|
The
year 2011 has seen
a March federal election and an October
provincial
election in Ontario. There were no major
election issues and the ruling
party
was returned in each case.
Yet there were
issues
which could have been there. A rational
media debate
around nuclear
power commanded a large
period in spring 2011. It established
that nuclear energy risked
dangers and unsafe storage of spent
fuel. Nuclear power was fraught
with cost
overruns, required government insurance
and was justified largely
because it produced fuel
for nuclear weapons. But that issue
failed to make either
election. Then
more issues lie behind the
economic concerns featured during the
fall. Fall 2011 has been dominated by an ongoing series of financial crises associated with national debt. Following from the August cliff-hanger in the US about increasing the debt, came a string of omens of financial collapse in several European countries. There was little coherent said. But a need emerged every time: cutting government spending. The assumption was the cuts would be to non-military spending. The possibility of raising taxes for a few rich around the Westeren nations also emerged. At the same time, the media talked of a high unemployment, especially among young people. Of course this is bad, but I can remember two periods during my working life when unemployment was worse, and that it was also worse for young people. The hard fact for me is that the pension I saved for during my working years is now at risk. None of this was at issue in the fall Ontario election. As a variant on this dominant economic theme, this fall saw cities occupied by largely youthful groups of ideologues called out to protest the economic state of affairs. “Occupy Toronto” set up something similar to the Occupy Wall Street group but with tents in St James Park next to the Anglican cathedral in Toronto. The media echoed the self description of this as a movement . Movements used to relate to concrete political goals like ending nuclear weapons, or they had a religious character seeking social justice or social equality. According to the Globe & Mail (page A23 Oct 7th) this occupy “movement” began in Vancouver and was related to the Adbusters anti consumer magazine based there. The Globe quoted an academic as suggesting that the activity, although without focus, would embolden left wing politicians. As of Nov 18th the Globe remained unclear of any specific goals of the movement. By November 21st, the courts had pronounced the self-evident: the city of Toronto can evict people camping in its parks. For me there are serious issues in all of this. There is legitimate outrage in New York where banks could be bailed out and the bankers responsible could walk away with large exit packages to their holiday houses and yachts while a lot of ordinary people were stuck with homes they could not afford to sell and mortgages for life. Moreover the country must cut services to pay for the bail out. Service costs typically go to education, health care and to needier sectors of society. These sectors of society must pay for the bail out. Before all this, we were told that corporate leaders deserve large salaries because they run risks. Yet we find that for a set of corporations there is a new capitalism where these risks will be underwritten by the government and so by everyone paying taxes. This issue has no direct connection with Occupy Toronto. New York is the place to raise these concerns. That is where my pension was put at risk. That is where the unsellable house came from. That is where the unemployment is coming from. When our world is dominated by New York bankers it raises another big issue. Surely we too ought to have a say about what goes on in New York when it so effects our lives and work. Given
the radical
nature of the issues, little extra taxes
for people who can pay experts to evade
them is not good enough. The
challenge is to re-think the notion of
this
special legal body, the
must-be-bailed-out corporation. The
notion
needs to be re-thought in a world
dominated as never before by gangs of
corporations
lobbying governments
for their corporate tax breaks and
lobbying for protective
international trade
agreements. They
are
no
longer really at arms length from their
governments nor indeed
from us and our own government to which
we pay our taxes. Since these are now in part our corporations as well as other shareholders’, we need to assert our share of control. We should address the disparities of wealth they allow. We should address the fact that they operate in a world where individuals and corporations can move their wealth globally. They may be in New York, but they affect our life and work. In the UK, a graduated death duty on wealth is one tried tool for dealing with the inequalities of an aristocracy. It might be one tool to deal with the wealth of individuals more generally. Also, the Robin Hood tax proposed for all international financial transactions which the ecumencial NGO Kairos proposes could help. Ultimately, action requires international agreement to ensure it will work. So thank you “Occupy” “movement” for letting me see that we have some huge new structural equity issues to address. I am saddened to note that none of them, not the nuclear power issue, not even the climate change issue, and no structural economic issue made it to the forefront in my two Canadian elections this past year. Top Click:  |