Green New Deal for GPC or NDP?
The Green New Deal, published on the New Economics Foundation site, is a good example of the sorts of policies I'd like to see the GPC champion. Perhaps these policies are more suited to the New Democratic Party, though I hope most Greens would support them. In my opinion, the GPC could be more transparent about whether it is a left or right-wing party, so that the electorate can understand what you are asking them to vote for.
Here's an excerpt from the website:
The Green New Deal is a response to the credit crunch and wider energy and food crises, and to the lack of comprehensive, joined-up action from politicians. It calls for:
Massive investment in renewable energy and wider environmental transformation in the UK, leading to, The creation of thousands of new green collar jobs
Reining in reckless aspects of the finance sector – but making low-cost capital available to fund the UK’s green economic shift
Building a new alliance between environmentalists, industry, agriculture, and unions to put the interests of the real economy ahead of those of footloose finance.
- Michael Vaillancourt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- Frances Thauberger |
- Paul Maillet |
- Steve May |
- 1 of 2222
- ››
Comments
We aren't left or right
The media paints us a left wing but those who know our platform know that we are not left or right. We are sociall progressive while at the same time being fiscally responsible, just like most Canadians.
I know so many Canadians who vote conservative because they are fiscally responsible and are not completely satisfied with their vote since they aren't social conservatives. The flip side of this is that there are many NDP voters who are fiscally responsible.
There is a huge chunk of voters who belive that our government should be fiscally responsible and socially progressive. I would say a solid majority of voters want a government that is fiscally responsible and socially progressive.
We are that party, we would form that government and that's the message we need to get out.
Socially progressive and fiscally conservative?
I've heard that characterization many times, but the devil is in the details I'm afraid. For example, how aggressively would the GPC tackle inequality (if at all?) compared to the NDP or Liberals? Would we raise taxes significantly on the higher income brackets to reduce inequality? Do we support neoliberal economic policies or do we support more regulation and control over global finance and the economy? What is our position on monetary or land reform (we don't have one... why?)? What is our foreign policy toward the increase in socialism / anti-capitalism in the global south? Are we supporting the people of Honduras or the people behind the coup? The answers to specifics like these would help me determine where the GPC fits on the political spectrum.
Easy to be both socially progressive and fiscally conservative
We just have to have policies that adjust our tax system in a way that encourages both situations. And guess what? That is exactly what we (the Green Party) have (and what drew me here).
Basics like taxing pollution (via carbon taxes for example) while cutting payroll and income taxes. Payroll taxes (EI, CPP, etc.) hit the poorest the hardest by a landslide - it discourages employeers from bringing in new employees (except on contract) due to the added cost beyond salary, plus it reaches its maximum charge for employees making just $40k a year (roughly). Thus someone making $250k pays the same tax as someone making $40k a year - thus it is a head tax if you are at double minimum wage or greater. It is far, far worse than sales taxes as it also is not charged to those on contract thus those making the greatest dollar amounts avoid it quite easily. Yes, they cannot claim EI or CPP, but if you are making $250k a year those are not too useful for you either. The idea of replacing EI/CPP/etc. (not sure if CPP is listed as 'to be replaced' in the offical paperwork but imo it should be) with a guaranteed annual income removes layers of waste in government as well as making it more equal for all while opening up the ability to remove those regressive payroll taxes.
This is something all people, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, should support. Conservatives should love the idea of lower taxes and reduced waste in government. NDP supporters should love the idea that we no longer need welfare/EI/CPP/etc. to support those who are in need, plus the encouragement to employers to hire more people full time instead of contract (thus more stability for the lower income person). Liberals...well...they go whichever way the wind blows :)
That is why the Green Party is for everyone. Policies that cross all party lines that make sense.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Right on Dave and one big reaon why we are seen to be "left"
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. One of the reasons we are perceived as left or even extreme left by the media is that we've been very vocal in our oppostion to Stephen Harper and Conservatives and much less so, if at all, to Liberals and NDP. We couldn't even wait to have an elected MP before eagerly wanting to sign up to the 'coaltion' about a year ago.
