New Government: Improvement or Just a Changing of the Guard?

After a near decade-long hiatus, due to the October 19th, 2015 federal election results, based on FPTP "calculus", the Liberal government – albeit a mostly youthful and gender-equal brand – has once again returned to power.

Although we are now eleven months into its tenure, considering the depressed state of the country, one would expect that by now significant efforts to resolve Canada's many decades of much neglected and most critical problems – such as, the endless economic stagnation, massive shortage of affordable housing, high poverty rate, plant closures, coupled with runaway underemployment/unemployment – should well be in progress. But, it's clearly not happening – say many critics.

But, Why Is It Not Happening?

It's not happening – in the views of several audacious/cognoscenti writers, retired academics, politicians, and a few independent veteran problem-solvers – mainly because:

• The system of governance is simply not set up to monitor this country's sad state of affairs. To quantify the current conditions, one might resort to the latest "gross annual income" stats. More explicitly, in Canada for 2013, the average gross annual income gained from employment was at $43,574. However, further review of this category of data reveals that 32.6%, i.e. 5,820,570 employees had a gross annual income of less than $25,000.
  In contrast, the "top 100 CEOs" in the same year had an average gross income of $9.2 million, including stock options. And that's as good as cash.
  All in all, there is simply not enough purchasing power in the hands of a significant segment of employees/consumers to sustain a healthy economy and an adequate government revenue base. An intrinsic fault that the system is either unaware of ... or doesn't know how to correct.
• The "laissez-faire doctrine" of "free market economy" – in the absence of government oversight – enabled corporations to make decisions that have been harshly affecting the vast majority of the public. Namely, throughout the past three to four decades, corporations have gradually converted this country's fairly multifaceted and somewhat self-sufficient economy to an "import-based" and "import-reliant" one. In doing so, they took advantage of the unemployed masses, readily available from the "global labour market". Simultaneously, many thousands of facilities/offices were closed down and millions of good paying jobs got eliminated in the process here in Canada, along with a multi-level revenue base – so essential for the upkeep and modernization of the country's infrastructure.
• Government leaders' endless vacillation on whether to apply or not to apply the "power" of "deficit spending". A perfectly legitimate/essential financial catalyst, which – contrary to some grossly false tenets – should be fully applied by any government as a "sector" toward building a healthy, all-inclusive, self-sufficient economy. An economy that effectively utilizes this country's available human and natural resources, along with its innate "multiplier effects" of a deficit spending. Moreover, each program should have a significant revenue generating element in it.
  Currently though, a "minimalist strategy" appears to unfold; which is possibly the worst path to take since it can lead ultimately to an unjustifiably large debt load.

What Would It Take to Resolve the Current Multifaceted Crises?

In view of the seriousness of the overall situation in this country – evidenced by reports of nearly 50% of wage earners living on their week to week paycheque – sooner or later, the administration must begin to act according to the interests of all segments of society, in terms of:

