DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA

"What Bears Noting?" asked Bear.

Well, a guy named Bonehair (or something like that) got his buddies together and ran something through a House, that was designed to upset and frustrate the President, and a whole lot of American people. Mr. Bonehair couldn't even get all his buddies on side with it, but whipped enough to get whatever through. (Not a good situation for him in the long term, though.)

Then the Senator people started looking at what had been dragged through, and in. They thought it was kinda odd, like a

Dead skunk in the middle of the road
Stinkin' to high Heaven.

So they decided to leave Mr. Bonehair's stuff alone, and get on with something called a debt ceiling. (That's when you plaster your worthless stocks and bonds all over the ceiling, I think.)

Now, you would wonder why a Canadian would be worried about the drama, drama, drama in the US Congress.

Well, think about being something the size of a Beaver, that's sleeping beside, say, something the size of an Elephant. Every time the Elephant rolls over, the Beaver gets bounced around. And when the Elephant gets a cold, the Beaver starts sneezing.

Americans are Canada's main trading partners, and vice versa. If the American economy gets unsettled by something some people are doing in the USA, we Beaver-people get upset. When American stock markets get the shivers and shakes, Canadian markets start looking for a warm sweater.

That's why something big in US of America Bears Noting up in Canada.

And, that's the news.

~ 30 ~

Well, . . .

It's like this.

I was planning to have something worthwhile here today. Hopefully thoughtful; possibly provocative.

But that's not going to happen.

I have been busy with some other very worthwhile work, but it isn't something that I can post here. Not today; perhaps not ever.

You realize, as do I, that this kind of thing isn't supposed to be happening. I'm retired. I have not appreciable work to do.

Alas; I'm not a very good manager of my existence. The unanticipated has an "interesting" habit of sneaking in where and when lest expected.

"Life happens while you're in the process of making plans."

Ever had that problem? I suppose you have.

So, to keep you from getting completely bored, here are some questions.

Can there be such a thing as a moral economy? If such a thing existed, what might it look like; what would be the key characteristics? Would it be consumer-driven? Would it be focused on the needs of people, or focused on the needs of business?

That'll keep you thinking for a few minutes at least.

(Hint: I'm going to be getting on to the idea of a Moral Economy. I'll explain on Friday. That will have something to do with a series of newspaper columns I have written over the last eight years, and the thinking that has gone into the whole concept.)

Thank you for your patience.

DEMOCRATIC WELL-BEING

Just as money can’t buy happiness, Gross Domestic Product doesn’t tell us how well we’re doing as a nation. (Gross Domestic Product is the overall measure of our nation’s economic activity; it came to be regarded, erroneously, as the sign of how well a country was doing.)

Protests across Canada on January 23rd, against the lengthy shut-down of Parliament, are one sign things aren’t going an well.

But that’s no surprise to Canada’s Institute of Wellbeing. The Institute (an independent, non-partisan body) recently released its report on the “Democratic Engagement” Domain, the first report of its kind done in Canada, perhaps in the world. (This one follows reports on “Living Standards,” “Healthy Populations,” and “Community Vitality.”)

The central note in this report is that Canada is facing “a huge democratic deficit, with trust in Canadian government and public institutions on a steep decline.” That’s seen in the fact that fewer people are voting, or are participating in formal political activities. Likewise, about half of Canadians aren’t satisfied with their democracy, while very few believe federal government policies have improved their lives.

This “democratic deficit” didn’t surprise to me, either. During our last federal election, only 3 out of 5 eligible voters cast ballots. Stephen Harper was returned as Prime Minister with the support of merely 23 per cent of Canadian voters. Hardly a ringing endorsement. That number highlighted for me the increasing malaise I’ve seen among among urban and rural citizens — a kind of resigned indifference — a feeling that government doesn’t work for them, or represent their concerns. Their response, to paraphrase Shakespeare: “A plague on all your political parties and governments.”

Lenore Swystun and Kelley Moore of Saskatoon’s Prairie Wild Consulting saw that, and a lot more. Together with Holder and Associates, they developed the report for the Institute. Their work was based on historic studies of Canadian attitudes, plus their own research with Canadians from coast, to coast, to coast, as well as international studies.

They considered not only voter turnout but interest and participation in political activities, as well as representation of woman and minorities in Parliament, and Canada’s commitment to international development. We’re promised to put 0.7% of our GDP into Official Development Assistance; we actually spend about half of that most years, putting us in 16th place among 22 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Our government is way behind Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, though it is twice as generous as Japan and the U.S.)

