Especially since the establishment has been made repeatedly aware of a few, scientifically proven, realistic and socio-economically much more desirable choices.
In this context, and in the views of many in the know, it seems necessary to publicly seek and receive answers to the following random but rather important questions:
- What is the real purpose of this misconstrued and discredited, if not ideologically motivated, austerity program?
- Is it to warn low-income earning elements of society, who cannot survive without a credit card, that its overuse has consequences and leads to tragic bankruptcy? By the way, what's the use of warning the victim?
- Is it to pressure the unemployed and the welfare recipients that, due to the ever shrinking tax base, they should no longer expect to rely on a taxpayer subsidized social safety net, but instead should become self-reliant?
- Is it a social experiment aimed at conditioning the public, and at the same time testing the limits of tolerance toward the rapid erosion of their standard of living, affecting about 50% of the workforce who earn less than $35,000 gross per year?
- What is the point in granting over $10 billion of unwanted yearly endowments to corporate members of the $526 billion "dead money" club? Particularly, since New Agey, corporate proxies have already made it known to the public that the role of corporations is no longer job creation. Their primary role is to generate profits for their shareholders.
- What is the point in spending $19.9 billion on E.I. benefits when there are more beneficial ways to invest in idling human resources for this allotment?
- What had motivated the establishment to seek out and ratify FTAs (Free Trade Agreements), with 50 countries so far, and to join the World Trade Organization? Was it a political or economic decision? Let alone the question of which sector has been benefiting from these accords? Because, it's certainly not the skilled unemployed nor the underemployed college graduates!
- Could anyone explain what the real advantages of globalization are? Despite the fact that:
- Importers acquire and pass on tens of millions of tons of low-cost merchandise yearly through the innumerable agents of commerce to consumers of this country without adding much, if any, measurable value in the process. Yet they gain unprecedentedly high profit margins during the course of every transaction.
- There is a lack of strict control that legitimizes the free flow of capital and monetary gains from one jurisdiction to another, with much of it reportedly ending up in various tax havens.
- What is the point in the wholesale sell out of Canada's nonrenewable natural resources, especially oil, gas and water? Is anyone expecting some magical, technological breakthroughs to show up on the horizon that will replace these assets? Some serious thinking is required for the benefit of future generations!
- When is the establishment going to realize that:
- True labor peace can only be achieved if all three sectors, namely government, business and employees, harmoniously work together in a partnership as co-equals? As demonstrated in quite a few advanced democratic countries around the world.
- As corporate accumulative earnings have reached $0.526 trillion, shouldn't employees' wages and benefits reflect such generous earnings? It certainly should!
- When are members of all governments going to recognize that:
- In the course of parliamentary debates, adversarial demeanor is not conducive to resolving this country's debilitating problems equitably?
- In the presence of a majority government, the opposition parties' representatives may as well pack up and go home since they are rendered totally ineffective?
- Why is it that, while some mature corporations can afford and are willing to pay $40/hour in wages and good benefits to skilled workers, others of similar caliber demand a 50% wage cut, (e.g. reducing wages from $26.75 to $13.35 per hour), just to remain in Canada?
- Why aren't political party and civic leaders – in the course of election campaigns – required by law to formulate and publish their own comprehensive, itemized, timelined and costed programs for dealing with the country's critical problems? In the absence of such requirements, clearly the entire election campaign is meaningless.
- Why do governments prefer to provide subsidized "rental housing" – albeit in very limited supply – as opposed to housing that is based on "rent to own homeownership"? Especially, since the latter choice would reduce the rate of poverty as well.
- Why federal and provincial governments are so eager to provide grants to well established corporations, but refuse to underwrite forgivable loans for affordable, much needed residential/retirement housing construction pilot projects?
- Why is the establishment – having demonstrated its inability to resolve the country's major problems – not resorting to some form of crowd sourcing? After all, does it really matter which sector succeeds in restoring the country's econo-fiscal soundness, as long as the results were to the satisfaction of all stakeholders? Apparently it does matter. Because, in the experience of independent experts, in the halls of the establishment, their counterparts would simply dismiss such a proposal by ruling that, "if it were feasible, someone would have already implemented it."
- Why is the Bank of Canada holding down the primary lending rate? As a result, the purchasing power of all forms of savings is significantly reduced; thereby shortchanging retirees, and even the marketplace.
- Why do corporations keep employees out of the decision-making process? Don't employees deserve to have a say – as in many countries they do – and beneficially participate in managing the companies?
- Why do the leaders of the cooperative enterprise system sit on the fence and not expand their system to create new subdivisions, capitalized through the credit union concept, using the crowd financing principle? Thereby, proactively participating in a much needed job creation process.
- Why are TV programs – under the aegis of promoting the innovative process – presenting a panel of bidding investors in a Roman circus-like setting, and verbally beating up, embarrassing, ridiculing, and occasionally even bringing their guest inventors to tears? Some might wonder if mockery is really the best method for encouraging innovation. Certainly, it doesn't help this country's efforts to reduce its invention deficit, which is not exactly a laughing matter. It seems that this promotional TV program needs a professional makeover, by featuring more serious contents and participants, under a more fitting title, such as, "Let's Make a Deal".
Summary
The public expectation is that by pondering over these questions, the establishment, and all the parties who have been responsible for the plight of this country, may realize that the time is right to blow off the dust and review those earlier submitted proficient proposals, and to implement them for the benefits of all segments of society, equitably.
Recommended Reading
- The Buerger Alliance Blog Articles 1-17
- "Deepening the recession by dogmatically implementing austerity policies makes no economic sense whatsoever", Martin Shulze, Eauropean Parliament President, – The AP, March 14, 2013
- "Trade, Technology As Middle-Class Job Killers", by C Freeland – The Globe and Mail, February 15, 2013
- "Supercitizens' Threat to Democracy", by C Freeland – The Globe and Mail, March 1, 2013
Food for Thought
- "I would not exclude that we run the risk of seeing a social revolution", Jean Claude Juncker, P.M. of Luxembourg
- On Capitalism: "Capitalizm is in crisis and increasingly social cohesion will be the biggest challenge", Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever NV
No comments:
Post a Comment