If the Conservatives are perceived to be 'right' on the spectrum what's an honest journalist or voter supposed to conclude other than that we, who demonized Harper and Conservatives in the 2008 campaign, are anything other than the extreme opposite of 'right'?
I think our biggest asset is that we are both left and right on the traditional spectrum. I know there are many Greens who don't like the left / right characterization and would like to ban use of the terms in the GPC. It's true, left and right analysis has many flaws. On the other hand, this is how the bulk of the electorate views politics and we need to use their language to communicate.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
left of Harper
I do not think it true that more recent anti-Harper stuff from GPC has much of anything to do with the extreme left misperception. Jeffrey Simpson most prominently damned GPC as way out there lefty after supposedly going through Vision Green. My response in a short post here: "Simpson loses his bearings" -- evident in some other uncharacteristically stranger comments he's made lately, like on Lib-Con only televised debate. Not only that, but BQ & NDP attack Harper at least as strongly as GPC, and Libs. in their way, too, and no one labels them much anything other than what they kind of are. Green as "far left" applies for some in the sense of "far left" being for fundamental change, which is undeniably true, even as it means "drastic" change to some, "right" being in that limited framing for continuing with the same.
Left-right talk can work, as I suggest, if one is careful to be creative with its use, and careful to effectively dodge or reframe the labelling.
Avoir une conscience fiscale et sociale, à la fois
I personally don't like the terms everyone use of "left" and "right" for many reasons:
1) It doesn't mean anything, "left" were those who were seated on the left, and "right" were those seated on the "right" of the Assembly... And that was looooong time ago. I am sorry our present societies, here in the anglo-american world (that includes Canada), and everywhere else, people continue to use the same old terminology.
2) We might get to absurdities like the "left" is "right", which means those who are socially conscious (seated in the left) are doing the good thing, the "right" thing!
3) I am a socialist and I like to be "right"! I am also a liberal, and like to be "right", and I am a conservative and like to be "right", that does not mean that "Conservatives" are "right".... You know what I mean!
Unfortunately - or fortunately - the Green Party is NOT monolithique. Within the party, there are groups formed by members sharing more or less the same ideas and ideals.
I personally would like to partiicpate in organizing a group that would be more socially conscious to dealt with questions of equity, justice, positive peace, happinness, and so on. A group that could influence the direction of the party to the "right" path!
Shodja Eddin Ziaian, Willowdale (Toronto), Ontario
Social conscience
I'd be interested as well, depending on logistics and time required et cetera. I realise we have some members who lean left and right, but what I'm trying to determine is where the party is overall. The material on the website is often too vague, and is likely drafted deliberately to appeal to a broad segment of the population. The problem is, if things get too broad and vague we turn into the Liberal Party, and corporations will ultimately end up calling the shots if and when the Greens become popular enough to form the government. We already have two corporate parties. Do we really need a third?
By the way, I recently read a good book called The Right is Wrong and The Left is Right. :)
Ambiguity serves us well
I for one am perfectly content not to be pigeonholed into left/right. The terms are too vague, and since many of our policies can be characterised either way, we are not readily slotted into either pigeonhole. In purely practical terms, I would guess that if the GPC ever actually slotted ourselves into one or the other, we would stop being of any use in the body politic, and might as well dissolve the Party. If you truly prefer that we be a left wing Party, then why not join the dippers? If you think we should be right of centre, with no guiding principles, then there's the Liberals, and if you think we should be guided by Conservative principles, then, hey, there's a Party for that too.
I am not interested in belonging to any of these Party's. I am happy operating with a bedrock of principle, and I don't give a toss if it's hard to pigeonhole.
In purely practical terms, the electoral alliance that the Green Party is only exists because left, right, and centrists were able to coalesce. Ambiguity serves us well in that respect, that it allows the strange bedfellows to get together. You know what? They don't seem like such strange people when you understand how much more there is in common than sets us apart. There is no way that such diversity as exists amongst us happens in any other Party. That's one of the secrets to our past and future success.