• Lifting the unprecedented, all out communication blockade that prevents the few, highly qualified, veteran, non-dogmatic foreign educated "problem solvers" – who have been literally "there before", having solved identical or even more complex problems – from offering their unique, non-ideological, fair, realistic, comprehensive, affordable and "veritable solutions".
  Problems that are clearly unknown to most, if not all members of the legislative body, due to being isolated from the public and living the "good life" – during and especially after their political tenure, as a result of getting academic/corporate posts/appointments or becoming consultants – allotted to the upper 10% of society.
• Integrating labour/employees – the vast majority of the electorate, in qualitative and quantitative terms – into the decision-making process. After all, most in management positions are also the products of by and large the same education system. So what's the angst/opposition to integration all about? Excluding these productive elements of society from the latter process, the system cannot possibly be considered, let alone be called democratic. Actually, the concept of democracy should mean more than just the "freedom" to "vote in or out" either of the two major political parties every four years. Ultimately, participation in the decision-making process should be a "self-determination issue", and a constituted as such.
• Developing/implementing comprehensive programs aimed at resolving:
• The endless economic stagnation. And to that aim governments – as trustees of the public – should:
• Cancel their "facilitator" role – they have quietly assumed to deliver the right conditions for the self-ordained "operators" of the "free enterprise system" – and become active participants in managing the economy;
• Supplement their policy advisory staff with one expert in microeconomics and one in production engineering – who understand what it takes to solve major econo-fiscal problems – and appoint them to participate in the overall planning/management of the economy, as co-equal partners, working together with the current operators of the same, for the benefits of all Canadians.
• The massive shortage of affordable housing. While it's not a new phenomenon, it is now a problem that is "out of control", with serious socio-econo-fiscal upshots – reinforcing the fact that the "free market" is unresponsive to the needs of about 50% to 70% of buyers seeking affordable homes – and the system at all levels is unable, or unwilling to intervene.
  Some researchers, of the "concerned/thinking" brand, have been offering a few realistic solutions based on a "rent to own" concept – as an effective way to significantly reduce poverty as well – whereby paying affordable rent would count as an instalment towards the mortgage, and eventually lead to home-ownership as a ticket out of poverty. But bankers have refused to finance such proposals, presumably with governments' nod.
  It's time to revisit these plans and put them into use, as a gigantic "semi-subsidized" and "revenue-generating"  construction program, building "new towns" across the land – if that's what it takes, to overcome this serious and multifaceted problem – under the direction/oversight of federal/provincial/regional agencies. Especially, in anticipation of a likely increase in immigration.
• High poverty rate. Throughout the years, there have been several less than "half-hearted efforts" to raise the "minimum wage" as a more direct way to reduce poverty and to boost the economy. However business, by its proxies, has always won out against all initiatives on the grounds that such a measure would destroy jobs and ruin businesses. Strangely enough, no one in authority has ever "arithmetically" and/or "precedently"challenged such claims. Had anyone done so, it would have been found that raising the minimum wage to the level of a "living wage" is indeed:
• An arithmetically provable and effective "ways and means" to quell poverty. Furthermore, such measure would increase the consumer base, expand the economy, reduce the unemployment/underemployment rates, increase all governments' revenue base, let alone that it would improve the "bottom line" for business;
• A precedent based method developed by Henry Ford, the late automaker of 100 years ago, as he raised his workers' wage by 400 percent, to the chagrin of his cohorts. As a result, his workers owned their car in one year, and their house in ten years.
• More recently, workers of Denmark have become beneficiaries of a "living wage" law, as their lawmakers legislated an hourly "living wage" to nearly $20. Although they did it at the peril of being labelled "socialists" by some. And that's a very scary label that many Canadian politicians are not willing to wear on their lapel.
• The underemployment/unemployment crises. For a few decades now, leading educators – having sensed that it's potentially a hotbed of vice – have been offering higher education as a remedy for poverty and unemployment. An unprecedentedly large number of young people took the advice, secretly hoping that in doing so, they could buy admission into the "middle/upper class" and the "good life" that comes with it. But, after spending 3 to 6 years or more at the "halls of higher learning", and having piled up as much as $30k to $90k in debt, they now find themselves living at their elders' home, as pauper/unemployed grads, sending hundreds of CVs via the Internet in pursuit of burger flipping jobs.
  Actually, unemployment is a totally unwarranted phenomenon, and the easiest to reverse. In fact – according to research – several governments have been made aware of a surefire "formula". And if the talk about just one major corporation's plan to transfer its plants to a low-wage paying country in three years holds true, another 25,000 employees/households could be saved from certain disaster by using the formula. But judging from the administration's tone, they trust that the market will respond in due time. And the narrative is: "It's going to take the time it does." Apparently nobody is in much of a hurry to take timely preventative action. Translation: they are not in a hurry to interfere with the "market forces".

From things as they stand these days, it's fair to conclude that "real change" is needed, because as one analyst has so succinctly put it in the MSM earlier: "(The) Brexit referendum should act as a warning to the (three) amigos – and other members of North America's political and economic elite – and other leaders around the world. Globalization is a wrenching business. Sometimes, people just get fed up."

