Warning: "The Old Approaches Don't Work Anymore"

In order to reactivate the Canadian economy, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has just about done everything he could – protocols permitting – say some.

Having spent part of the first 17 months or 35% of his tenure – meeting with many magnates the world around, prompting them to see that, in these highly turbulent times, Canada is one of the most corporate friendly, stable/secure and proper places to invest in, and/or relocate their businesses in – has finally decided, three months ago, to throw down the gauntlet for ignoring his invitation.

And it happened, according to just a few back-page MSM news reports, when the PM – as this year's keynote speaker, at the most prestigious annual St. Matthew's banquet in the city of Hamburg, Germany, back in March addressing, "400 politicians, business leaders and many notables" – warned the international corporate elite, "it's time to pay a living wage (and) to pay your taxes… It's time to get real about the challenges facing the middle class. (Moreover that the) old approaches don't work anymore."

A few weeks later, in the course of giving a lecture – some think, perhaps, as an act of 'damage control' – Bank of Canada Governor Poloz reportedly reiterated the Fed's long-standing official policies of "openness to more foreign investment, immigration and free trade." Emphasizing that "when trade barriers are falling, when people are coming to our shores, and when investment is rising, Canadians prosper." Beyond that, he also issued a warning to his audience, "protectionism does not promote growth and its costs are steep." However, apparently he did not care to validate any aspect of his message.

The following are views of the country's political leaders from accredited organizations, the MSM, and members of the public on CETA – the latest of the more than 50 FTA's Canadian governments have adopted so far – as it was lately reported:

• Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has recently proclaimed, "CETA is a framework for (free) trade that works for everyone."
• Premiers, along with the leaders of the opposition parties, across the land are said to be seemingly happy with most, or even all, of the various FTA deals so far.
• Researchers at the University of Ottawa have calculated that the "benefits (from CETA) will accrue disproportionately to upper income earners, leaving working-class people behind."
• A recent study published by the IJPE – International Journal of Political Economy – "estimates (CETA will result in) 23,000 job losses in Canada over the next 7 years and 200,000 job losses in the EU."
• The Economist Magazine, in its latest issue, listed the Canadian "current account balance" – essentially summarizing the results of all FTA activities is being "in the red" – at -48.4 billion (i.e. -2.9% of this country's projected 2017 GDP).
• The public is divided into three different factions, namely:
1. The elite is clearly happy with the government's trade policies.
2. Those who do well – in socio-econo-fiscal terms – and/or still are gainfully employed, have no quarrels either.
3. The rest (ca. 50% of the working population) who struggle from paycheque to paycheque, don't complain and know very well that their views don't count.

In this era of chronic social-economic stagnation, a few independent analysts "in the know" are trying to seek answers to questions – raised by many concerned citizens, all over the country – such as:

• Why are governments – advocates of democratic principles – allowed to gain power in this country with less than 67% of the electoral support? Not to speak of 39% or even less? Shouldn't all parties, having reached only a narrow plurality status, be obliged to form a coalition government in order to earn legitimacy?
• Why doesn't the Bank of Canada use its monetary power to directly fund government initiated public projects, such as infrastructure construction programs, and in issuing mortgages for "affordable housing" projects? And, if it doesn't have such power, the Governor of the Bank should acquire it through Parliament retroactively. This would save taxpayers of Canada tens of billions of dollars annually.
• Why aren't all ranking government officials required by law to:
• Publicly validate their policies?
• Gain electoral approval, prior to:
• Entering any international econo-fiscal and political pact?
• Purchasing and particularly selling public properties?
• Why aren't government leaders searching for, or developing alternative economic models, in view of the fact that the operators of the current model don't seem to be able to deal with the socio-econo-fiscal needs of a significantly large segment of society?
• Why is it permitted for the econo-fiscal establishment to have more decision-making power than this country's democratically elected governments?
• Why are MPs, MPPs and other elected public officials allowed to impose a communication blackout on veteran problem solvers – without recourse – in an era where there is apparently a severe shortage of realistic solutions to this province's/country's most critical and long neglected socio-econo-fiscal problems? Especially, since there are veritable remedies for the same.
• Why is protectionism considered so reprehensible in some circles? Shouldn't every government look out first and foremost for its citizenry's interest in this – one might say – ruthlessly competitive world of business?
• Why aren't some publicly supported colleges and universities actively engaged as contributing scientists in the R&D of:
• Effective methodologies for the removal and disposal of contaminants from the country's waterways?
• Effective air and water filtration systems?
• Efficient heating/ventilating/air conditioning systems?
• Efficient technologies for the construction of durable and affordable homes?
• Why are some in a panic upon just sensing the mere possibility of a government interfering with the "natural order" of the labour market and the increase to the minimum wage? If there were indeed veritable negative socio-econo-fiscal effects of such deeds, why aren't such details documented? Supporters of government action argue that in countries where a "livable wage" rule has been in effect, they are collectively better off – business owners included.
• When is the econo-political establishment going to connect the dots:
• between the high level of household debt on the one hand;
• and economic stagnation, low wages, high unemployment and poverty rates, and inadequate tax revenues on the other hand?
  And recognize that it must take the necessary corrective steps to save the integrity of the economy, if not the entire country?
• When is the econo-political establishment going to realize that a knowledge and raw material export-based economy, without a manufacturing sector, cannot possibly support this country's population? Let alone that it is a risk laden proposition.
• When is the establishment going to acknowledge the fact that the current economic system – based on a competitive/destructive MO – needs to be supplemented with a cooperative one, in order to make the system more fair, inclusive and efficient?

Comments on Government Policies and Establishment Practices

Higher Education

Educationists, politicians and some notables, have been advocating "higher education" for decades as a surefire remedy for the country's major socio-econo-fiscal ills, such as poverty and unemployment. Many parents, heeding the call, have done everything they could to see their offspring succeed. While years ago, it was mostly up to each youngster – one might say – to carry the ball past the goalpost, recently the social/psychological pressure to compete and excel has made failing an unacceptable option for some, as more and more tragic reports of college student suicides comes to light. Some say that these are casualties of a rat race.

One might wonder, why isn't there a systemic, mutually beneficial "voluntary mentorship" – students helping students – program in place, across the entire education system, to ensure that nobody is left behind?

Similar programs should also be implemented for immigrants as well, in the course of seeking and getting validation of their qualifications obtained elsewhere. This process should end with all qualified immigrants finding suitable employment.

