturing is being driven out of Canada by a lack of labour protection in other countries, and a rush to the lowest cost labour markets, which Canada just can't compete with (and shouldn't). To be competitive Canada has to lower the cost of energy, and resources necessary in the manufacturing chain, and/or work to raise the cost of labour globally (no small task, but worth considering).
It seems the well paid oil jobs of the future don't exist (no... there aren't going to be enough wind farm and solar field jobs in the short term to replace the oil patch, but they may help east the transition). Forestry, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing jobs are all getting shipped to places where the pay is less, and environmental protection is lax, or they are being lost to more efficient automated technology. So forgive the oil industry it's attempt to keep those high paying hard working jobs, and look to ways to encourage resource and manufacturing industries to try to fill the gaps, at least in the short term. Pipeline jobs only have so much time left, especially once the accountants start assigning the cost of global warming to the oil industry through mechanisms like carbon tax, but let economics drive the decline, because protests are just pissing off the people who used to be able to make such good money in the oil patch. Put energy into supporting a more complete accounting, and better protection of the commons, rather than stopping something that currently has a strong economic impetus.
Many of my friends and people that I look up to are against pipelines because they are infrastructure that requires extensive investment, which would be better spent transitioning to a more sustainable economy. Ok. Good point.
What is the response then to those who are looking for work, and being told that the economy is down because of oil prices, but getting access to tide water would make our oil production more competitive, and help revive that same oil economy that used to employ them?
For this reason, primarily, I think that we need to stop being anti-pipeline, and start being pro sustainable economy. I know that sounds like the same thing... but the message is not the same.
The first step is to continue to promote the message that global warming is expensive. The number of denialists is diminishing daily, but what does it mean? Well, it's going to be expensive to deal with the effects, by many estimates billions in Canada, and trillions globally. Let's start hammering that home, so that carbon taxes look like they're not going far enough.
Next, what does a sustainable economy look like? (and no, I'm not talking about us all becoming teachers) The jobs that the oil patch produces, jobs for people who don't mind working hard, for long hours, when the pay is good, and the necessary education is limited, those are the jobs we need to consider replacing. Those jobs will need to exist for some time to come, as those are the people that will drive the construction of the infrastructure that is needed to support a sustainable economy. Eventually though, we can expect a decline in jobs that require hard physical labour and little education as technology continues to innovate. At that point we need Mincome, or negative tax, or whatever you want to call a guaranteed income, which will allow people to work at whatever they want, including creative jobs that we haven't yet thought of.
The question is what will be the economic drivers of tomorrow? Infrastructure building, teaching, etc. are part of the economy, but they're not the fuel in the economic engine. Manufacturing, agriculture, and resources are Canada's historical strength. The number of jobs in agriculture is dropping as technology makes large scale farming more and more efficient. Resource jobs are tied to cyclical price trends, and can be difficult to make sustainable while competing in a global market, however, I think they are still a good chunk of the jobs of the future. Manufacturing is being driven out of Canada by a lack of labour protection in other countries, and a rush to the lowest cost labour markets, which Canada just can't compete with (and shouldn't). To be competitive Canada has to lower the cost of energy, and resources necessary in the manufacturing chain, and/or work to raise the cost of labour globally (no small task, but worth considering).
It seems the well paid oil jobs of the future don't exist (no... there aren't going to be enough wind farm and solar field jobs in the short term to replace the oil patch, but they may help east the transition). Forestry, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing jobs are all getting shipped to places where the pay is less, and environmental protection is lax, or they are being lost to more efficient automated technology. So forgive the oil industry it's attempt to keep those high paying hard working jobs, and look to ways to encourage resource and manufacturing industries to try to fill the gaps, at least in the short term. Pipeline jobs only have so much time left, especially once the accountants start assigning the cost of global warming to the oil industry through mechanisms like carbon tax, but let economics drive the decline, because protests are just pissing off the people who used to be able to make such good money in the oil patch. Put energy into supporting a more complete accounting, and better protection of the commons, rather than stopping something that currently has a strong economic impetus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)