PS: If you think that there are policies missing, then feel free to draught the policy, build a constituency for it in the Party, and campaign to get it adopted at the next policy convention. That's the way it works in the GPC. If you believe in something, then it's up to you to sell it to the rest of us.
onward march
said at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/478/2009-08-19/so-now-what#comment-10667 :
"What's all this about "hard-left enviros"? Not one item in the slogan suggestions places Greens on the "hard left". GAI is libertarian at origin. PR is neutral. Pollution is by now on every politico's lips. What are you talking about? I don't like using the not right, not left, just str[ai]ght ahead kind of talk because of its fascistic origins, but it does apply."
Esp. in a national party, high generality must be mostly the order of the day. The key is to install & empower a learned & capable enough leadership group to deal with the interpretation & presentation, finally subject member to (dis-)approval.
Further finally, the ecology/environmental originating basis for Green politics pulls the carpet from under or arches a tent over the modernistic excess of all prior politics, that is one way of describing why "not left, not right", but that metaphor maybe more healthily does away with the sense of onward marching. A big tent; or tripped up marchers in the wrong direction, wrecking the carpet to boot.
Green New Deal
It just seems to me there is a growing consensus that something needs to be done to reduce inequality, for economic and social justice between nations and between people within nations. Look what is happening next month in Ottawa: The Power Shift Canada 2009 conference. That's where the green movement is IMO.
The "Left/Right" Paradigm is the problem
One of the unfortunate truths with regards to the debate "Where is the Green Party situated on the Left/Right political spectrum?" (and the response that "We are neither left nor right, but forward") is that if we do not define ourselves, we will be defined by others. This has been a particular issue with the mainstream media, which has done a very effective job of painting us as a very "leftist" party, often locating us to the left of the NDP.
Stephane Dion found out the hard way that if you can’t explain yourself, others will explain you. Yes, it’s troubling, but it’s a reality.
As we have not taken bold steps to explain where we think we fit in on the political paradigm (or indeed, to inform the public that the Left/Right paradigm itself is a product of 18th Century thinking, not really relevant to the growing democratic consciousness of the 21st Century), we will continue to be defined in terms not our own.
I can’t blame anyone for this, though. Our problem in the past has simply been that the media doesn’t care enough about us to investigate things further, and our voices have been too weak to grab the media’s attention. Our Leader tries to explain this to the media, but the media believes that Canadians are not ready to move beyond the "Left/Right" paradigm, and therefore can not bring themselves to identifying us as "something other" than Left or Right.
If we are to ever overcome this notion that we are a Party of the Left (indeed, a Leftist fringe Party out beyond the NDP), we are going to have to do a better job of explaining to voters and the media why the Left/Right paradigm should be done-in. And I’m not at all certain that Canadians are ready to abandon this easily understood and historic notion of politics in favour of one which is far less easy to describe and pigeon-hole.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Inequality and Left / Right paradigm
One question that is of interest to some Canadians is whether this party would significantly reduce inequality, and if so whether they would go further than the NDP. Is the GPC for neoliberalism or not? If the party was clearer on points such as these, people wouldn't have to wonder whether the GPC is left / right / centre, progressive / regressive, socialist / capitalist.
culture of equality
By now most Canadians by far accept the necessity of fairness in equity of opportunity (even if they fail to apply it or figure how it should apply, as in the Ont. school-funding business -- btw, Michael, that book i ordered to maybe discuss here should be available for me by mid-Oct). But I cannot foresee the NDP ceding primacy in its culture of equality emphasis, a levelling in negative not only positive senses. What gets levelled, or at least de-emphasized, by NDP & its historic antecedents, are some things Greens have put out front. That is why for Greens insinuating where doable "spirituality"-talk is important, and especially constant recourse to language stemming from ecology/environmentalism. That leaves the "left" to the NDP, stuck in modernist absence of real or deep concern for those aspects, which, as i say above, can be seen to undercut or overarch the left-right stuff.