Immigration

For more than a century, governments have been promoting immigration in order to "populate" the land and to ascertain that the country will prosper through having the right mix of a productive workforce. However, apart from the mostly heartfelt generosity of the system towards new newcomers, there has always been an undertone of "exploitative intent" present in every sector of the economy, nowadays even more so – say many.

Innovation

Political leaders, concerned about slow economic growth, are being advised by some economists to encourage innovation by investing in R&D in order to stop the trend. While such advice, on the face of it, appears to be sound, however, in the opinion of several veteran innovators/inventors, R&D is considered to be a rather time-consuming venture and certainly not an "on-demand" process. A process that in most cases requires connections and huge amounts of capital in a risk averse, unscrupulous, dog-eat-dog, and a tall-poppy syndrome-laced environment that blocks many of the best "creative elements" of the country from contributing to the advancement of society. As a result, the country is losing an immeasurable worth of economic/employment opportunities both in the short and long term.

Current Economic Model: Import/Export Corporate System

Corporations, in the course of searching for export markets a few decades earlier, – having noticed that doing business overseas is far more profitable – unilaterally decided to convert this country's economic model into an all-out "import oriented" one. Clearly they overlooked the prospects of:

• The loss of many hundreds of thousands of well-paying manufacturing jobs; and
• The collapse of purchasing power affecting a large block of consumers.

Alternative Economic Model: a Cooperative (Parallel) System

A group of alienated, creative elements of the workforce who, – for utter lack of access to financial resources, have been left out of the entrepreneurial loop – if provided the ways and means under the aegis of a cooperative (parallel) system, could function very well, at least within any of the following sectors of the economy such as:

• The R&D (innovative/inventive) sector.
• The manufacturing sector, with a built-in potential of providing:
• The service industry and their consumers, who are in need of replacement parts and/or aftermarket products that have been unavailable, or difficult to come by in a timely manner, therefore causing serious interruptions in the marketplace.
• Members of the underemployed/unemployed, skilled workforce with much-needed well-paying high, medium and low-tech employment opportunities
• The housing construction sector focusing on:
• providing affordable home ownership, with the ultimate intent of;
• reducing the chronic poverty and unemployment rates.

The question is, who should initially fund the cooperative economic system? Since governments have been routinely funding corporate entities, to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars and beyond each year, – including those who outsource and/or layoff many thousands of their employees – it seems totally fair that a system committed to alleviating the country's socio-econo-fiscal problems be publicly funded, at least initially.

Mythical Notions About:

Cost Efficiency: Private Sector Vs. Public Sector

There is a never-ending debate in this country as to who can perform a given task more cost-effectively; the private or the public sector? Comprehensive socio-econo-fiscal cost benefit analysis indicates that since private sector firms need to add a considerable amount of "profit" factors to their cost summary, the public sector would be more cost-effective.

Small Business Operators Cannot Afford to Pay Minimum Wage

Researchers – as a result of a few decades of observation – have identified only two truly justifiable conditions where a business cannot afford to pay a minimum wage to its employees, namely when:

• Either the firm doesn't have a sufficient customer base; or
• The firm is grossly mismanaged.

In any case, shouldn't such a firm consider the alternatives? Otherwise, case studies, without exception, indicate that paying a liveable wage has many widely ranging direct and indirect social-economic benefits, including greater profits.

Summary

In view of the facts that the present federal government has, up to now, used about 42% of its mandate, and in spite of its best efforts has not been able to make a significant dent in this country's outstanding critical socio-econo-fiscal and political problems – according to some critics – it would be advisable to consider taking the following actions:

• Implement a coalition system of governance in order to reach a minimum of 67% of the electoral representation and proportionately shared cabinet posts.
• Develop a socio-econo-fiscal program to:
• Implement an alternative economic model (as a cooperative, parallel system).
• Modernize the country's infrastructure.
• Reconstruct the country's economy by focusing on manufacturing and affordable housing construction.
• Finance the latter program through the Bank of Canada.

Food for Thought

• "It's no coincidence that the most successful western developed economies are the deepest in debt. Debt crises are built into our deeply flawed privatized monetary system." – states Robert McGarvey, economic historian and author of "Futuromics: A Guide to Thriving in Capitalism's Third Wave".
• "Populism is on the rise worldwide due to the failure of the globalist economic experiment. Wealth inequality is at an all-time high, unions have been destroyed and livable wages are extremely hard to find." – writes M.S., Moncton, NB, in MacLean's Magazine, May 2017.
• "Never underpay or overcharge and your business will thrive" – Saying
• "By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level – I mean the wages of decent living" – F.D. Roosevelt

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.

Austerity Vs. Deficit Spending

The 2015 Canadian federal election campaign had been fought aggressively by the country's political party leaders and their surrogates – as they tried to solicit votes from the 25,638,379 electoral base – pledging, as MPs, to become faithful representatives of their constituents. Eventually the campaign ended on October 19, with the Liberals having gained 184 seats, the Conservatives 99, the NDP 44, the Bloc Québecois 10 and the Green Party one seat; thereby filling the 338 seats of the House of Commons.

As to the issue of how these results were arrived at: 39.5% of votes produced 184 seats, 31.9% 99 seats, 19.7% 44 seats, 4.7% 10 seats and 3.4% of votes delivered only one seat respectively, with a 68.5% voter participation rate.

Of course, those who are trying to make sense of the aforementioned results, couldn't find any, aside from, "that's how the parliamentary seats have always been calculated, ever since 1867."

Apparently, that's good enough for many. And when asked how they feel about the calculus of the voting process, they just shrug and say that, "Well, it's not my role to judge."

Probably that's why the newly elected, reform-minded PM Justin Trudeau, during the election campaign, has promised to change the electoral system from the age-old first-past-the-post to something that is potentially more fair and realistic.

However, according to some of the editorial writers: "there is no evidence our voting system is broken." Moreover, the ranked ballot system is said to be favoured by the newly elected PM "because it ensures every vote counts."

One would think that by now all the excitement should have evaporated and the remaining members of the new Official Opposition would have accepted the "voter's verdict." But it ain't happening. Obviously, they cannot forgive or forget the loss of their prestigious, social-political power and status, cum opulent lifestyle – formerly reserved only for rulers – and promise that they regroup under a new leader and that they'll be back. And who can blame them for not giving up easily. After all, that's about the only office whose occupants, apart from "party-loyalty", don't require much credentials, if any – according to cynics.

Out with the Old, in with a New System of Governance – or Is It?

