There are clear advantages to a proportional system. I think the one proposed by the Ontario citizens group that we here in Ontario are voting on, in a few weeks is one I think it better than the current system. They are proposing Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation.
It stops the practice of strategic voting and stops the wasted votes. It is it truly democratic to have someone who received 35% of the vote receiving 100% of the representation? If you have a 4 way race it may even be less than that.
Now I don't think anyone would suggest removing the directly elected MPs and system that are the hallmark of the First past the post system(FPTP). The MMP system merely tops this number up with MPs who come off party lists, in order to make the end result more equal to how voters actually voted.
Now you can vote for your local MP and vote his party, or even vote for the green party and have that vote count and matter.
Now you don't have to worry that voting for the NDP will lead to a conservative government. The system is designed to fix some elements of the FPTP that lead to small changes in voting leading to huge impacts on the results.
In the current system a small change of say 5% in the vote can lead to ridiculous swings in results.
Under MMP you also would be able to have representation from MPs you might not get under the current system. For example even though the Liberals have a stronghold in Toronto, under MMP you might be able to elect a conservative from TO. Or if taken federally, an NDP MP from Alberta (ok maybe it's a long shot).
Anyways I think putting together a new system is worth it. The entrance of new parties would have a refreshing impact on the political system, and hopefully on voter turnout.
Oh and that canard about having more MPs is wasteful, we're talking about making important decisions that affect all of us here, we shouldn't base our decision on how many MPs there are, but on which produces the best decisions.
September 29, 2007
September 09, 2007
More Naomi Klein
What an interesting book, it makes the explicit link between economic violence and actual violence, mostly at least to start in Latin America. It's well researched and I think shows that she has matured as a writer and as a critic of corporate power and modern capitalism (or as she and others have pointed out it's closer to corporatism.
Anyways it was with an eye to the her explosion of the idea that there is a direct and simple link between economic freedom and democracy, or the free market and democracy.
There are many many people who have taken issue with this tautology. It's funny how deep it seems to run in American discourse over the last 25 years. Anyways I saw another blatant example taken from Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYtimes.
"One way a country develops the software of liberty, Mr. Mandelbaum says, is by nurturing a free market. Kurdistan has one. The economy in the rest of Iraq remains a mess. “A market economy,” he argues, “gives people a stake in peace, as well as a constructive way of dealing with people who are strangers. Free markets teach the basic democratic practices of compromise and trust.”
What a bunch of crap. I can't believe anyone would actually believe this. The big elephant in the room of course is the example of China. Political repression exists and continues to exist, while the economic free market has taken hold since it's opening up in the 1970s.
I am shocked that anyone would continue to assert those kind of things in the face of such obvious evidence. There seem to be people who often complain about human rights in China and also speak about the economic miracle and the threat of Chinese growth, who cannot recognize the incompatibility of saying these things while mouthing the platitude "Free markets teach the basic democratic principles of compromise and trust".
This is what Naomi Klein explicitly links her in new book The Shock Doctrine. The anti-democratic nature (despite the rhetoric) of many of the interventions supported and promoted by the proponents of Friedmanism and Reganomics. I really do believe that this is the best contribution her thoroughly researched book provides.
Now I haven't finished the book but I am impressed, it's a pretty gruesome and disturbing portrait she paints. I am also curious to see what the reaction will be by her opponents. If it's anything like what i heard on the radio earlier this week, she has nothing to worry about.
Anyways it was with an eye to the her explosion of the idea that there is a direct and simple link between economic freedom and democracy, or the free market and democracy.
There are many many people who have taken issue with this tautology. It's funny how deep it seems to run in American discourse over the last 25 years. Anyways I saw another blatant example taken from Thomas Friedman's column today in the NYtimes.
"One way a country develops the software of liberty, Mr. Mandelbaum says, is by nurturing a free market. Kurdistan has one. The economy in the rest of Iraq remains a mess. “A market economy,” he argues, “gives people a stake in peace, as well as a constructive way of dealing with people who are strangers. Free markets teach the basic democratic practices of compromise and trust.”
What a bunch of crap. I can't believe anyone would actually believe this. The big elephant in the room of course is the example of China. Political repression exists and continues to exist, while the economic free market has taken hold since it's opening up in the 1970s.
I am shocked that anyone would continue to assert those kind of things in the face of such obvious evidence. There seem to be people who often complain about human rights in China and also speak about the economic miracle and the threat of Chinese growth, who cannot recognize the incompatibility of saying these things while mouthing the platitude "Free markets teach the basic democratic principles of compromise and trust".
This is what Naomi Klein explicitly links her in new book The Shock Doctrine. The anti-democratic nature (despite the rhetoric) of many of the interventions supported and promoted by the proponents of Friedmanism and Reganomics. I really do believe that this is the best contribution her thoroughly researched book provides.