Here in Canada, while the econo-political elite is presumably still trying to figure out what to do – if anything at all – about this country's faltering economy, and a host of long-ignored problems, in contrast, some "concerned minds" amongst the electorate are raising daring questions, and are even providing realistic answers, worthy to pore over by this country's "actual governing body", as follows:

• Considering the built in limitations of the traditional system of governance – run by alternating political parties whose partiality towards one segment of society, or another per se, precludes them from working for the entire electorate – to resolve the ever-mounting socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems, shouldn't the idea of replacing or supplementing the same with a technocratic system or element of it be looked at?
  As such, it would be led by an elected/selected prime minister, premiers – each a veteran technocrat, aided  by a cabinet of technocrats – selected from notable individuals with extraordinary acumen and independence, to present the most efficacious/veritable programs to deal with the country's/provinces' aforementioned problems.
  All in all, a technocratic system of governance, undoubtedly would:
• Be much better suited to resolve the ever-growing volume of problems; and it would 
• Serve the interests of all segments of society, with the equitableness defined and guaranteed by the Constitution – just as in several countries around the world.
• Why have all the governments shied away from their duties of participating in the overall management of the economy? Shouldn't  governments as "sectors" have a distinctly defined parallel/equal role, cum "veto-power" in the decision-making process, vis-à-vis the private/corporate sector – just like in many other well-functioning countries?
• Why is the concept of FTA being so energetically promoted by every informational outlet? Has there been any "evidence" for its success? That is to say, apart from the much suspect $600 plus billion and growing corporate jackpot? Otherwise, it has been a socio-econo-enviro-fiscal disaster for this country and others, especially in terms of job, income and government revenue losses. Sadly though, it has been even worse for workers on the supply side, who have been badly exploited throughout every step of the process for decades.
  And as one MSM columnist recently reflected the public sentiment, "Canadians want trade. But they also want to be protected from economic chaos and run their own show."
• Why is there so much chatter about changing FPTP, demanding that a referendum be held? But what about signing dozens of FTAs, let alone submitting to "global integration"? Shouldn't such important life altering schemes also be subject to public referendums?
• Why aren't individuals – as members of the workforce – allowed to join employee/labour organizations/unions/guilds, to protect their rights and take advantage of the "power in unity" in the course of employment contract negotiations, and other social interactions, just as businessmen/women, professionals, and others in the course of operating a business, practising a profession, etc., are free to join their respective associations?
  Is it possible that such a prohibition is a "carryover" from the "era of slavery"?
• What were some politicians thinking earlier this year, as they tried recently to beg/lure Californian corporations to "set up shop" in the Cambridge-Toronto-Waterloo "innovation/tech-corridor", to ease the economic, underemployment/unemployment crises?
  In doing so, they downgraded the country's "economy" to a "zero-sum game", wherein jobs can only be created here at the cost of eliminating jobs elsewhere. Or vice versa.
• What's so attractive about international trade, or globalization for that matter? That is to raise the following subsequent questions:
• Why would any country – to begin with – join other countries, governed by practically the same econo-political system, facing the same problems, and expect that just by joining forces, such syndication would spell success?
• What's in it for Canada – a totally self-sufficient country – to gain from a pact offering a "zero-sum game"? Translation: eliminating one job "here" in order to create one job "there"? That's called "job transfer". One side loses, the other gains, the result is zero! There are more effective methods to develop an all-inclusive economy, create jobs for all and eliminate poverty. But maybe that's not in the cards? So what's in the cards? It seems that nobody in Canada  is willing to tell, and nobody is willing to ask.
• What's the point in importing locally available livestock, grain/vegetables/fruits, and dairy/meat products? Is it to challenge Canadian producers to compete, or to reduce consumer prices? Or, is it to force them into bankruptcy and to sell their land, either to automated corporate factory farms or to land developers/builders? By the way, much of the imported vegetables/fruits have very little nutritional value in them, due to the premature harvesting requirement for long-distance shipping.