That doesn’t fit my perception of Canadians’ overall caring and generosity. Consider how much we’ve raised for relief in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, and you can see how generous Canadians are. I think many see the mis-match between what they do and what our government does. The report reflects that visible mis-match.

How can we build a Moral Economy, which reflects the needs, concerns, and values of Canadians, and to which political parties and governments see they must align themselves?

The time has come for us to see this situation for just how bad it is, and do something about it. "Politics" as a whole has become far too insular and entrenched; I really doubt that the current system in Canada can reform itself. If you've ever compared parties election platforms with the priorities set in party policy conventions, you'll see the gaping canyon that separates the two. There's an appearance of democracy, of consultation; in reality, parties are run from the top down. Same for governments.

The report provides some broad recommendations.
• Create opportunities for meaningful engagement;
• Seed a culture of engagement in government;
• Ensure more accountability and transparency in politics;
• Invest in civic engagement;
• Make voting easier
• Increase diversity in politics;
• Use technology better;
• Invest in civil society; and,
• Engage Canadians about our place in the world.
It also calls for more research, and closer monitoring, which are important.

The problem, of course, is that the current political ethos, our political context, is dead set against all those principles for action. Canada isn't the only nation facing this; most "democracies" in our world are having the same problem.
  
Perhaps ordinary citizens, of varying ages and backgrounds, using internet connections, will be able to repeat the events of January 23rd, at different times and in different places. Maybe they will become the Democratic Engagement which the report anticipates. Frankly, I don't see an alternative to the "huge democratic deficit" that Canada faces.

* * * * *

This post is based on my "Moral Economy" op-ed column which appeared in The Western Producer on Thursday, February 4, 2010.
√

SMOOT-HAWLEY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN, or, How to Turn and Recession into a Depression

Most people are not familiar with the "Smoot Hawley Tariff Act," named after the guys who put the ideas together. But those tariffs helped turned a U.S. recession of 1929 into a world-wide depression through most of the 1930s. And the current U.S. government is about to do the same thing all over again, with it's new $855 billion, "America first" stimulus package.

Once again, Americans are showing they cannot remember their own history. They are again jeopardizing their economy, and the economies of other nations.

Senator Reed Smoot (a Republican from Utah) and Representative Wallis Hawley (a Republican from Oregon) saw the U.S. economy needed to grow, by increasing American firms' share of business. One way to do that, and effectively "stimulate" the economy, was to restrict foreign imports. That way, people would be forced to "buy American" or pay a lot more for the same thing. In fact, the Bill raised import charges on about 20,000 items.

Opposition began even before the law was passed in June, 1930. Over a thousand economists and many business leaders begged President Herbert Hoover to veto the bill. Complaints came from well over 30 other nations as well. (People knew about it because it had passed the House of Representatives in May, 1929.)

That action may have helped to trigger the financial crash of October, 1929. By the time it became law, other countries were already boycotting or imposing their own tariffs on American goods. Canada was among the first to do so, even before the bill had passed in the U.S. Senate. The U.S. State Department says that between 1929 and 1932, overall world trade dropped by 66%.

While the U.S. stock market had been uncertain since 1929, by 1930, politicians and business leader were saying the end of the crisis was in sight. But in late 1930-1932 the market headed almost straight down, reaching its lowest point in June, 1932, a year after the Smoot-Hawley Law was signed.

Smoot-Hawley wasn't the only problem America faced, but it was significant. The other major problem was a string of bank failures. But if you cannot produce and sell enough to re-pay your debts, of course banks are going to fail. Think of Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, Mannie Mae, and Freddy Mack, which have run into huge problems in the last few month. It's the 1930s all over again.

History's lesson is that if you put up a brick wall around your country to keep imports out, other nations will do the same. That's the main problem with the current U.S. stimulus package. It has a clause which would do, in effect, the same thing which the Smoot-Hawley Act did in 1930; it will help turn a recession into a protracted depression.

Canada has been protesting, as it did with the Smoot-Hawley Act. The "buy American" clause in the current U.S. proposal is a fundamental violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Will the Americans listen? Who knows? Will Stephen Harper impose Canadian counter-measures if the American law passes. Not likely; I see Harper as pretty timid in his dealings with the United States. Were the stronger-willed, broader-thinking Michael Ignatieff in charge, things might be much different.

President Obama inherited an economic disaster when he took office as America's 44th President. How he handles the "buy America" language in the stimulus package will be a major test of his foreign policy. How he handles it may determine outcomes as far away as Iraq and Afghanistan.