Now that this country's electorate, much to the surprise of many, has once again put an end to the previous regime's decade-long rule – noted for their austerity, budget/service/tax-cutting, deregulatory, devolutionist, ill-advised policies, combined with a stay-the-course, "damn the torpedoes" mentality – some believe that it is high time for the newly elected federal government leadership to consider establishing an "Economic Council" as described in the previous blog article titled "Quo Vadis Canada?" as a pre-election, 10 point "Public Wish List." Let alone of forming a Coalition Government as a declaration of inclusivity and power-sharing.

This government's potential legitimization of an Economic Council – due to its tripartite composition, namely corporations/business, government and labour/employees – would be an all inclusive, welcome and clear, albeit not the first historic manifestation of democratic governance in action. The lacking attribute in the current socio-econo-political system – in the view of many.

In this context, there are numerous areas wherein expertly counsel of such tripartite Economic Council would right now be a welcome relief to some cabinet ministers of this government, as they are confronted with many long-neglected/ignored, crucial and debilitating socio-econo-enviro-fiscal issues, namely:

1. Economic Stagnation – some say caused by politics of appeasement – evidenced by the  deindustrialized/asymmetrical/dysfunctional roller-coaster economy, relegated to:
• Offering to export unprocessed minerals, fossil fuels, lumber and agricultural/dairy products, hardly saleable even at break-even-point prices – due to a worldwide economic slump/overproduction; and
• Importing all consumer goods and manufactured products – and paying exploitively low prices in the process – from remotely located low-wage paying countries and thereby:
• Accumulating astronomical sums of profits/"dead money" as a result of the FTAs, with very little benefits, if any, to this country's economy, consumers and the public purse;
• Adding a huge magnitude of air/ocean/waterway/land pollution in the process of transportation, thereby further exacerbating the world's environmental problems;
• Undermining current/future generations' industrial/manufacturing faculties/culture; and
• Due to an unstable geopolitical situation, endangering the existence of this country.
2. Poverty, and near-poverty-line conditions, due to unduly low-wage-paying policies, sanctioned by the econo-political establishment. Antithetical to the principles of a "market driven economic system" whose lifeline is a country of wall-to-wall, cash/credit-worthy consumers.
3. Affordable housing shortage, created by inappropriate, or lack of, socio-econo-fiscal concerns, standards/policies/control, making home ownership a privilege in the process.Although an unfortunate phenomenon that, by the way – if the methodology were planned well – would lend itself to a huge opportunity to restart the economy and generate a series of activities in the process, as follows:
• In the R&D/design sector, the development of an efficient/affordable housing construction technology to suit the needs of moderate/low-income segments of society;
• In the housing construction and associated supply industries, it means new business/employment potential; and
• In the financial sector, facilitating home-ownership – through a government assisted mortgage program – the poverty rate would be significantly lowered, as people of moderate/low-income would be able to "build equity", instead of living in government subsidized rental housing compounds.
4. Unacceptable rate of under-employment/unemployment, an unnecessary and relatively easy to remedy phenomena, the upshot of econo-political oversight, lack of planning, and indifferent governmental policies – could be fixed on the basis of proffers, that have been shared with four subsequent provincial and federal governments.
5. Income tax cuts, favoured and frequently offered incentive, however often enough do not stimulate significant enough consumer spending, particularly among the majority of the public, namely the "low-income earning" masses, who pay very little or no taxes at all, to have any measurable dynamic effects on the economy.

What's with this Country? What's with its New Political Leadership?

Has anyone wondered about, why this country – populated with well-qualified human resources and endowed with a wide variety of natural resources – seems incapable to formulate and implement a comprehensive socio-econo-fiscal program for the benefit of all 36 million plus of its population? A program aimed at alleviating and ultimately resolving the aforementioned debilitating issues. Critics claim even the new leadership is frightened of "deficit spending".

Fearful of Deficit Spending? Well, Fear No More!

In the opinions of notable academics and others in the know: governments as a "sector" – just like business as a sector – contrary to some highly propagandized myth, can borrow as long as the spending produces a significant volume of reasonably well-paid employment opportunities, growth in productive public assets, GDP and corresponding tax revenue. Due to its built-in "multiplier" effects, the process enables governments to repay their debts related to deficit spending through the method of fair and progressive taxation. One might add that without the latter defined ways and means the business sector would have been greatly limited, and even stopped in its pattern of growth.

Austerity too has an innate multiplier effect, though a negative one; resulting in a downward spiral – according to the same academic sources.

Admittedly, there are others – such as financial organizations – who object to deficit spending. Their somewhat legitimate concern is that international credit rating agencies may downgrade the country's/provinces'/municipalities' credit worthiness as a result of excessive, non-productive deficit spending.

Therein lies the imperative for having a tripartite representation – business/employer, government, labour/employees – in the course of securing an all-inclusive decision-making process, whereby all sectors of society are equitably represented and eventually make the right call, based on serving the interests of the public vs. trying to avoid at all costs getting downgraded from an AAA to an AA status.

What's Holding Back This Country?

Apparently, in the views of some insiders, it's this country's rigid 21st century socio-econo-fiscal and political structure, and its medieval protocol that is holding back this country from effectively functioning for the benefit of all its citizenry.

A Protocol of "Welcome" for Business Lobbyists; and a "Keep-Out" for Veteran Problem-Solvers!

In spite of their lack of success to deal with the aforementioned problems, elements of the econo-political leadership are unwilling to take the time to listen to the veritable proposals/solutions produced by veteran problem-solvers. In fact, the latter group have been not only ignored, but discredited by the gatekeepers of the system. At the same time, business lobbyists are having a field day as they loudly walk freely in and out of the cabinet ministerial offices and virtually dictate/write government policies.

As a result, many tens of billions of dollars value of innovative ideas, systems and business opportunities never see the light of day each year. These have the innate capacity to re-energize the economy, improve the lives of millions and even balance the budget.

Memorandum

In case this new federal government and others – the media included – find themselves shorthanded and at one point decide on espousing an "open door protocol" toward a few living veteran socio-econo-fiscal problem solvers, their message is loud and clear:

All five of this country's aforementioned major problems can be resolved, and they are ready to oblige.