• How does international trade square with the participating countries' "commitments" to reduce land/water/air pollution, as billions of tons of supplies are moved across the globe back and forth on land/water/air each year? Are importers/exporters/shippers – who happen to be the largest beneficiaries of the whole affair – exempted from these pacts? Or has pollution then become acceptable?
• What does the "balance of trade" report look like? Is anyone watching the numbers at all? Those who do, say, "Canada is in the red. In many ways!"
• What's the point in promoting/rewarding automation in an era of already high level underemployment/unemployment? Automation is practical where consumer goods/services cannot be delivered at the required quantity/quality/affordable price in a timely manner.
• Why should Canadians endure further economic slowdown, between 2019 and 2025 – as reported by The CP – in exchange for nebulous CPP reform? Shouldn't the Ministry of Finance develop an economic program, aimed at first expanding the workforce, paying a living wage, building an adequate tax base, and then implement a well formulated and sustainable pension plan reform?
• Why do mayors – seeking answers for their constituents' problems – get free access to federal and provincial cabinet ministers, but veteran problem-solvers that are capable of providing answers for those very same problems cannot? Is it a social class issue?
• Why are government executives acting like intercontinental travelling sales reps, trying to sell Canadian skills and resources to anyone, anywhere, at sub-market prices? That is to say, shouldn't government leaders – considering their leadership positions – meet privately with major corporate executives and work out appropriate strategies for reversing the "deindustrialization" process, here in this country?
  And, when all is said and done, such meetings should end with an understanding that:
• Corporations cannot for long hope to sell their products to a rapidly diminishing consumer base – made up of a growing number of jobless and mostly low income earning, part-time employees with near, or poverty-line purchasing power – even if these products are manufactured elsewhere at a fraction of the local cost factors; and that
• Governments have ultimately at their disposal a regulatory tool called the tariff.
• How can paying workers/consumers near poverty-line wages be justified, in an era when $620 billion of "dead money" is being amassed? Is it not a self-defeating practice?
• Shouldn't labour/employees – as members of the productive class – be emancipated at long last, and given full equal status within society? That is to say: the socio-econo-political elite should realize that workers/employees/voters/consumers should not be ignored nor excluded from the decision-making process.
• Shouldn't all federal/provincial political party leaders of this country declare a truce – in view of the fact that none of the usual annual meetings with the principals of international organizations have produced any tangible results as to how to deal with the individual states' social-economic problems – and with the participation of representatives of all segments of Canadian society, work out a comprehensive, non-ideological plan to revive the country's economy, without delay?
• Shouldn't "competition" be replaced with "cooperation" as a countrywide/worldwide modus operandi? After all, throughout history, competition has been the root of devastating bankruptcies, cataclysmic events, international conflicts, and the collapse of civilizations and empires. And to borrow a sentence from an MSM editorial: "Who knows, where it (all) might end?"
  In contrast, comprehensive cooperation, in fact could prove to be the panacea for most, if not all, of the socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems through prudent planning.
• Shouldn't political party leaders, prior to the election debates, be provided with a list that reflects the country's/provinces'/regions' critical socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems – prepared by an independent "election committee" – requiring the candidates to present their validated/budgeted/timelined programs and to address/resolve the aforementioned critical matters, as opposed to engaging in bravado and personal insults? And only then, let the real debate begin!
  It's predictable that such a format would instill clarity/substance/rationality into the debate.
• Why is it that the more changes promised by government leaders, the less get implemented? Isn't there a better way – other than waiting for the next election, and in effect "throwing the rascals out" time and again… and yet, getting nowhere?
  What about implementing an automatic recall, acting as a virtual Damocles' sword?
• What would it take to achieve real socio-econo-political change? A change that would go beyond election reforms, to ensure equal voice – for all segments of society: business/employer, employee/labour and the public at large – in the course of managing this country's affairs?
  But in this country, apparently no political leader appears to be ready to talk about, let alone to bring about significant change, based on real democratic principles that have been constitutionally guaranteed by a handful of "truly democratic" countries elsewhere, long ago.