Now I haven't finished the book but I am impressed, it's a pretty gruesome and disturbing portrait she paints. I am also curious to see what the reaction will be by her opponents. If it's anything like what i heard on the radio earlier this week, she has nothing to worry about.
September 07, 2007
Shock Doctrine
I can't wait to get into more of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
I've listened to her interview on the CBC by the radio program the current (which can be found in two parts here.) She is quite articulate and I think a lot of her arguments have merit. She also recognizes the limits of some parts of her argument. When asked directly whether for example torture is required to implement the economic program her response was not directly. She did note however that in many of these countries violence was used to suppress dissent of the policies and that in many of the examples torture did occur. I think that gives credence and marks her out and somehow who has actually taken the time to really think through these issues. Now I may not end up agreeing with her, but it was in marked contrast to the tone of her critic (who was on the show. I'm sure there are more intelligent critiques of her book that will surface, I will also grant that she was given more time and that the expert brought in to criticize actually didn't have the same amount of time)
It was interesting also to note the criticisms of her critic on the show. He merely said she was a "conspiracy theorist " that her analysis lacked depth and that she conflated different arguments. He never really attacked the substance of her argument. He also jumped into random tangents and sidestepped the issues often. He ended up talking about random things about Iraq which didn't address really the question or Naomi Klein's argument.I thought that was the most fascinating part of the response part of the segment.
I have a feeling she will be attacked and dismissed, I just truly hope that people will actually take the time to read it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The connections she brings out are not necessarily new, but do provide a new platform and highlight the connections that remain between the economic fundamentalists of today and their predecessors and the impact they have had.
I've listened to her interview on the CBC by the radio program the current (which can be found in two parts here.) She is quite articulate and I think a lot of her arguments have merit. She also recognizes the limits of some parts of her argument. When asked directly whether for example torture is required to implement the economic program her response was not directly. She did note however that in many of these countries violence was used to suppress dissent of the policies and that in many of the examples torture did occur. I think that gives credence and marks her out and somehow who has actually taken the time to really think through these issues. Now I may not end up agreeing with her, but it was in marked contrast to the tone of her critic (who was on the show. I'm sure there are more intelligent critiques of her book that will surface, I will also grant that she was given more time and that the expert brought in to criticize actually didn't have the same amount of time)
It was interesting also to note the criticisms of her critic on the show. He merely said she was a "conspiracy theorist " that her analysis lacked depth and that she conflated different arguments. He never really attacked the substance of her argument. He also jumped into random tangents and sidestepped the issues often. He ended up talking about random things about Iraq which didn't address really the question or Naomi Klein's argument.I thought that was the most fascinating part of the response part of the segment.
I have a feeling she will be attacked and dismissed, I just truly hope that people will actually take the time to read it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The connections she brings out are not necessarily new, but do provide a new platform and highlight the connections that remain between the economic fundamentalists of today and their predecessors and the impact they have had.
September 06, 2007
Being a grad student
So far it's pretty fun. I am really looking forward to starting my classes, so far they have been fun but I'm ready to get into the program and start meeting people and generating ideas for projects and getting together all the readings..
One of the strangest things it that 4 classes is considered normal, that's what's expected. Which I have a feeling means each one of those will exert its toll because I'm sure the level of reading is going to be quite high.
Anyways so far so good.. I've met a few interesting people and I also met an old friend I hadn't seen for quite some time.
Things are looking good now that classes have started
One of the strangest things it that 4 classes is considered normal, that's what's expected. Which I have a feeling means each one of those will exert its toll because I'm sure the level of reading is going to be quite high.
Anyways so far so good.. I've met a few interesting people and I also met an old friend I hadn't seen for quite some time.
Things are looking good now that classes have started
September 01, 2007
Well here's an old post
I just deleted my other blog. I hadn't written there in quite some time, the last post was September of last year. I was trying to find a place for some more political posts, but I think the best thing to do is concentrate on one blog and work on that. I should have more time to do this as I am returning to my student roots (heh heh).
Yesterday was my last day of work for the time being as I return to Carleton to pursue my MPA full-time. I have kept some of the old posts and I thought i'd repost one of my favorite and best written pieces here. So here goes, This was first posted in September of 2006.
About GM.
After watching the movie Who killed the electric car, I went and had a discussion with a friend of mine about the movie; in particular it was about the role of GM as a political actor.
Now my friend criticized me for my lack of understanding of business. But I still strongly believe that you have to understand the modern corporation as a political actor.
A few days ago about a week after my debate I was reading a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith. In his book A new Industrial State, he talks about how the modern corporation has moved beyond the profit maximizing entity described in the economics textbook.
Now JKG was an economist, but it seems to me that he was one of the few who realized the impact of power on economic relations. Economists still to this day largely ignore the social context in which their theories apply.
