Wanna Sell in Canada? It's Contingent to Job-creation!

Independent non-ideological studies, of the past fifty years of socio-econo-political events in this country, suggest that the established system of governance is structurally not set up to resolve its long list of socio-econo-environ-ecological problems.

So when General Motors determined to close its Oshawa plant at the end of 2019, laying off the last remaining 2,600 personnel in the process, as reported last November – the same plant that had employed more than 23,000 in the 1980s – it was no surprise that there has been no serious attempts on the part of governments to intercede on behalf of the employees or public. And this was for a good reason; they couldn't.

The constitution/charters/social contracts actually do not provide regulatory power for governments over corporate decisions and actions. Therefore, corporations are all but autonomous. And, once the market has dried up, they just move on like nomads. Corporations though, do indeed respond to their shareholders and they had better do, or else shareholders will also just move on to more prolific global grounds.

The taxpayers of this country – who lent corporations scores of billions to stay afloat earlier – have nowhere to go, as they are expected to hold the fort and pay the piper. Faced with the grim realities of this era – as practically the last batch of major industrial corporations (beyond GM) flee this country, leaving behind social-economic, environmental and climatological desolation – many justifiably worry about the bleak future.

Federal party leaders are once again busy – in light of the upcoming federal election – trying to shore up their dismal track record, having been branded by critics as either "deficit spenders" or dogmatic practitioners of "austerity" measures. (See more about the policies of deficit spending and austerity in our other blog posts.)

Veteran, non-ideological problem-solvers – with a "one in a million calibre" classing – have found that the governing socio-econo-political decision-making system and processes lack direct input/control by employee/labour (the productive elements of society), embodying the majority of the public. Hence the process cannot be considered democratic. This void, produces autocratic decisions, causing catastrophic results in the process.

In this context, a few points of advice to the wise political leaders, who strive to become the next PM:

• Democratize the socio-econo-political governance/decision-making system/process – that ignores labour/employee input – to avoid further deterioration of the already grim situation;
• Declare a Wanna Sell in Canada? It's Contingent to Job-creation policy;
• Pledge to enact a "Livable Income" law to cover all standard costs of living – i.e. $42,000 p.a., for an established household of two adults, residing in the Waterloo, Ontario region, and the like – that would render employees/retirees and others practically "self-reliant";
• Pursue policies of collaboration vs. disruptive, hostile and costly competition, at all levels;
• Reject "austerity" as a folly that further worsens the country's problems (and instead);
• Apply "deficit spending" – which is a proven/productive way to mend the country's many social-economic ills and infrastructure needs – since the process "creates new assets";
• Resolve the country's governmental "revenue deficit" problems by:
• Optimizing the "income/wage-scale", considering all social-economic factors and the interests of all three sectors (i.e. government, corporate, and labour/employee/consumer);
• Revising the tax-formula to suit all necessary governmental fiscal policies;
• Present a realistic socio-econo-political agenda – complete with cost-benefit analysis – that addresses the crucial issues the country is facing, and spells out how each leader intends to resolve the same.

By adopting and following through with the agenda above, the elected PM should be able to elevate this country from a "pseudo-democratic" status to a "real democratic socio-econo-political system" and resolutely deal with this country's problems.

Probing the public sentiment on this country's state of affairs, has generated the following observations,narratives and questions:

• Pundits insist that the economy is doing fine. The jobless rate is low and there are positions waiting to be filled.
• Reality, however is that:
• Business owners, in scores, along with middle and working class people are losing all they have been long working for. Some of these MORs turn to their elders and – in a not so subtle manner – prematurely claim their inheritance; hoping against hope to survive.
• Corporations have billions of “excess cash" – by paying exploitative wages at the supply side, yet charging excessive prices at the retail end – and are willing to share the lucre with their shareholders. What about "us" employees and consumers?
• Proxies/lobbyist for corporations/business, demand an action-ready competitive/submissive "labour-force", suited for the era of globalism. What's next? A return to slavery?
• Government leaders – having taken a "facilitator" approach, as the socio-econo-techno transformation role unfolded during the past 50 years – still haven't formulated a sound "proactive" program to address the tragic aftermath, as:
• Millions of adults without post-secondary education are considered unsuitable for employment. So, how will they earn a living? Is there nothing to do in this country?
• Over 50 percent of the employed live from "pay cheque to pay cheque”, without any financial reserve to rely on;
• Home-ownership is no longer affordable for the vast majority of the public;
• Families earning less than $40,000 p.a. cannot pay their rent;
• Innovation – an essential element of the much needed progression – must be utilized, not simply as a "money-maker", but as an instrument to deal with the country's many needs. 
• A few renowned scholars – in this intellectual vacuum – in a "joint venture", should produce a "Socio-econo-political Guide" and save the future of this country.