Food for Thought

• There are some in the hierarchy who cautioned that the best thing to do about the faltering economy – incredibly – is to wait and "let the system repair itself."
• Apparently, abolishing slavery in some countries was initiated by the realization that there were not enough "independent consumers". Something the establishment might consider reflecting upon.
• Very often politicians are misled by lobbyists and "professional naysayers" who make bogus claims, e.g. that raising the "minimum wage", or "paying living wage", etc. would result in business closures and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Or, "deficit spending" leads to econo-fiscal fiasco. There should be a sign on every cabinet minister's desk: "Only scientifically/mathematically verified claims will be considered for discussion."
• Homelessness is a difficult problem to solve, according to many. Not according to the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. They decided to train and employ the homeless at the Public Works Department. Now the once homeless are off the streets, off the welfare role, work for a liveable wage, receive benefits, and live independently. City mayors take note!
• Some suggest that governments should farm out certain public service operations to private enterprise. They claim that it would cost less for the taxpayers. Others say, that when counting all factors, the markup included in the overall amount – not including the social costs – may prove to be more expensive.
• Interesting random questions from Main Street:
• If Waterloo region is the cleverest community of all – as it has been declared a few years ago – why have this country's most crucial socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems not yet already been resolved?
• Knowing that the municipal water supply is typically contaminated with chemicals, pathogens and poisonous substances, why are scientists, engineers and technologists not developing and manufacturing purification systems, to be applied at the waterworks and/or at the point of use?
• When is the establishment going to realize that Canada – all considering – should have a fully diversified economy, applying all the country's wide range of human and natural resources for the benefit of all?
• What is the purpose of driving labour wages down and thereby undercutting the purchasing power of the consumer society?
• Corporations complain that they cannot pay decent wages any longer and provide benefits to their employees. How come, just in Canada alone, they have accumulated over $600 billion of profit in just a few years?
• As corporations continue to outsource production to low-wage countries, leaving behind a massive unemployment in this country, where are they going to sell their products?
• Do governments have the right to ignore/reject veritable/realistic/affordable solutions to major socio-econo-fiscal problems, offered by outsiders "in the know"? And, does the public have a legal recourse? Some say that the realization of the "pecking order" provides them immunity.

Must Reads for Every Socio-Econo-Fiscal and Political Officeholder

• "The Only Game in Town", Central Banks, Instability and Avoiding the Next Collapse, by Dr. Mohamed A. El-Erian – former Deputy Director at IMF, and CEO of the Harvard Management Company – "explains how and why (the US) central banks became the critical policy actors, and why they cannot continue in this role alone."
• "The Economic Problem", "Understanding Microeconomics", and "Understanding Macroeconomics", by Dr. Robert L. Heilbroner, Professor of Economics.

Quo Vadis Canada?

It's federal election time again, and in just a short time, the electorate – amongst them over 1.3 million are still unemployed, and probably just as many working in low-paid temp jobs without benefits – is eager to figure out as to, whether or not:

• Canada is technically once more in a recession? Or, has it ever come out of the previous one, since 2008?
• The incumbent government – with its fixation on "austerity", "balancing the budget", keeping "corporate taxes low", promising to "reduce small business tax by 2% to induce jobs creation", urging the workforce to "become competitive" vis-a-vis low-wage-paying countries, "stay the course" policies, and outright refusal to participate in a "coalition government" – deserves to be reelected?
• Any of the opposition party leaders – while viciously fighting each other in public, showing less and less disagreements with the incumbent government's econo-fiscal/monetary policies, and seemingly are not capable of presenting a salient, timely economic renewal program – is really ready to become the next Prime Minister? All considering, the question should be perhaps: Whether or not, it would make any difference, which party forms the next government?

Then those who rely on the media for enlightenment, might be very disappointed because, for some reason(s), there are no substantive issues/questions raised, as to the real "state of things", such as:

• Do governments and ordinary citizens have an expenditure/spending, or revenue/income problem?
• BTOs – big-time operators – claim, but can't prove that the problem is an expenditure/spending one, and to address the same they demand that:
• Governments, at all levels, purge their expenditures, implement more strict austerity programs, and repay their debts;
• Ordinary citizens must learn to live within their means, become self-reliant, no matter what, because an insolvency on a massive scale could further jeopardize the country's delicate econo-fiscal standing.
• Others "in-the-know" argue though that, it's not an expenditure/spending but a revenue/income problem. And in evidence they refer to the province's/country's:
• Massive Social Burdens – caused by severe shortage of jobs –  manifested by the subsequent, ever-growing and urgent demands for longer El terms, and for adequate Welfare Benefits;
• Unfair Income Distribution System, especially in view of the facts that:
• Nearly 50% of Taxpayers receive less than $40,000 gross annual income, that leaves very limited purchasing/taxpaying power in the hands of the latter category of this country's consumers;
• Corporations though, in spite of the long recession – according to media reports – have managed to stockpile over $620 billion "dead money", and invested "trillions of dollars in the stock market" since 2008, instead of this country's economy;
• Corporate executives have been for quite some time accorded astronomical remuneration and stock-options, even as their respective companies drowned in red ink;
• Corporate and Personal Income Tax
• Reduction Program for the well-to-do;
• Collection Method has been cited as failing to collect more than $24 billion in unpaid taxes.
• Are former Bank Executives, and their genre, the best qualified advisory source, when governments are in need of comprehensive solutions for this provinces'/country's age-old socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems?
• "Well-meaning" citizens may side with the notion that, after all bankers, due to their close connections to the rest of the powerful elite – are perhaps best suited for the task;
• Critics however intensely disagree with the former view, and are very much concerned, about these executives':
• Intrinsic allegiance to corporations/stockholders/investors;
• Spiteful demeanour toward employees/labour; and 
• Readiness to sacrifice the public interest.
• Do Employees/Labour – the single largest unrepresented segment of society – along with members of the opposition parties, and citizens "in-the-know" have the right to be part of the econo-political decision-making process, as co-equals?
• In Canada, they don't. The entire econo-political ruling class prefers to keep at a distance from their employees/labour/citizens, members of the opposition and particularly the citizens "in-the know". That is to say that:
• Employees/Labour – true to "19" century conventions" – should have no say in running a company. Even though, that technically, they are the ones, who do the actual work, based on target figures, issued by company executives. Figures, that are translated and developed into plans and worked out in details, by employees.
• Opposition party members – albeit, frequently representing the majority of the electorate – are treated by the governing party as losers, nobodies and as such are excluded from the decision-making process; 
• Citizens "in-the-know" – the "one in a million" types – are prevented by the multilevel "gatekeepers" of the establishment, from offering realistic/veritable solutions/models for many of this province's/country's long-neglected socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems. Corporate lobbyists in contrast have a free access/pass to the system.
• In Europe and in a few other places, it's an entirely different story. There, the respective countries' constitution guarantees co-equal participation rights, both in the economic and political system, namely:
• Employees/Labour are represented by their own elected union members to the companies' board of directors. And as board of directors are part of the decision-making process, as co-equals cum veto-power;
• Opposition parties – according to truly "democratic principles" – are even part of the coalition government, and as cabinet ministers are also participants of the econo-enviro-fiscal and political policy-making procedure;
• Ordinary citizens even have their say via referenda. Thereby, they too can directly influence the policy-making process. As a result, citizens of the aforementioned group of countries enjoy a comparatively high standard of living.