Anyways the main thing that my friend kept repeating (which seems to be to be a conservative mantra) is that GM is a profit maximizing entity, if it doesn't make business sense they won't do it. While this is true in the long run, is GM doesn't make a profit it will cease to exist, modern corporations are political actors.
Galbraith seems to understand this implicitly in his work. He suggests that the corporation as an entity can have other goals that the maximization of profit. It might be a steady return on investment (i.e. they do not take risks that might endanger a steady level of profit) or it might be the return to shareholders , or it might even be that the CEO wants the largest pay possible with stock options this has become a more common problem).
Companies as large as GM also have a lot at stake, and thus become risk averse as well. They might simply decide that because of their weight in the market, they can prevent competition and keep making profits out of what they are already doing.
This is the profound failure examined in Who killed the electric car. As mentioned in the film, GM had a 2-3 year lead on its competitors in terms of it work on the electric car. Largely because they deemed the stakes too high, they fought tooth and nail against the imposition of the Zero emission vehicle regulations that were in place in California rather than exploiting its edge in R&D and product development of the electric car. In other words they chose steady profit doing what they were doing, rather than disrupt their other product lines and face real competition.
In other words they chose certainty over the uncertainty of developing a new product.
This is the problem with the large corporations, they are no longer innovators.
While it is true that companies need to be a certain size in order to attract capital and create interesting products there becomes a certain point where they are too big and too unwieldy to compete and they start becoming defensive.
The most interesting example in modern times is the degree to which Apple even though it is a small company makes Microsoft shake in its boots. Apple has become the leader through its innovation, and creativity while its competitors defend their positions and copy what Apple does. Microsoft has for years depended on its ability to buy upstart competitors in order to actually acquire and create new products. Microsoft because of its size doesn't seem to need to innovate; it simply buys the innovations of others and repackages them as if they created it themselves. This is why a truly innovative company like Apple scares Microsoft silly.
Imagine a competitive market of small and medium sized companies; this is truly what we should be aiming for rather than the oligopolies and cartels we are busy constructing now.
Yesterday was my last day of work for the time being as I return to Carleton to pursue my MPA full-time. I have kept some of the old posts and I thought i'd repost one of my favorite and best written pieces here. So here goes, This was first posted in September of 2006.
About GM.
After watching the movie Who killed the electric car, I went and had a discussion with a friend of mine about the movie; in particular it was about the role of GM as a political actor.
Now my friend criticized me for my lack of understanding of business. But I still strongly believe that you have to understand the modern corporation as a political actor.
A few days ago about a week after my debate I was reading a biography of John Kenneth Galbraith. In his book A new Industrial State, he talks about how the modern corporation has moved beyond the profit maximizing entity described in the economics textbook.
Now JKG was an economist, but it seems to me that he was one of the few who realized the impact of power on economic relations. Economists still to this day largely ignore the social context in which their theories apply.
Anyways the main thing that my friend kept repeating (which seems to be to be a conservative mantra) is that GM is a profit maximizing entity, if it doesn't make business sense they won't do it. While this is true in the long run, is GM doesn't make a profit it will cease to exist, modern corporations are political actors.
Galbraith seems to understand this implicitly in his work. He suggests that the corporation as an entity can have other goals that the maximization of profit. It might be a steady return on investment (i.e. they do not take risks that might endanger a steady level of profit) or it might be the return to shareholders , or it might even be that the CEO wants the largest pay possible with stock options this has become a more common problem).
Companies as large as GM also have a lot at stake, and thus become risk averse as well. They might simply decide that because of their weight in the market, they can prevent competition and keep making profits out of what they are already doing.
This is the profound failure examined in Who killed the electric car. As mentioned in the film, GM had a 2-3 year lead on its competitors in terms of it work on the electric car. Largely because they deemed the stakes too high, they fought tooth and nail against the imposition of the Zero emission vehicle regulations that were in place in California rather than exploiting its edge in R&D and product development of the electric car. In other words they chose steady profit doing what they were doing, rather than disrupt their other product lines and face real competition.
In other words they chose certainty over the uncertainty of developing a new product.
This is the problem with the large corporations, they are no longer innovators.
While it is true that companies need to be a certain size in order to attract capital and create interesting products there becomes a certain point where they are too big and too unwieldy to compete and they start becoming defensive.
The most interesting example in modern times is the degree to which Apple even though it is a small company makes Microsoft shake in its boots. Apple has become the leader through its innovation, and creativity while its competitors defend their positions and copy what Apple does. Microsoft has for years depended on its ability to buy upstart competitors in order to actually acquire and create new products. Microsoft because of its size doesn't seem to need to innovate; it simply buys the innovations of others and repackages them as if they created it themselves. This is why a truly innovative company like Apple scares Microsoft silly.
Imagine a competitive market of small and medium sized companies; this is truly what we should be aiming for rather than the oligopolies and cartels we are busy constructing now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)