Summary

To avoid a future of economic and social crises, this country needs a negotiated system of governance that is in a coequal position with corporate/business and labour/employee/consumer elements of society if it wants to survive.

Must Read:

• Capitalism, by author Jonathan Portes, a UK economist who writes about "how and why capitalism works." On the other hand, he also describes a “pretty dismal prospect.” ... "The real test, (as he put it) will be whether our political and social institutions are up to the challenge."

Overdue for a Reality Check

The federal government is 17 months away and the Ontario government is just days away from facing the electorate. For those who appreciate the present options, it's time to enter the political arena, watch, listen, read, and get involved. Then, on voting day, either endorse the incumbent rep, or choose a rookie candidate who hopefully shall deliver the goods, or just stay away from the entire affair altogether.

Concerned veteran, non-ideological researchers and problem solvers – with noteworthy background in applied engineering, microeconomics, systems analysis management techniques and a host of other disciplines – have been quietly monitoring the unfolding socio-econo-fiscal and political events in this country from the sidelines throughout the past five decades. Having charted and analyzed the resulting data, paid attention to the realistic views of a wide variety of the general public, as well as to the insights of notable insiders and members of the media, the ensuing account lent itself to series of thought-provoking questions and comments as follows:

Questions/Comments

• Should the current model of ideologically based, and alternating “Left” - “Right” - “Left” ... system of governance – periodically cancelling out each others' socio-econo-fiscal policies, that vary between “doing nothing”, ineffective “deficit spending” and debilitating “austerity measures” – be considered democratic? Especially, if the party in power is only endorsed by 19% of the eligible voters? Moreover, shouldn't democracy amount to more than just ‘allowing’ electors to vote in or out a government every four years?
• Shouldn't all employees/labour have a constitutionally guaranteed right to form an association/union, and via such elected representatives have a say, and even veto-power in the course of the socio-econo-fiscal decision-making process, the company/corporation they engaged with, in every shop/office/boardroom, like in a few of the more democratically advanced countries? Shouldn't, in fact, denying such fundamental rights be considered discrimination against millions of people who do the actual work?
• Shouldn't competition – one of the most costly, wasteful, destructive, disruptive, and hostile MO has ever been formulated – be judiciously replaced with cooperation? Isn't it long overdue that cooperation, as one of the most cost-effective, economical, constructive, orderly, and amicable practice, be globally adopted, especially nowadays?
• Why are government leaders and others:
• Flagrantly excluding employee/labour representatives from their respective "inner-advisory circles"? Are they – the vast majority of the population – considered (by these leaders) to be slaves, whose opinion does not count?
• Unaware of the fact that many millions live on near, or below poverty-line income, let alone those who live on $700/month social assistance? Could it be that counting the over one-million millionaires, who reside here, and with the reportedly shortly accumulated "dead money" at $800 billion stored here the resultant high “average income rate” renders the magnitude of poverty invisible? Shouldn't the latter facts be rather a proof of unfair income distribution, that must be corrected?
• Inadequately versed about the fundamentals of microeconomics? To correct such shortcomings in the system wouldn't a "professional development” program be a boon to that effect, a prerequisite for all in leadership positions? In fact, this type of a program should include the following particulars:
• The Henry Ford doctrine, to inform employers that employees are not only workers, but they are consumers too. Therefore, low wages/salaries commensurate with low consumption. Keeping the latter findings in mind would surely help to overcome the province-wide pandemonium over raising the “minimum wage” by 21 percent in Ontario. Stunningly, clearly no one seems to be upset over the seven or eight-digit salaries paid for principals at the upper end of the income-scale. Apropos to prove his point, the automaker had raised the minimum wage by 400 (four-hundred) percent at once, a century ago. H. Ford's resolve thus enabled his workers to "own” a car within a year, and a house within five years. A feat, that does not seem to fit into this establishment's agenda.
• The truth about deficit spending. Businesses/corporations and governments – as the need arises – regularly turn to lenders to bankroll the costs of expanding their operations. This process is referred to, respectively as "investment" and "deficit spending". Corporations couldn't exist in absence of lending. Contrary to some "myth”, there is absolutely nothing wrong with responsible deficit spending by governments. If it is utilized strategically, it has an innate “multiplier effect” on the economy. As a rule, the return on deficit spending – measured in GDP growth – is approximately twice the rate of spending. This rate could be further increased by borrowing directly from The Bank of Canada. Applying deficit spending, governments could resolve the current shortage of affordable homes – just as they had done so after WWII for homecoming members of the military – and significantly reduce the present poverty, unemployment and homeless rates of this era.