In contrast, in Canada – supposedly the best country in the world – a large segment of the public is struggling, just to barely survive, and wondering, where is this country heading? 

But, at the same time, hoping that the age-old mentality – adopted by a self-appointed elite – may be characterized by a Roman mawkish maxim of "Odi profanum est vulgus", in the near future will be replaced by a law of "No one shall be left behind."

In this context, considering this province's/country's undeserved, ill-fated state of affairs, one would expect that, – in order to put substance into this latest chapter of the federal election campaign, some might say, political gamesmanship – at least one notable, "Independent Thinker" would publicly call on all "prime ministerial candidates" to pay attention to the following pro forma, "Public Wish List" or a facsimile, and urge them, if elected to pledge to:

1. Form a Coalition Government, to represent at the minimum 67% of the electorate. After all, shouldn't in fact a truly democratic government serve the interests of the vast majority of its citizenry?
2. Establish an Economic Counsel, in the image of the Supreme Court, with:
• The Authority to Transform the country's inefficient, disaster-prone, and import-based "free-market economy" – that leaves behind a large segments of society – to a stable, "Social Market Economy" that benefits the entire Canadian public;
• The Responsibility to counsel/guide/oversee the latter described economy. This 9-member Counsel should be assembled of:
• Three Members representing Corporations/Business/Employers; 
• Three Members representing Government; and
• Three Members representing Employees/Labour cum veto-power – just as in some democratically well-advanced countries permitted so. 
3. Replace the Competition-based Management Model with a Cooperation-based Model. After all competition has a built-in unpredictability factor with a potential for creating havoc and ill-fated international consequences. However, a cooperative model is verifiably the most efficient, stable, even lucrative and all-around win-win choice. 
4. Build an Exploitation-free Continental Economy geared to serve the North American Marketplace and all of its Consumers equitably. An all-inclusive and self-sufficient economy that is capable of:
• Producing long-lasting and reasonable quality of products, as opposed to the current import-based economy that dumps inferior merchandise, that in turn becomes throwaways – just few weeks after its one year warranty expired – and eventually ends up as overburden to the already unmanageable mountains of trash in every community and beyond;
• Providing steady jobs, paying livable wages/salaries, sufficient tax-base and there-from adequate social/welfare and retirement benefits for all. 
5. Accede to the Ford Principle. A proven theory that is based on Henry Ford's discovery, i.e. every employee has two parallel functions in life, in any type of socio-econo-political order:
• One is that, he/she is a worker; and
• The other is, that he/she is also a consumer.
  Translation: A low-wage earning employee is inevitably relegated to a consumer of very limited buying/taxpaying power, which is the veritable cause of this country's and many others' econo-fiscal failures. And to test his theory, the automaker in 1914 raised his workers' wage from $1-a-day to $5-a-day. As a result, Ford Motors' ordinary employees just within a year were able to "own" a $650 car and within few years also became "home owners". A status that is institutionally denied, these days to millions of low-income families in Canada, by irrationally keeping wages low, and thereby artificially reducing the market by half.
6. Invite Inventive Elements of Society, capable of developing new approaches/solutions for this country's most neglected, unnecessary, damaging and costly socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems.
   It must be noted though that the Canadian establishment, at least for over the past six decades hasn't been exactly sympathetic, let alone altruistic to independent innovators/ inventors – in terms of at the minimum giving an audition, and/or willing to provide technical, fiscal and marketing assistance – who have the innate capacity to develop highly valuable products and tangible proposals, according to innumerable accounts.
   In contrast, multi-billion dollar corporations have been unnecessarily showered with multi-million dollar grants and benefits by all levels of government with very little, if any to show for in return.
   It is estimated that once, the econo-fiscal-political establishment recognizes the immense value of this ignored human resource and decides to tap into the same, via a proper forum and methodology, the ensuing policy could generate hundreds of billions of dollars per year worth of activities and hundreds of thousands of jobs across the land. Not to speak of the consequential government revenue potential.
7. Reduce the Daily/Weekly/Yearly Working Hours, to provide full-time employment, without any loss of income, potentially for everyone and, thereby resolve the entire country's crucial unemployment problem – as it had been repeatedly and verifiably suggested –  but might have been rejected by overly-cautious policy advisors on the ground that it would increase the much dreaded "pay-roll tax". A totally baseless assertion that could easily be neutralized by proportionately adjusting the latter form of tax rate that, at one point, in the future may even be rendered an unnecessary source of government revenue. 
8. Remind Corporations that by continuing to outsource jobs, suppress wages, eliminate benefits and generate huge profit margins in the process:
• For demographic reasons, (i.e. the rapidly shrinking purchasing power), in the foreseeable future could lead to implosion of the entire "free-market and private enterprise system" – according to lengthy research, validated by in-depth analyses, and supported by academics; 
• Could provoke a backlash, in the form of a surge of Cooperative Enterprise System, wherein "society owns and operates" a chain of vital production/distribution sectors, and thereby creating an equitable and harmonized economy. 
9. Call an International Economic Conference – with the participation of representatives of corporations/business/employers, government, labour/employees – for discussing and resolving the current crisis, for as the present format of worldwide, and integrated economic system, that is according to many observers, sustained by low-wage earning labour, does not prove to work efficiently and equitably.
   Basically, because on both ends of the economic spectrum has been disproportionately benefiting the operators of the system. And without intervention, the situation could lead to economic feudalism, creating uncontrollable socio-econo-fiscal and political tensions, the world around, with unpredictable consequences.
10. Urge this Country's:
• Political Party Leaders and their advisory staff to take note of, and eventually espouse the following scholarly works:
• "The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them" – by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz
• "The Economic Problem" – by Professor Dr. Robert L. Heilbroner.
• "The Entrepreneurial State" – by Economist Mariana Mazzacuto
• Media to lift the over a decade old prohibition on accepting op-ed page articles, written by independent/non-ideological serious thinkers and problem-solvers. In doing so, the public would once again learn the verifiable truth about the unbiased version of the "state of things", such as whether or not:
• Austerity programs, balancing budgets, keeping corporate taxes low, or even eliminating taxes altogether, enticing and showering corporations with all sorts of privileges/benefits, grants to create a "business-friendly environment" are justifiable policies just to retain the status quo, in this country?
  Or, as more and more suggest: It is only to gain corporate endorsement?
• Governments have any authority to prevent corporations from:
• Exporting manufacturing jobs to foreign countries and selling those products back to this country's consumers?
  And if governments don't have the authority, why don't they apply tariffs, payable by those "cut and run" manufacturers?
• Price gouging, especially in the area of lifesaving medicines?
• Ignoring the minimum wage law and pay $75-a-week salary to interns?
• Maintaining the 400:1 income Scale is really essential for preventing the 'defection' of top corporate executives to the competition?
  And, what if they defect?
  Or is it just to sanction the "nouveau riche" to an aristocratic status?
• Reducing Wages and eliminating social benefits, to make the Canadian workforce competitive worldwide is realistic, let alone feasible? And to what end?
• Raising the minimum wage to a range of $14 - $15 per hour is unaffordable, and would lead to huge job losses?
  Why opponents of raising the minimum wage are not required to mathematically verify their claims?
• FTAs are essential/realistic elements to the Canadian economy?
  Has anyone ever come up with a demonstrable, proven theory and a costs/benefits analyses to justify such tenet?
  Or was the image of the extractable astronomical profit margin convincing enough to approve such venture, regardless of the damage to the public interests?