By all practical measures the
By all practical measures the GPC is left of centre. Ideologically, there is plenty of room to make it centrist, which I consider myself to be, and which we claim to be -- but at the moment, this is not really borne out in policy.
I understand the complaint that right and left are vague. We are certainlly to the left when it comes to social values. I don't necessarily want to enumerate a list of policies to make a point, but liberal social policy like gay marriage or equal opportunity for continuing education regardless of economic status certainly are not "right-wing." You can probably argue these policies are centrist seeing as how a majority fo Canadians actually agree with them, but I am happy to label them left if only to obviate the difference between being a right-wing homophobe who thinks that the wealthy deserve a leg up in becoming doctors and lawyers.
From a fiscal perspective, we are also left of centre. I am not. I consider myself mildly right of centre (if that surprises anyone here.) We have plenty of policies that effectively involve wealth transfers but basically none that could be considered to the right. I'd probably describe "right" as freedom from dispossession despite inequality, and the degree to which the commons can be used for commercial purpose. In this sense, environmental protection is generally left-wing. Causing a small island chain to sink into the ocean, and opening the arctic pass to shipping can be good economic trade-offs, as heartless as that sounds. But this is how some on the right define things. In this respect we can be proud not to adopt the right wing view.
Now, the main argument where the GPC considers itself centrist is that we don't want the country to operate off of debt. And I grant you that is centrist. But in a sense, it's really just being honest. Borrowing from the next generation to squander it on yourself is rather selfish, although the urge to do this is not confined to left or right. I'd also point out that some people here mention GAI as a centrist policy. Well, it's true, GAI as a concept is more about process than anything else. It implies a more efficient social assistance model, so on its own it is neither left nor right. But there are many within the GPC who see GAI as a means to live a dignified life without accountability to contribute. That interpretation is not centrist. In order for it to be centrist, GAI would need a guarantee that all beneficiaries contribute at some equitable level (determined by consensus not unilaterally) according to each owns means.
I believe that the GPC has plenty of room for fiscal conservatives who are mildly right of centre or pure centrists. The NDP certainly has no room for this. I also personally feel that the desire to frequently push policies that are fiscally very far to the left prevents us from winning seats, and is actually the most notably contribution to our lack of presence in parliament. There are insufficient votes to make the GPC a meaningful political force if we persist with too many left-wing fiscal policies, especially if we have to split the left vote with the NDP.
Not so clearly left
I don't agree that GPC policy can so easily put us to the left as you assert. If one looks at Vision Green and counts the policies to reach a left preponderance, you get a misleading picture because such a count lacks weighting. Some of our key policies are both weighty and "right wing" (to left-wing critics) - for example, income splitting. Right now this is to the right of Harper, since he or his party have mused about this but taken only a quarter step towards it. (Of course, we don't promote it for the same reasons he does - but it's the same measure in the end).
There is no direct weighting measure, but looking at our platform budget is a good proxy. In that, income splitting is larger than any single spending measure. Ending a number of corporate subsidies and fossil fuel incentives isn't left wing - under standard analysis (like that of the non-partisan but rightish CTF) it would be right wing. But Harper's gov't is right-wing heavily coloured by support for the oil patch and certain major corporations, neither of which is inherently right-wing.
Transferring federal money to muncipalities is another big budget item which isn't inherently right or left. (Both Liberals & Conservatives like to trumpet the gas tax transfers). But I would argue that it's fiscally conservative to the extent that it favours local decision-making and counters big-government centralization. Investment in transportation is another big budget item for us, and non-partisan. Ours is rail while theirs is roads & airlines but that's about our ecological perspectives and their traditional industry links, not a right-left thing.
Legalizing cannabis is a libertarian position which technically is right wing although for some reasons associated with the left in North America (yet with some prominent right-wing supporters).
Of course, the centrepiece is our carbon tax shift - more on that in a comment below. Our platform has lots of little funding pieces for a handful of "lefty" programs which may make it seem left, but most of our core budget pieces are either "rightish" or else centrist.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
It depends on how you say things
A good example of how wording can change a person POV on an issue...