Summary

After over eleven months of presumably searching for the right ways and means, that has – according to media reports – included "three professional development" sessions for a "crew of mostly rookie cabinet ministers" at some luxurious, remote retreats, and numerous failing attempts to solicit investments from members of the world's financial elite, there is a widely expressed view out there that, the current combo of "laissez-faire" doctrine of free-market economy and the political party based minority system of governance, marshaled by business interests, cannot deal with this country's long unresolved and ever worsening socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems.

Furthermore there is a growing sentiment among among many "in the know" that it's time to:

• Lift the unprecedented, all out communication blockade that prevents veteran problem solvers from offering their unique, affordable and veritable solutions to the econo-political leadership, regarding this country's/provinces'/regions' vexatious issues.
• Consider supplementing or even replacing the traditional political party-based system of governance with a technocratic model, that by its characteristics would be better suited to resolve this country's problems and serve the interests of all segments of society.
• Supplement the government's Counsel  of Economic Advisors with an economist and an engineer with a solid background in the fields of "applied  micro-economics" and "production engineering" respectively.
• Formulate a comprehensive/autonomous economic model from the "bottom up", using the country's human/natural  resources, and paying living wages and significantly reduce under-employment/unemployment/poverty, and increase the government tax base, in the process.
• Work out and implement a gigantic, "semi-subsidized" and "revenue-generating" construction program to build new towns across the country, to address the massive shortage of affordable housing.

In doing so, with such a resultant GDP growth – which is a "sine qua non" – for a sustainable economic model could be attained.

Food for Thought

• "When the government bureaucrats allocate the taxpayers' money, all the rich guys get mad about it. But when the rich guys are allocating their shareholders' money, they seem to think that God gave them that right." – Warren Buffett, American magnate.
• "Several difficult issues must be dealt with now, that require hard decisions and real actions that cannot be put on hold any longer with vague promises and fancy words."– Geoffrey Stevens, political science lecturer, The Record, September 26, 2016.
• "The most important issue facing Canada is the economy." – Keith G Sutcliffe, Dartmouth NS, Maclean's Magazine, October 3, 2016.
• "In the trade agreement, the big corporations  are spelling out their own rights and protections, but they shy away from much responsibility.  Those corporations expect nations to give up part of their sovereignty in favour of investment." –  Ursula Litzcke, Vancouver BC, Maclean's Magazine, October 3, 2016.
• "Homelessness in Canada affects about 200,000 people and comes with a $7 billion price tag." Source: "State of Homelessness in Canada (2013)"– By Stephen Gaetz, lead author and director of the Canadian Homelessness Research Network, The Canadian Press.
• "Why are Corporations Hoarding Trillions?" – By Adam Davidson, January 20, 2016, The New York Times Magazine.
• "The more the dollar drops, the more foreigners will want to open branch plants here, but that's a race to the bottom." – Former BlackBerry co-CEO Jim Balsillie; Economy, Maclean's Magazine, March 7, 2016.
• "(Canada's) trade deficit in May was $3.28 billion." – The Canadian Press, July 7, 2016.
• "More than 200 Canadian companies recognize that the minimum wage may not be enough and new measures might be necessary to help the country's working poor. It not only helps people make ends meet, but can also benefit businesses and their communities." – The Canadian Press, July 15, 2016.
• "(While some experts are concerned about the level of consumer indebtedness in Canada, the fact is that) it's not the banks are at risk, but the individual consumers and the broader economy that increasingly depends on their borrowing and spending." – Economy, Maclean's Magazine, April 4, 2016.
• "At the meeting of the G20 nations (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau)  pressed for international efforts to stimulate the flagging global economy." – Thomas Walkom, columnist, September 8, 2016.
• "Since natural resources are globally traded commodities that already move tariff free, free trade would provide absolutely no benefit resource exporters (like Canada). On the other hand, removing tariffs on manufactured goods would put our manufacturers at even greater disadvantage." – Gwyn Morgan, former director of five global corporations, September, 2016.
• "A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent  will never be stable. A pervasive sense of injustice undermines people's faith  in the system. So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration. Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared." – US President Barack Obama, at the UN G.A., September 20, 2016.
• "(I) had come to China to warn leaders that unless they did something meaningful soon, they may condemn their citizens to a long period of slow economic growth." – Christine Lagarde, IMF Managing Director; Maclean's Magazine, September 19, 2016.