Summary

All considering, it becomes evident that if the gist of the latter "Public Wish List" – a composite of many cogent/edited/formatted personal views – were implemented by the next coalition government, Canada could be reformed and become a truly democratic, effective, stable, prosperous equitable country, the envy of the world.

Misconstrued Problems Beget Misconstrued Solutions

One would expect that – after about seven years of experimentation with its Quantitative Easing/Austerity Programs, Budgetary/Staff Cuts, Spend/Save Directives, Corporate/Personal Tax Lowering, Deregulatory, Fiscal/Monetary Policies, and Warnings of "Don't Spend Beyond Your Means" – the policy and decision-makers would by now have learned what it takes to put in place an all-inclusive, efficient and thriving economy coast-to-coast; the envy of the world. Yet, the province and country still have not even fully recuperated from the ills of the 2007/2008 recession, and the system very much appears to be in a holding pattern.

Some critics suggest that the authorities are making flimsy excuses – faulting the lack of domestic, consumer/entrepreneurial confidence, strong/falling dollar, high labour costs, global socio-econo-fiscal and political uncertainty, collapsing oil prices, and claims that the entire world is in decline – for their failure to deliver the goods.

Others lay the blame on the prevailing adversarial, roundabout style, exclusionary, unwilling to listen, ideologically divisive and polarizing system of governance, where time and time again, policies cancel out long and hard fought social-economic progress.

The usually cautious, silent media outlets have recently begun paying attention to the plight of the economy and are ready to admit that the "economy is shaky and the future is uncertain". But, in an era of "the culture of fear", even the most daring analysts and journalists are reluctant, or perhaps unable, to spell out the deep-rooted causes of the problem, let alone to offer solutions.

In contrast, several veteran and non-dogmatic problem solvers have been quietly focusing on:

• finding the real reasons for this province's/country's "lack of success" in resolving its economic problems – on the one hand; and
• developing more veritable and realistic solutions for these issues, while frantically seeking out "legitimate ways" of presenting them directly to the decision-makers – on the other hand.

The results of their findings may be summarized as follows:

Misconstrued problems always beget misconstrued solutions.

The Misconstrued Problem: The Canadian market has been traditionally regarded by the policy and decision-makers as being too small for the country's population of approximately 35 million people.

The Misconstrued Solution: The country should become an exporter and take a hint from the frequently flaunted TV ad, "Others have no problem selling to you, why can't you sell to them?"

Reasons for Failing to Resolve the Economic Problem

In-depth analyses of the economic problem in Canada, conducted by a team of largely foreign educated and experienced researchers and problem solvers, has long ago identified the major causative elements, symptoms, facts, convictions and policies related to the point at issue, that is:

• Free-market theoreticians and economists, with just a few exceptions, have not been paying close enough attention to important issues pertaining to the subject of microeconomics – a branch of economics that monitors the data related to commodities and the actions/reactions of companies and consumers.
  While a few of them might have paid attention, however using average "Income Statistics", the  devastating effects of the low income earners' lack of purchasing power on the economy could have not been noticed. Only by resorting to, and analyzing the Income Class Statistics data, the crux of this province's/country's socio-econo-fiscal problems could be realized and resolved.
  (Then again, there is a strict protocol that these professionals have to also consider! Yes?)
  Otherwise, the vast majority of economists' real concern is rooted in macroeconomics, which in essence deals with the GDP, export and import, spending and savings, and investment related factors.
• The Regime has abandoned its leadership and control role, and instead has adopted an accommodating function. As such, it has become an enabler – some would say servant – to the Entrepreneurial Class, allowing the latter to run the free market economy at its whim.
• The Canadian Market can only be considered small because about 50% of the "active workforce" receives less than $40,000 real annual gross income. Such a meager income does not provide sufficient purchasing power to enter the marketplace, not even as an extremely frugal consumer – at least not without several already overloaded credit cards.
• The effects of this "bread-and-butter" reality are being played out, right now, at the marketplace as over 130 major department stores, along with many other corporate entities, are in the process of "throwing in the towel". Their collective exit further exacerbates the government revenue shortage and the under-employment/unemployment crises.
• This province and country simply does not have what it takes to become a successful and highly competitive exporter. It lacks all the essentials: an effective innovative culture; the capacity to develop and produce unique products in demand; a proficient, dedicated and focused management; an appropriate techno-structure; and plenty of venture capital.
• Exporting crude oil, LNG, unprocessed minerals, forestry, and IT products and services for socio-econo-fiscal and technological reasons is clearly impractical and untenable, due to international insecurity and world market conditions, let alone the collapse of the oil price.
• The Importer sector (a.k.a. "Market Society") – having hit the jackpot by hooking up with a host of very low wage paying countries in order to improve its bottom line, in the course of providing this country with consumer goods, products and supplies – cannot be expected to voluntarily abandon its "lucky strike". Especially, since due to the huge wage/profit margin differentials, having gained over 600 billion in "dead money" throughout the past six years alone, clearly no amount of executive and corporate income tax reduction and/or incentives would be attractive enough for the sector to voluntarily reverse the deindustrialization and outsourcing process, and to rebuild an all-inclusive economy in Ontario and Canada that benefits all.
• The Small Business sector – showcased by politicians as the country's "job-creator" – has been given such a title that it cannot afford. While Big-Business, due to the benefits of the "economies of large-scale production/merchandising" is capable of making billions of dollars yearly, the small business sector, in contrast, due to its low volume of inventory turnaround, extreme competition and low profit-margin, cannot pay livable wages, provide benefits and live up to such image. Hence the reliance on the small business sector is hopelessly false; at least without being aided by "big-business" – presently an unlikely possibility. But it doesn't necessarily mean that such problem has no remedy.
• The over 50 FTAs (Free Trade Agreements) in place, have not provided the much propagated benefits to the hundreds of thousands of under-employed and unemployed masses. Let alone to the vast number of the "over 50" crowd that the current culture considers unemployable. In fact, a few of these FTAs are clearly undercutting local efforts to offer direct, bilateral deals to foreign manufacturers that might be inclined to set up plants in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada right now, in order to gain easier access to the North American market.
• The prevailing system of governance – in the view of many – cannot be seriously considered democratic just because it allows "free elections", unless it is validated by two thirds of the entire electorate and allows input from all segments of society.
• The political establishment – with a lengthy history of unwillingness and inability to proficiently deal with major problems of public concern – throughout the decades has become more and more reluctant to meet with, listen to and/or accept validated policy proposals from independent researchers and problem solvers. Thus providing – one might suggest – a ground for tort.
• Public opinion, conducted by pollsters and reported by the mainstream media, creates an impression that many buy into the notion that the economy is too complex of an issue, and as such, had better be left to the "entrepreneurial class" to deal with, and damn those who can prove it otherwise. Hence, there's nothing to worry about despite the under-employment/unemployment, affordable housing shortage and the poverty crises; people just have to get used to tightening their belts more and more; never mind the needless suffering.

Changes Required to Resolve All Ontario's/Canada's Major Problems

Having listed above some of the reasons for failing to resolve the economic problem, the next step is to define the changes required to enable Ontario and Canada to resolve its major problems.

1. Considering the fact that the electorate is greatly divided, and that the prevailing system of governance is antagonistically ideologically based, and that:
• just about every decade, governments trade places, drawing questionable plurality from one end of the political spectrum to the other in the process. Nevertheless, neither of the choices seem to eventually represent the interests of all segments of society; a critical distinction that sets apart a democratic system from a totalitarian one; and that
• the opposition parties' MPPs and MPs are treated as "nobodies" by the governing party. As such, they have practically no power to influence the decision-making process, even though the opposition parties collectively represent the majority of the electorate (Therefore – one might argue – they may as well be dismissed).
2. The latter innate disparity within the system should be corrected by replacing the current, basically "single-party" model with a "coalition" system of government, in case election results don't produce a two thirds majority for any of the political parties.
   (Note well: the Legislative Assembly/Parliament should have a different set of rules of behaviour from those of a battleground.)
3. In view of the dire state and perspective of the economy, and the fact that the system is essentially in a six year plus "holding pattern", one would hope and expect that the Premier of Ontario, as the CEO of the largest province in Canada, would:
• On the home front:
• Call a conference – under the auspices of OES (Ontario Economic Summit) – and invite prominent business and labour leaders and policy advisors for a trilateral conference, as equal partners, to present and discuss their all-inclusive/self-reliant and secure plans/models for resolving Ontario's long neglected, structural economic problems. After all – contrary to some odd beliefs – the truth is that the prerequisite of a prosperous entrepreneurial activity is a product of proficient management and workforce, both working together in harmony for the benefit of all involved elements.
• Issue a directive to Cabinet Ministers and policy advisors to lift the unprecedented embargo in place against the few highly skilled, independent and experienced socio-economic problem solvers, who are best qualified to present veritable solutions and models for many of Ontario's aforementioned long unresolved problems.
• On the international front, in partnership with the Premier of Québec and other concerned, like-minded civic leaders would:
• contact the leadership of OECD and the IMF and urge them to call an international conference – with Business, Government, and Labour leaders' participation – aimed at discussing and ultimately formulating an all-inclusive "fair and efficient" global economic system, hemisphere by hemisphere, continents by continent, country by country.
  A system that allows all countries to formulate their own, "exploitation free" economic model, according to their needs. In this context, countries should have the freedom of choosing between either a system based on self-supporting principles, or join with several like-minded neighbouring countries, thereby leveraging their efforts and maximizing the results of their cooperative work for the benefits of all their citizenry.
• Initiate discrete conversations with a number of billionaires and remind this ever-growing group that there is a veritable, direct and causative correlation between their unprecedented success and the failure of the econo-political system, in trying to satisfy the needs of the public, and in maintaining or modernizing the infrastructure, both locally and country-wide.
  This systemic failure is rooted in the age-old income distribution formula, whereby about 50% of the active workforce have been, for decades, receiving less than $40,000 real gross annual income. That in turn has created serious reductions in consumption, employment and in government revenue; let alone the considerable increase in the need for social services and benefits.
  However, by increasing the participation or contribution rate of the wealthy in the econo-fiscal productive process, the benefits of the "multiplier/accelerator" effects on the economy would provide a sizable revenue in return, along with a countrywide and a worldwide socio-econo-fiscal stability.

Comprehensive Solution

In order to bring about a comprehensive solution for the problematic economy, a multifaceted "trilateral plan of action" that is cooperatively formulated by government, business and labour is urgently needed, whereby all aspects of the underlying causalities of the calamity should be directly addressed. Hence, by correcting the unjust income and wage scale; poverty, the affordable housing shortage, and the under employment/unemployment crises would also be automatically eliminated. Beyond that, a sufficient amount of tax revenue would be generated and could pay for the reconstruction and modernization of the crumbling infrastructure of this country.

So, why is the system in a holding pattern? Whose assent is required to put the stamp on these highly realistic and even profitable solutions for the socio-econo-enviro-fiscal problems of this province and country? – One might ask.

Summary

Since, throughout the past decade, it has become more and more evident that the governing system has been lacking either the will and/or the capacity to deal with Ontario's and Canada's structural socio-econo-enviro-fiscal and political problems, in the preceding paragraphs it was necessary to remind the decision-makers of the facts that, within this province and country there is a largely ignored/blocked pool of talents in the form of veteran, foreign educated, socio-econo-fiscal researchers and problem solvers who have the capacity to provide veritable solutions.

In the words of a handful of government officials and experts, these "one in a million" problem solvers are entitled to be listened to if the country as a whole wants to survive.

Food for Thought

• "When Aristotle (the Athenian philosopher, in the fourth century BC) examined the economic process, he differentiated between "economics" and economic activity that had as its motive and end not use, but profit" – The Economic Problem by Dr. Robert L Heilbroner, Professor of Economics.
• "The G20, following the lead of OECD, has now accepted that income inequality impedes growth" – Columnist Thomas Walkom, February 11, 2015.
• "There is a growing recognition across the political spectrum, including among some business owners, that the current minimum wage is too low and that higher pay may speed up economic growth." – Editorial, The L. A. Times.
• "Watch what you say in your living room. Samsung's Smart TV could be listening. The potential for TVs to eavesdrop is revealed in Samsung's privacy policy available on its website." – The Associated Press, February 11, 2015.
• "We are tired of hearing people tell us that you have a say, when in fact we do not. We have been silenced, ignored or kept in dark throughout every step of this process." – Connor Young, 4th year student, Wilfrid Laurier University, February 26, 2015.
• "I believe our institution is in trouble. We are being taken into a new Dark Ages." – Associate Prof. Gary Potter, WL University, February 26, 2015.
• List of Socio-Econo-Fiscal Articles – The Buerger Alliance

Election: A Democratic Right or an Exercise in Futility?

Once again it's election time in Ontario and the electorate is called to exercise its democratic right to vote. Many take the call very seriously, and will vote according to their socio-econo-political interests. However, the disenfranchised, apathetic masses, convinced that their vote is not going to make a difference, will most likely just stay away from the polls. Cynics, in the meantime, will be pondering as to what else is there to democracy?

Yet a few others, the independent thinkers of society, are becoming increasingly concerned about the ongoing trend of socio-econo-fiscal degradation that is deeply affecting the middle class, (a.k.a. working class) and they are searching for its causes. In doing so, they wonder if the causes are systemic and note that:

• While there are rigorous prerequisites for getting and keeping a blue-collar, or a white-collar job, there are practically no requirements for becoming an MPP candidate, beyond the point of unquestionable loyalty to the party. Once elected into the Legislative Assembly, some of the MPPs of the winning party will be appointed to one or more Cabinet posts during their tenure to manage the affairs of millions. Although these decision-makers are assisted by armies of specialists, they frequently appear to produce amateurish, or outright reckless, and crippling results.
• This previously described model of governance, hallmarked by some of its MPP's background deficiencies, further complicates the situation for at least five reasons:
• One is that, in theory, responsibility as a managerial function is non-transferable. That is to say that, lack of proficiency should not excuse offhand, let alone irrational decisions. In this context one can cite the following typical examples:
• While the Ontario Government has recently offered a corporation a six-digit figure bonus for every job it is willing to create -- to the tune of $120 million -- it had ignored various, validated, potentially election-winning proposals, that could have alleviated even the entire country's socio-econo-fiscal problems.
• Cases, when major "bread-and-butter" issues, such as the latest rate of "minimum wage" were hastily decided on, at seemingly staged, election-campaign style, back-alley gatherings by a few misinformed individuals, and/or lobbyists, without presenting a single piece of evidence to support their claim.
• Two is that, once a political party is in power, the system is legally enabled to table and mete out punitive laws and measures against the interests of even the plurality of society, such as the working class, or any other group for that matter.
• Three is that, besides not knowing how to resolve major socio-econo-fiscal problems, blatantly ignoring the warning notes of those who are veritably in the know, is an entirely different and inexcusable matter. History books refer to such acts as political gamesmanship, with potentially scandalous and catastrophic consequences.
• Four is that, while the present protocol allows direct access for lobbyists to Cabinet members, these same rules block independent researchers and validated problem solvers from even contacting backbenchers. Some might also say that this raises the issues of how this 21st century representative democracy really does work? And if it does, for whom?
• Five is that, being concerned about Ontario's Public Debt/GDP ratio, (presently at 40%) is understandable. Especially if one assumes, that "personal debts" and "public debts" are all the same. But, they are not! Personal debt sooner or later must be settled. In contrast, public (government) debt, just like business debt, due to a unique "multiplier effect", generates revenue. This revenue, in turn enables business and government debtors to repay their debts. By the way, almost all business and government debts are settled by using this age-old principle. Other methods, such as the lately applied austerity programs always lead to prolonged, serious socio-econo-fiscal and political breakdowns, from which the recovery can be very long and very messy.
• Since this election may result in a nearly equal, three-way split of votes, the prospects of replacing the current one party-based system of governance with an all-inclusive multiparty coalition government model, looks very promising – with many precedents around the world.

One might further infer that a three party (or four party) coalition government would actually unite a public -- that is divided along a deep socio-econo-fiscal fault line -- hoping that politicians are finally making serious efforts towards resolving this province's problems equitably.

Subsequently, once an ensuing debate has settled, – over the myths about, "what does it take", "who is able", and/or "who deserves to be enabled, and at what cost" to create a healthy, resilient economy that would offer work and decent income for all – a thorough planning process should begin. This process should have the participation of qualified business and Labour representatives as equal partners, guided by a host of experienced, independent, interdisciplinary problem solvers in the know.

At the same time, the "new regime" should also reconsider several billion dollars in value of recommendations – presumably stored in the vault of two former Premier's Office, that includes a validated and potentially election-winning "Proposal for Full Employment Without Any Loss of Income" and several others.

After all, is it not time to shelve the current socio-econo-political dogma, manifested by, "winner takes all", "perish the loser", "nomadic", "cut and slash", "do away with minimum wage", etc. etc. MOs and related "austerity" policies that are not working for anyone, especially in the long run.

In fact, this social experiment, if successful, may be offered as a model for many other countries whose citizenry are struggling to devise a winning formula for "participatory" democracy.

Recommended Reading:

• The Economic Problem: Personal Debts and Public Debts (page 301) by Dr. R. Heilbroner, Professor of Economics; Prentice-Hall of Canada Ltd.
• Public Notice: The Economy is Not A "Zero-Sum Game"
• Raising the Minimum Wage: A Definite Win-Win

Food for Thought:

• "Europe's 'austerians' need a lesson in macroeconomics", by Christopher Ragan, Professor of Economics at McGill University -- The Globe and Mail, July 17, 2013
• "Canada finished the Second World War with public debt, equal to over 150% GDP", by Dr. Jim Stanford, Economist -- The Globe and Mail, October 16, 2013
• "In this country the vote is not the bottom line; bottom line is" -- by R. M. Gross
• "Money buys access; access buys influence" -- Elizabeth Drew, Talk Show Host