Suppose a party came out and said 'we will guarentee jobs for everyone - if we cannot find one for you we will provide enough to get by until you find one - we will provide training centres to help.'
Odds are people would say the above policy is 'left wing'. However, it really is what Harris called 'Workfare' - you get welfare if there are no jobs, otherwise you don't. Optics are everything and Harris framed it in the most nasty way possible as he knew people were mad at 'lazy welfare bums'.
I firmly believe that government should be involved in fixing issues the free market cannot. Environmental is a clear issue that lands there - if I dump my garbage into a park it won't hurt anyone immediately thus it could be ignored for a long time if no government exists to say 'don't do that'. There is an external cost that isn't captured without government. Same for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and the like. There is also a large value to society to have people educated - the value comes out years after the fact but if you are poor you have no way of paying for education thus a public system is vital. Health care? Same thing as evidenced by companies still making cars in Canada instead of the US where health care costs kill them or lead to sick workers who miss more time and are less productive (not obvious to the company up front and by the time they would see it the situation is bad).
Do we need government funded TV, radio, internet, etc.? That is a lot harder question as many private companies exist. However, the airwaves have to be controled as otherwise we'd have multiple stations on the same frequency which would lead to radio/TV being useless. What about sports? There is value in 'community spirit' from having a pro team or having Team Canada do well but how much value?
These are the tough questions. These are neither left nor right. However, the media (and public) loves to define them as being one or the other. Right wingers quite often love sports stadiums but hate spending on the arts for example. Harper has skyrocketed spending to a crazy degree (7% per year plus who knows what for the past year) as a right winger while Chretien cut health care and welfare but was left wing (to the media and public). Go figure.
I think in many respects once a party is defined as one or the other it is VERY hard for that to change regardless of the facts. Right now it looks to me like the electorate is trying us on for size as a replacement for the NDP as the 'alternative choice'. If we can keep our ideas worded right so they can appeal to people who view themselves as one or the other then we'll be able to move into that slot and be able to influence parliment to a great degree with a shot at someday climbing up even higher. If we aren't careful we'll be permanently labeled as left of the NDP and unable to be elected.
John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills
Tax shift = shifting POV
This is a very strong point, John, and workfare is a good example.
For me, the ideal proof of how POV determines "left" or "right" is our tax shift approach to sustainability, especially the carbon tax shift. This general approach has long been a Green cornerstone, and just as long it has been a target of the left-enviro movement (both NDP and left-Greens) as an unacceptably right-wing approach. The Left prefers prescriptive regulations that tell you what to do (or not do), while Greens prefer full cost accounting that forces actors (individuals or businesses) to take responsibility for their own actions and pay the full price - using the profit motive and the market to achieve the majority of effects, with regulation to plug holes here & there.
While Greens who support tax shifting saw it not necessarily as right wing (rather, more fiscally responsible, efficient, effective, and fair compared to heavy regulation), the Left did, and still do. The NDP have remained shrilly critical of tax shifting both federally and provincially (e.g. "ax the tax" in BC).
But enter Dion and his Green Tax Shift. The Conservatives had to attack it, but couldn't paint it as right wing since they want to own that ground themselves. So instead they did a day-for-night and attacked it as left wing, painting it (mostly unfairly) as tax-and-spend. For some bizarre reason, the pundits and media went along with this mis-characterization and faster than you can say Presto! a carbon tax shift was "left wing". Oddly, it never occured to anyone that the actual Left parties (NDP and various fringe communists) were loath to touch tax shifting. Media would report here and there the support for carbon tax shifting from major non-left economists (e.g. Mintz, Drummond, Jaccard, NRTEE) then promptly forget it. In the end, they just fed it into their Harper/right vs. Dion/left story machine without a second thought.