• Promising income tax reduction, in place of raising the "minimum wage"? Aren't they aware of the fact that such a deed would:
• Cancel out the promised wage increase? Clearly, low wage earners would very unlikely pay income tax;
• Reduce federal/provincial tax revenue? At a time of an already debilitating revenue shortage that prevents governments from providing essential services.
• Complacent about the state of the economy? After all:
• The precarious job and real estate market conditions –that deny access to permanent, meaningful, reasonably paying employment and “affordable home ownership” – do not support the official claim of having a strong economy. Not to mention that poverty and homelessness deserve more creative solutions than lowering the dress-code for the "elite” and fellow-travelers;
• Just to launch an effective countrywide infrastructure program – according to notable experts –  it would take an inflation plus 5% GDP growth-rate.
• Aggressively promoting the export industry? When, in reality:
• Apart from the NAFTA automotive works program, the wholesale of fossil fuels and ferrous/nonferrous ingot/sheet metal products, the trade adds no measurable positive value to the country's socio-econo-fiscal well-being. Let alone that the "current account balance" is at a dismal negative $49.4 billion;
• Due to a – reportedly – systematic deindustrialization program, the country's practically only remaining LRT manufacturer have been unable to meet its local deadlines, due to a series of technical "snafus". And there are more long delays to follow. Could it be that the country is in a "techno-cultural” demise?
• Keen on underwriting further 'FTAs’ with any country so willing, under the aegis of creating worldwide prosperity for all? When so far, the over three decades old practice reportedly have mostly given rise to:
• Wholesale exploitation of the participant countries' labour force;
• Massive profit-taking by importers and other actors, whose collective actions have been referred to – by MSM sources – as "shocking and, if the public knew about it, they would certainly be up in arms";
• Endless hollowing out of the already shattered industrial sector;
• Countering international agreements to reduce worldwide air/land/river/lake/oceanic pollution. Could it be that pollution has suddenly lost its critical status?
• Not contacting their economically successful foreign peers, aimed at seeking out joint R&D and manufacturing opportunities? Possibly with countries like: 
• Denmark, Population: 5.8 million; GDP: $346 billion; Natural resources: sand; Unemployment: 4.1 %; Current account balance: $24.5 billion;
• Germany, Population: 82.7 million; GDP: $3.874 trillion; Natural resources; n/a; Unemployment: 3.6 %; Current account balance: $311.8 billion;
• Not having a "one-on-one" conversation with major corporate leaders, about the voters’:
• Frustration with the economy, that is "rigged to advantage the rich and powerful”;
• Call for new political leaders “who can take back the country from the rich and powerful”;
• Opposition to growing corporate direct/indirect demands for:
• Reducing all operational costs – including wage hikes – that “make it hard to compete";
• Eliminating all regulatory/legal/licensing restrictions that thwart business activities;
• Cutting taxes that “make it harder to turn profit”.
• Concern about the loss of the industrial/manufacturing sector.
• Not calling on the OECD – if that's what it takes – to formulate a global economic plan to equitably distribute production amongst its member countries, as per their respective resources and technological capabilities? In doing so, the problems of social-economic unfairness could be peacefully resolved, continent by continent, applying cooperation as a MO in a strategical and timely manner. Thereby allowing all countries to enjoy the benefits of their own efforts.

Summary

Analysis of the accumulated data – gained from the past five decades, belatedly supported by many MSM articles – indicates a significant degree of public dissatisfaction with the system of governance and its handling of this country's socio-econo-fiscal affairs. Not mentioning the system's exclusionary MO, that disregards the civil rights and views of the vast majority of the working population, in the course of the decision-making process within the private and public sector.

Recommended Books

• The Effective Citizen: How to make politicians work for you, by Graham Steele Rhodes Scholar, lawyer, and a former NS Minister of Finance. In his book he provides answers to many questions like: Who really runs the (political) parties? How politicians think, behave speak and … what they do? They are running a business and the business they're in is re-election.
• Economics by Dr. Thomas Coskeran, who works at Durham Business School. His book explains both the microeconomics and the macroeconomics as to how the markets work, why they fail, and how economists had made grievous errors.
• Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth and How to Fix It, by Dr. Dambisa Moyo who is an Oxford University graduate and a prize winning economist. In her book she argues that liberal democracies cannot deliver the necessary growth without reforms.

Articles about NAFTA

as reported by The CP, 9.11.2017

• Canada has about 127,000 auto jobs today, the same as in 1993;
• Employees working at a car parts manufacturing plant in Mexico, six days a week, receive a weekly salary of about $61.
• Canada's auto-parts association says these jobs won't ever return to Canada