Despite the Harper/CPC spin, tax shifting is NOT a leftist approach. I don't see it as right wing, either, but I'm not going to fight that battle today. What matters is that left and right are poorly defined concepts not only for the public but even to media commentators, and the assignment of policies into those categories seems based more on emotion, circumstance or spin than any kind of agreed-upon objective standards. Those who insist on seeing us as Left will do so; likewise those (generally from the actual Left) who see us as Right. The challenge for us is to not be too strongly positioned to either side so those who are dissatisfied with traditional choices will be willing to give us a hard look, no matter which direction they are coming from.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
If you put your CPC hat on,
If you put your CPC hat on, the tax shift is left wing because global warming isn't happening, and if it is happening, it's not man made, and if it's man made, there's nothing we can do about it, and even there is something we can do, it's too expensive. Therefore, it's somehow a left-wing conspiracy.
Jesting aside, I don't think we are guaranteeing that the tax-shift would be revenue neutral. And if you benefit directly or indirectly from the oilpatch you would probably be worried a tax-shift is not employment neutral, and by the way, you are probably a CPC voter. We might want to take that into consideration by committing to offset job creation with the additional revenues, or at least committing to maintain revenue neutrality. This could go a long way in stealing CPC thunder when the tax-shift comes up.
Tax shift is job positive
Our tax shift is a guaranteed to be revenue neutral by our word. You either believe us or you don't. (A lot of folks believed Harper woudn't tax income trusts...) It's also clearly drawn out in our budget - even more clearly in the next one then the prior.
But the important point is that tax shifting isn't job neutral, it's job positive, because it reduces the taxes on jobs (payroll tax and income tax), making people cheaper to employ while making energy more expensive to use. The net market response is to use less energy and more people.
(Look at the opposite case: hiking payroll taxes is an acknowledged job-killer, so lowering them must be a job booster).
Now, it may not be job-neutral in a specific industry or region. But one shouldn't jump to conclusions. Industry example: perhaps cleaner tar sands extraction or coal mining requires more labour. Regional example: certainly Alberta has plenty of sun & wind, enough to hire every Newfoundlander and his brother to build and install panels & turbines and string all the wires. (Can't be all that different than building oil derricks, can it?) Likewise, there's opportunity to get geothermal in place using the same companies who drill for oil & gas.
Any help you can provide in clarifying the revenue-neutral or job-creating properties of our tax shift to better communicate with conservative voters is always appreciated.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Rich need to pay more taxes: Warren Buffett
I'm in favour of income splitting, though I am concerned that this would increase inequality, so we ought to promote additional income tax measures to redistribute the wealth. Warren Buffett says that the rich should pay more taxes, and this applies just as much in Canada.
Is a vote for the GPC a vote for more wealth redistribution?
Perhaps this information is out there and someone could direct me to it. Anyway, let's assume that a good portion of the electorate votes for the party whose policies or leaning (e.g. left/right) they believe most benefits them personally (the biggest factor being their financial circumstances). I'm not sure how fair this assumption is, as it doesn't apply to me (otherwise I'd be voting Conservative or Liberal). Nevertheless, take the self-interested voter. Regardless of whether they are in a low or high tax bracket, they want to know how a vote for the Green Party affects their take-home pay. Do we favour more wealth redistribution (NDP?), less wealth redistribution (Conservatives / Liberals) or the status quo (and presently the wealth / income gap is obscene)? If voters don't know, and the party itself doesn't know, how can we expect the electorate to support the Green Party? Pitched properly, most people should favour more wealth redistribution for the health of our society and economy. I think it is delusional to say that being vague on this makes the Green Party attractive to those on the left and right. Rather, it makes one suspicious, which isn't good if you are trying to gain the trust and confidence of the electorate.
In my view, if we came out strong with policies like this Green New Deal, the electorate would know where we stand and why we deserve their vote.Rethinking redistribution
Green policies aren't about increasing wealth redistribution, certainly not in the traditional Leftist sense of taxing the rich (or business) at ever-higher rates. Rather, green economics looks at HOW we redistribute wealth. "Progressive" income taxes are only a band-aid - they don't change the unequal access to resources for wealth creation which is the root cause of the wealth gap, so they only serve to mask and perpetuate that gap. From an ecological perspective, overconsumption is fed by how we own and distribute resources - simply ratcheting up "progressive" income taxes won't solve it. Re-thinking how we share or own resources can address this alongside poverty.
The key to fair wealth distribution is to stop taxing the productive economy (labour) and instead tax the unearned income which derives from naturally- or socially-created wealth.
So in response to your question about whether Greens want more or less wealth redistribution, I would answer that we want different wealth redistribution.
I wouldn't go along with your assumption that the electorate vote based on which party's policies would most benefit them personally, especially financially. There are any number of studies on voter behaviour which show that is a very weak effect, easily overwhelmed by other considerations. I suggest reading "What's the Matter with Kansas?" by Thomas Frank and "The Political Brain" by Drew Weston to understand how voters choose parties, and "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff for more on what to do about it.
I'm all for offering a "Green New Deal", but the one you linked to I find... underwhelming. "Reigning in the reckless finance sector and making low-cost capital available" is not a strong message to carry to voters, "Massive investment in renewable energy" is good, but the real work is figuring out who pays for it and how, and "Building a new alliance between environmentalists, industry, agriculture, and unions" sounds really nice but doesn't really say anything about how we would get such disparate interests to pull together (and then tacks on the almost silly-sounding "put the interests of the real economy ahead of those of footloose finance"). So I don't find it promising as something to base a platform upon. I didn't register to get the whole plan, as I found the intro not exciting enough.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Neoliberal policies cause inequality
I sent Erich a copy of the Green New Deal document, which has more specifics than the website description. So far, it seems we aren't getting the financial reforms we need (e.g. tax reporting, Tobin tax, reforming or abolishing IMF, limiting bonuses, etc.) and no party, even the NDP, seems to be taking inequality seriously. It seems to me significant income tax changes are necessary to reduce inequality, at least as a short term measure. Addressing the root causes of inequality can be done concurrently. I'm not so sure it is simply unequal access to resources for wealth creation that is causing our inequality. I believe it is inherent in neoliberal economic policies that we will have increasing inequality, between people and between nations. We need some significant reforms to fix this.
You have indicated
Michael, you have indicated support for redistribution of wealth in several posts here, what does this mean to you in terms of specifics?
The GND advocates several financial system changes that I believe have nothing really to do with the causes. For example, they advocate separating the pillars of finance, but the largest failures involved single pillar companies. The UK financial system was a disaster not mirrored in Canada.
It is widely accepted that the recent financial crisis was caused by a cascade of three main issues: (1) Rating agencies are paid to lie about financial products; (2) institutions then used the ratings they knew were inflated as a means to inappropriately increase their leverage; (3) institutions then tried to screw their clients, to whom they sold these products, only to end up inadvertently being caught in the blast radius. (I can explain this in more detail if you want.)
It is fair to say that the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac set up and then precipitated the financial crisis. I further that it was with tacit approval of (really encouragement by) US politicians to do so. I believe there was a pretense to hide the economic shortfalls in the US with the approaching significant presidential election. The fact that everyone who knew better went along with this story for their own personal greed is not something the GND is addressing. This is a tail of spontaneous emergence where a conspiracy existed even though there was no orchestration. We must ensure the pathway that leads to the spontaneous emergence is broken.
(Actually the GND does address ratings agencies. Erroneous ratings were the primary reason for failure, and I am concerned they are minimizing it as an excuse to push more of their agenda.)
Note the neo-
I wouldn't be too quick to lay all our problems on neo-liberalism (a.k.a. neo-conservatism). Inequality, wealth gaps, and poverty long predate neo-anything. Starting under chieftancies, evolving into feudalism, mercantilism, colonialism, monopoly capitalism, state socialism - all have just fed inequality. (Communism didn't level things out that well, either - whether you look a Soviet versions or whatever China is now).
Neo-liberalism can be an accelerating factor, but really it is just the latest justification for preservation and extension of privilege. (Thems that has, gets). It is this privilege - stemming, ultimately, from inequitable ownership of land and access to the resources which provide all our necessities - which creates and perpetuates inequality. If we replace privilege with rights, then neo-lib/con has no material to work with, thus losing leverage. It's the same with issues of finance, money creation, debt control - the gnomes don't ultimately want money, they want to own more of the real world. All the tricks of finance are just tools for the acquisition and control of land and resources (and, by extension, capital and labour).
Consider - from birth, we all require somewhere to live, somewhere to grow food (or have it grown), somewhere to work and play. But some of us are born into land while others are born landless. From that point on, the landed have advantage over the landless who must pay them rent simply to live. Ricardo's Law of Rent shows how, eventually, all wages and profit accrue to rent. Those who "own" the land - literally the ground you stand on, even the air you breathe - retain and increase their power while the renters fall further into debt slavery. Money is just a mask for the actual goods and services which provide life. Control over those goods (resources) is the key.
What you pay for labour is in fair exchange for their effort. What you pay to rent a building is fair return to the labour & capital which built it. But rent on land isn't fair exchange, because the owner didn't make the land in the first place. She may have bought it, but at some point it was stolen from the aboriginal owner, or fenced off from the commons. If you believe that humans are born with an equal right to live on the earth, then from the moment that parts of the earth are fenced off for the exclusive use of the few, inequality begins. This is true regardless of the finance or economic system which is overlayed upon it. The only way around it is to make sure the owners of land repay land rent to the community so none are short-changed. Doing that relieves us of the need to tax labour or capital.
Collecting economic rent is a very significant reform. Carbon tax shifting is just a first step to transforming our economy to something much more fair, where the value created by nature or by society as a whole is shared equitably, while the value an individual creates is owned and retained by that person, not taxed away.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Land reform
Land reform sounds good to me, though as you say it is a very significant policy. It would take time to achieve political support for it, would it not? I notice Walden Bello mentions it in the article I just posted, but is it even on the radar of Canadian voters? Income inequality, in contrast, is a big issue right now (see http://www.growinggap.ca/ ). There is a need to address this sooner rather than later, so income tax measures ought to be used, at least in the short term while we work on those root causes.
Land ownership is generally
Land ownership is generally necessary for stable economic development. There is plenty of land in Canada that is afforable to everyone. I'm not sure what the concern is.
Affordable?
The Green economics (geonomics) I espouse doesn't oppose land ownership, and actually enhances economic stability. Not, however, that stability in itself does not ensure any kind of fairness - an unfair situation can be very stable, and that stability can widen the gap over time. (The "American Dream" of upward mobility hinged, in part, on a New World in a constant state of instability and flux in contrast to the crushing multi-generation class stability of the Old World).
The matter comes down to the fact that a tiny minority hold the majority of land wealth and are able to use that to leverage inequitable income. It is very possible for the public (via government) to receive this income via land taxes without reducing the societal economic benefits land ownership. The issue revolves around which rights are included in the bundle of rights that land ownership entails.
As to affordable land, I don't see where your assertion comes from. 25% of Canadians are renters, often due to affordability issues, and many home "owners" are at rather high debt levels (less than 25% equity) due to high land and housing costs, so their ownership is at the mercy of bubble real estate markets and interest rate fluctuations. There is cheap land out in the hinterland but jobs and job growth are in the cities - where rental rates tend toward 50%. The more valuable/useful the land, the less equitably it is owned.
Not everyone needs to "own" land, but we do need to recognize that, as a population, we should share equally in the benefits of land ownership because land itself is not a human creation, it's a bounty from Nature (or God), given for all to share. To have some born into estates and others born into landlessness with no corrective measure is clearly unfair. Fair distribution of land rent corrects for this without confiscating anyone's land, and permits owners of buildings (capital) to receive a better return for their investment.
This kind of land-value tax shift encourages a productive economy and reduces the kind of cyclic speculative bubbles that result in real estate overvaluations and crashes. Certainly one can't assert that our current economic system has provided the "stability" to prevent booms and following recessions.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca