Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Angus Reid On Line Poll


Does Canada need a federal election in spring? Give us your opinion nowAngusReidForum.com

Do you want a federal spring election?
YES36%


NO64%


Please note that these survey results are of website visitors who voluntarily take the survey. These results are not necessarily representative of the larger population.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , ,

Monday, March 05, 2007

Poster Girl for Anorexia

Anne Coulter "I'm a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" and the poster girl for Anorexia.

One can only pity those who suffer from such psychological disorders.


http://www.i2i.org/files/graphics/ANn%20COulter%20Books.JPG

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , ,

History of Slavery


A blog after me own heart, matey's.

Slavery is the origin of the primitive accumulation of capital.



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jack Was Right, Again

NATO should talk to Taliban because military victory impossible: report Video: Heather Hiscox interviews Gordon Smith of the University of Victoria for CBC-TV
Gee Jack Layton said that back in September.

Nyah, Nyah.
Whose Taliban Now

See

Jack Layton

Taliban Jack


NDP

Afghanistan



The image “http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4319/673/320/2006-08-31-Troops.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 04, 2007

State Security Is A Secure State


A secure state is not a secure people, it is in fact a secure state against the people. At all costs the state must be kept secure,or anarchy will be unleashed on the world. Often the state claims that its own self interest is the same as the peoples, that a secure state is the publics security the security of its citizens. Such is NOT the case.

One of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government is to ensure the security of its citizens. This may require it to act on information that it cannot disclose and to detain people who threaten national security.Yet in a constitutional democracy, governments must act accountably and in conformity with the Constitution and the rights and liberties it guarantees. These two propositions describe a tension that lies at the heart of modern democratic governance. It is a tension that must be resolved in a way that respects the imperatives both of security and of accountable constitutional governance. Supreme Court Decision To Strike Down Security Certificates

Canada’s Long History of Criminalizing Dissent


Deportation from Canada for political radicals who threaten the State is not new. It was done in 1918 against members of the Industrial Workers of the World, IWW, the Wobblies, and anarchists. It was used against the Ukrainian and other Eastern Europeans strikers who were involved in the 1919 General Strike in Winnipeg. It was used between 1921 and 1937 against immigrants who were members of the Communist Party.

We did not have a Canadian Constitution during this period. The U.S. did but it too passed similar security acts to detain and deport foreign radicals. Such was the plight of the anarchist; Emma Goldman.

Contrary to the assertion of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and the various hacks in parliament, State Security laws are not required to protect the citizens, they are required by the State to protect it from its enemies. And as the executive class of capitalism to protect capitalism from its enemies. Whether the State calls its enemies; aliens, anarchists, or terrorists.

Washington Post Calls for the Execution of All Anarchists

The wave of anarchist bombings in the United States and Europe in the 19th Century led to the origin of the first international police organization still with us today; Interpol.

The governments of the time feeling threatened again called for extraordinary laws that would protect them from attack. Not their citizens but the state.

In the United States, despite its self created mythology, the FBI was more interested in countering anarchism and communism, then dealing with organized crime, through out most of its history.

Several journalists made a link between the history of the anarchist bombers and modern terrorism after 9/11. All of it was spurious because it did not look at what the differences were between the anarchists and the later Jihadists. It would be like equating the Black Handand Black September with the Black Bloc because they all had black in their names.

Common tactics were compared rather than ideologies. It would be like saying that since the Nazi's had an Army and the US had an army they were the same. Opps.. maybe that is the case... As Major General Smedley Butler warned at the time.

The anti-terrorism act is still in effect in Canada as are the Security Certificates, as is CSIS as is Echelon the secret information gathering efforts of the defense establishment.

The defeat of the Sunset clauses in the ATA last week was NOT a defeat of the Act itself, which the Conservatives deliberately obfusticated last week.

The ruling — and the broader issue of anti-terrorism legislation — has created considerable attention in Canada, as well as the United States.

A Globe and Mail editorial noted that the court still maintains it is legitimate to detain, indefinitely, non-citizens suspected of being terrorists “as long as they have a meaningful review process.”

Meanwhile, an editorial in the New York Times praised the ruling.

“Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties,” it states.

The issue goes beyond “legal niceties or technicalities,” said Evans.

“What is at stake are the basic human rights that we all depend on and take for granted: the right to be presumed innocent, to have legal counsel and to challenge the legitimacy of your detention before a judge, the right not to be tortured, the right to let your family know that you are alive,” he said.

In fact it is the courts, contrary to the Harper government claims, that have struck down the governments security acts.

In October, Rutherford struck down a portion of Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act
defining terrorism as a criminal act committed for religious political or ideological reasons. He found it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but said Khawaja's trial could go ahead.
Greenspon said he began a process of obtaining new disclosure in November. He said he was given 23 volumes of disclosure that the government had "redacted."Portions of evidence were blacked out and labelled with a code identifying the justification for censoring the evidence.

And since it is the courts that have challenged the laws, the Conservatives have pushed to have their right wing allies including the police now on the committee to appoint judges. That's a way to make sure we have no more liberal decisions like these that restrict draconian measures to protect the state and its police. Because in reality that is exactly what these security laws are, they allow the State and it's police to engage in illegal activities and then to hide them under a bushel from public view. They are not laws for the protection of the citizens of Canada, nor for public safety. They are laws to protect the State and its Police from transparency and investigation when they act illegally.



I wd. say emphatically that in recent years the Police have succeeded only by straining the law, or, in plain English, by doing utterly unlawful things, at intervals, to check this conspiracy; & my serious fear is that if new legislation affecting it is passed, Police powers may be thus defined, & our practical powers seriously impaired.

—Robert Anderson, Home Office minute, 12 December 1898
Which is the irony of the Harpocrites using the Air India families as their hand puppets last week. Because the same security laws are being used to cover up the alleged malfeasance of the RCMP and CSIS and their possible role in acting as agent provocateurs in the Air India bombing.

Of course political sub-text of what the Conservatives were saying was that the Liberals are supporting terrorists in the Indo-Canadian community, that is Sikh's, while the Conservatives support non-Sikh Indo-Canadians, the Air Canada families. Just as they have linked the Liberals to the Tamil Tigers because of Tamil community support for the Liberals.

The Conservative Party now that it has state power has abandoned all its so called libertarian philosophy. It is beholding to its social conservative base, so it gave a contract to a far right think tank opposed to greater citizen participation in politics, to study parliamentary and election reform.

It has appointed right to life advocates on the board examining reproductive technologies including stem cell research. It has shut down the Status of Women long a bugaboo of its supporters in REAL Women. Now it is appointing right wing judges.


But its real face has been shown for the past year, that this is not the old Reform party of Western populism, nor a neo-liberal or libertarian party, rather it is a good old fashioned conservative, right wing party of Law and Order. As such Harper has declared the next election will be fought on two issues, Law and Order and Terrorism.

These are of course the traditional values of the right wing, despite its toying with capitalist libertarianism, from the old Tory days in England to modern Fascism.
All right wing governments regardless of their labels are parties of Law and Order. And Law and Order means power to the police and the creation of a secure state, a police state.

It means going to war for war's sake. In this case supposedly to protect Canadians from terrorism. And thus we see our Law and Order government promoting the rearmament of the Armed Forces and transforming them from liberal peace keepers back to conservative fighting forces.

Through out the debate on the Tories allowing police to appoint judges, and the debate around the sunset clauses in the ATA, the Tories in QP and through statements in the media declared that they supported the police and their opponents were opposed to the police.

The opposition was either silent or in the case of the Liberals quick to deny they were anti-police. No one said, yes sir I am opposed to the police, since they exist as agents of the state ABOVE the citizens they are supposed to protect. The police sir are empowered to defend the State AGAINST it's citizens.

Ask any cop they are the thin blue line of the state, of law and order, against anarchy and chaos. They are not citizens nor a citizens milita, they are agents of the State and thus above the laws they supposedly enforce. That is why they ignore paying for parking meters or donuts, and are always right and you and I are always wrong.

That is why they are allowed to use force including deadly force like Tasers, and the courts will uphold their rights to do so. While the higher courts may rule in favour of civil liberties they still support law and order as they are part of the State themselves. Thus their rulings will always be in favour of the police and even draconian legislation for security and secrecy as the recent rulings on Security Certificates and the Anti-Terrorism Act show.

They are only as liberal as the laws passed by parliament. They do not rule by the doctrine of natural justice, that would be libertarian. The are an arm of the state and if the state has not passed laws to defend the individuals rights or human rights then woe betide you and I.


To the police we are 'them', some of us are good guys but mostly we are bad guys, and even good guys can be bad guys. Thus all laws to give the police more powers, are laws allowing for a police state.

The Conservatives have created a not so new political paradigm in Canada, a militarized police state. And the last time I checked that paradigm was spelled F A S C I S M.

And the only voices that will oppose that are truly libertarian ones.





See:

Anti-Terrorism Act

Spying

Statist Anti-Terrorism Act

Paranoia and the Security State




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,

Thursday, March 01, 2007

The Only Poll That Counts


The latest poll shows that the Harper attack ads and attacks on Dion and the Liberals has had an impact in the ROC. But the real poll is what their impact has been in Quebec, because Quebec is the key to any Liberal or Conservative victory. And their impact has been a big fat Zero.


Decima's poll, provided to the Canadian Press, showed the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which runs candidates only in Quebec, stood at 35 percent in the province, with the Liberals at 23 percent and the Conservatives at 15 percent.

And for those who think we are going to have a spring election sprung on us, think again...not with these numbers we ain't.


In an average of the last three weekly polls, the Conservatives have 33 per cent, the Liberals 30 per cent, the NDP 14 per cent, the Bloc nine per cent and the Greens 11 per cent.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , ,

The Ape Will Lie Down With The Tiger

NO MORE PALM OIL!

Both these species are endangered thanks to Palm Oil plantations. And as cute as they are together they are endangered by man and imprisoned by man, to protect them from man.

See my Tiger, Tiger Burning Bright













































  • Feb. 28: Dema, a Sumatran tiger licks Nia a baby orangutan in a nursery room at the Taman Safari Zoo in Bogor, Indonesia.

  • Global warming hits world's largest tiger reserve

    See:

    Cargill


    Borneo

    Orangutan

    Apes


    Primates

    Monkeys

    Great Apes



    Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
    , , , , , ,

    Liberals Scab


    Liberals are not the party of workers in Canada.

    When in power provincially Liberals oppose a living wage.

    Now the Federal Liberals under Dion have flip flopped on anti-scab legislation Bill C-257.

    A private members bill from the BQ supported by the NDP and until today, supported by the Liberals.

    And like the flip flop on the Anti-Terrorism Act, Mr. Dion does it again. But will he whip the vote? Probably not. Without the Liberals support the bill will die on third reading. When they were the government the Liberal majority voted against previous private member anti-scab bills.

    My what a friend business has in Mr. Dion. I guess two controversial votes in a week would be a bit much for Mr. Dion's fragile leadership. The infighting in caucus would be even more virulent than it was over the Anti-Terrorism Act. After all the Liberals are the party of Bay Street as much as the Conservatives are.

    By flip flopping on this bill, which has been placed before parliament five times now, the Liberals prove they are not just pro-business but pro-scab. Which means anti-union. I hope they don't plan on trying to solicit funds from their old friends in the General Workers Union in Toronto.

    Progressives? In name only.

    Green? Sure thats the colour of money.

    Friends of Buzz Hargrove? Only during elections.

    Labour has a political party and it is the NDP. All others are pretenders and fair weather friends.

    See

    Dion

    Buzz

    Gomperism

    Liberals

    Unions



    Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
    , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    China Burps Greenspan Farts Dow Hiccups


    File this under; loose lips sink ships.

    On Monday, Greenspan said a recession was possible, though it's difficult to predict the timing, a comment blamed in part for the global market decline this week.

    Greenspaned the works. He actually speculated that America may be facing a recession. But now noticing the stink in the room he is waving his hand behind his butt to clear the air.US slump possible, not probable-Greenspan quoted

    Then the Chinese government which is still unfamiliar with the operations of capitalism speculated on capital gains taxes, and the Chinese stock market listened, and crashed.

    One does not speculate out loud about such things when you have a stock market. The market responds as it did to Greenspan's comments. Sighs for the good old days were heard through out the Chinese hierarchy.


    But why the panicked selling in China? It certainly wasn't because of anything Greenspan said. Most news reports are declaring that it was the result of rumors about potential policy initiatives that the Chinese leadership might soon enact to cool off an economy that is growing too fast. Whether Premier Wen Jiabao is about to announce interest rate hikes or a capital gains tax is impossible to say, but what we do know is that the leadership is very concerned with attempting to rein in China's reckless growth. And that's probably a good thing for everyone.

    So when Shanghai sneezes, the world's markets catch the bird flu? True or not, the fact that this story is even being told is testament to how far and how fast China has come. It's instructive to think back 10 years, to the Asian financial crisis of 1997. China managed to keep itself relatively immune from the devastation that ransacked its neighbors, in part because of its iron grip on its own currency, and possibly because it was less well integrated into the global economy than the rest of the region. Ten years later, it's China that's shaking up the status quo, with a little help from the United States. From that vantage point, the fact that on Wednesday the Shanghai stock exchange, so far, is keeping its cool could well be the single most significant data point in all the market madness racing around the globe over the past 24 hours.

    The reality is that in 1997 China had NO international stock market and did not yet own the ultimate capitalist safe haven; Hong Kong. So the Yaun was protected by the Chinese and their stock market, being internal, did not suffer the meltdown the rest of the world did.

    In this case China came of age, and created a global meltdown on what was a local event.

    Pick a stock market, any market in our globalised, homogenised, sterilised, aneasthetised, dumbed down, interconnected ever shrinking globe... and it tanked.
    But the original epicentre was somewhere new...that emerging sleeping giant that even Napoleon worried fleetingly about...China. Shanghai’s A share index – ie for Chinese investors only - slumped 9%.

    Today it is a different world and China owns the majority of America's debt. And its stock market is now a world market place despite being a creature of the Chinese State.

    China’s stock market had three unique features that made its rapid
    development unique and interesting.


    First, the government used it largely as a fund raising vehicle for
    funding state-owned enterprises
    Second, China’s stock market developed under a repressed financial
    regime. Financial repression was created through a combination
    of capital controls on international capital flows and administrative
    measures imposed by the central government to dampen potential
    competition among different financial assets (e.g., bank deposits, enterprise
    stocks, enterprise bonds, and various kinds of government
    bonds) within the domestic financial sector.5 While the capital controls
    helped to prevent capital from flowing out of the country, the
    competition-mitigating administrative controls sought to avoid the
    driving up of returns on various financial assets and thus to allow the
    government to maintain a source of cheap capital for financing SOEs’
    investments.
    Third, China’s stock market was developed under a weak legal
    framework that offered shareholders little protection. On the widely
    used indicators for shareholder rights protection developed by La
    Porta et al. (1998), China scored 3, compared with the average score
    of 3.61 for all other transitional economies.
    The actual protection for shareholders in China, however, is lower
    than what the index suggests because of the weak legal enforcement
    in China. The development of China’s stock market therefore
    presents a puzzling case for economists and financial analysts who
    hold that legal shareholder protection is a prerequisite for the development
    of a functioning capital market

    So the result was a crash heard around the world. The reason is three fold, China burped, Greenspan farted and America had lower than expected trade income (from durable goods) thus they owed the Chinese even more money.

    What happened Tuesday was a confluence of events, something of a "perfect storm," each of which precipitated pent-up doubts. There was the decline overnight of 9.2 percent in the Chinese stock market, in which U.S. investors purchased $5.2 billion in equities in 2006. Then there was a decline in orders for durable goods and Mr. Greenspan's comments.

    Correction or Crash is the question on everyones lips this morning on day three of the crumbling of stock markets world wide. It's a crash. Just not a 1929 crash. Heck it isn't even a 1987 crash. Nor a 1997 meltdown. It's a hiccup the stock markets world wide are a thousand times higher than 1929, and in 1987 the stock market was only at 5000. Today it is over 12,000 in North America and around the world. But a crash none the less.

    That was the ultimate Perfect Storm, as the 1987 crash proved. In 1987 the crash was as severe as it was in '29 but the impact was the clearing out of junk bonds, as it had been in '29 a clearing out of Mutual Funds, and other get rich quick schemes, and companies that collapsed were quickly bought up by those cash rich, which did not occur in '29.

    The 1987 market crash, which greeted Greenspan just two months into his term and drained the stock markets of nearly one-quarter of their value in a single day, was widely thought at the time to be a precursor of recession. But the Fed chairman, beginning to establish his reputation for working miracles, avoided the inevitable by guaranteeing to pump enough money into the economy to keep anyone from going broke for lack of cash.


    What folks forget in bull markets and boom economies, such as we have seen for the past twenty years is that crashes become cycles, called corrections by optimists, but the business cycle of the early 20th century are no longer as damaging to capitalist society as they were in 1929. Thanks to Keynes. Notice that even an Ayn Randist like Greenspan is not adverse to priming the pump to protect the Stock Market.

    There was no priming the pump for the 1929 Wall Street Crash, as Keynes noted at the time. As Galbraith writes in his history of the Great Depression.

    Galbraith writes with great wit and erudition about the perilous actions of investors and the curious inaction of the government. He notes that the problem wasn't a scarcity of securities to buy and sell: "The ingenuity and zeal with which companies were devised in which securities might be sold was as remarkable as anything." Those words become strikingly relevant in light of revenue-negative start-up companies coming into the market each week in the 1990s, along with fragmented pieces of established companies, like real estate and bottling plants. Of course, the 1920s were different from the 1990s. There was no safety net below citizens, no unemployment insurance or Social Security. And today we don't have the creepy investment trusts--in which shares of companies that held some stocks and bonds were sold for several times the assets' market value.

    In 1929 Joe and Jane America were invested in the stock market for the first time through Mutual Funds, which were the junk bonds of their day. Workers , small businessmen, seniors, all could afford to invest in stocks. Gone were the days of the Robber Barons dominating the sanctuary of Wall Street.

    Like insurance companies of the time, Mutual Funds and other stock market options were being peddled to the working class. For the first time ever in the boom economy of the Post War 1920's workers were secure in their jobs and could afford homes, cars, and yest putting a little aside for retirement either through insurance, bank savings, saving and loans mortgages or through stocks and mutual funds.

    The perfect storm was the complete collapse of market capitalism, one that had no social safety net. Workers lost homes, business collapsed and the state called for chickens in every pot but provided no jobs. The chickens came home to roost for the free marketeers,their ideology was laughed at as irrelevant in light of historical facts of the crash and empirical fact's behind it. The U.S. market never recovered until the space age.

    Over the long run, a European investing on Wall Street might do fairly well. But what if he had invested in the late ’20s, when America’s promise and success seemed most inevitable? Just ask the Ghost of ‘29. If he had invested his money just before the crash, he would have had to wait until ‘56 to break even! That is, he would have had to hold on through a Great Depression…another major world war…and practically until the end of the Eisenhower administration - a period of 27 years! After that, he would have enjoyed a good 10 years of capital growth - and then another setback.

    Like today many folks are invested in the Stock Market, but mainly through their retirement savings, thus the impact on real cash, real value is softened. State capitalism saves the day, meaning crashes are reduced to corrections, the business cycle levels off instead of being a desperate spiral to Depression, and all is well with the world. Thus this weeks downward spiral is a hiccup instead of a stroke.

    And while Rothbard would deny Keynes or Galbraiths solutions were valid, which history proved they were, his work on the Great Depression also shows that the much vaunted Free Market failed because it was dominated by criminal capitalists trying to make a fast buck. Something the right wing liberaltarians never consider in their free market mythology. But which is the reason for all such meltdowns in the marketplace as Enron showed.

    The ability to now regain from a crash is part of the checks and balances of the stock markets, whether through state regulations, investor funding or computerization. And thus the need to continually keep armed, to have little wars world wide, are now part of the business cycle as well. Gone are the days when rearmament could save the market, today it is key to the well being of the market place.

    The bull market effectively came to an end on September 3, 1929, immediately the shrewder operators returned from vacation and looked hard at the underlying figures. Later rises were merely hiccups in a steady downward trend. On Monday October 9, for the first time, the ticker tape could not keep pace with the news of falls and never caught up. Margin calls had begun to go out by telegram the Saturday before, and by the beginning of the week speculators began to realize they might lose their savings and even their homes. On Thursday, October 12, shares dropped vertically with no one buying, and speculators were sold out as they failed to respond to margin calls. Then came Black Tuesday, October 19, and the first selling of sound stocks to raise desperately needed liquidity.

    So far all was explicable and might easily have been predicted. This particular stock market corrective was bound to be severe because of the unprecedented amount of speculation which Wall Street rules then permitted. In 1929 1,548,707 customers had accounts with America's 29 stock exchanges. In a population of 120 million, nearly 30 million families had an active association with the market, and a million investors could be called speculators. Moreover, of these nearly two-thirds, or 600,000, were trading on margin; that is, on funds they either did not possess or could not easily produce.

    The danger of this growth in margin trading was compounded by the mushrooming of investment trusts which marked the last phase of the bull market. Traditionally, stocks were valued at about ten times earnings. With high margin trading, earnings on shares, only one or two percent, were far less than the eight to ten percent interest on loans used to buy them. This meant that any profits were in capital gains alone. Thus, Radio Corporation of America, which had never paid a dividend at all, went from 85 to 410 points in 1928. By 1929, some stocks were selling at 50 times earnings. A market boom based entirely on capital gains is merely a form of pyramid selling. By the end of 1928 the new investment trusts were coming onto the market at the rate of one a day, and virtually all were archetype inverted pyramids. They had "high leverage"—a new term in 1929—through their own supposedly shrewd investments, and secured phenomenal stock exchange growth on the basis of a very small plinth of real growth. United Founders Corporation, for instance, had been created by a bankruptcy with an investment of $500, and by 1929 its nominal resources, which determined its share price, were listed as $686,165,000. Another investment trust had a market value of over a billion dollars, but its chief asset was an electric company which in 1921 had been worth only $6 million. These crazy trusts, whose assets were almost entirely dubious paper, gave the boom an additional superstructure of pure speculation, and once the market broke, the "high leverage" worked in reverse.

    Hence, awakening from the pipe dream was bound to be painful, and it is not surprising that by the end of the day on October 24, eleven men well-known on Wall Street had committed suicide. The immediate panic subsided on November 13, at which point the index had fallen from 452 to 224. That was indeed a severe correction but it has to be remembered that in December 1928 the index had been 245, only 21 points higher. Business and stock exchange downturns serve essential economic purposes. They have to be sharp, but they need not be long because they are self-adjusting. All they require on the part of the government, the business community, and the public is patience. The 1920 recession had adjusted itself within a year. There was no reason why the 1929 recession should have taken longer, for the American economy was fundamentally sound. If the recession had been allowed to adjust itself, as it would have done by the end of 1930 on any earlier analogy, confidence would have returned and the world slump need never have occurred.

    Instead, the stock market became an engine of doom, carrying to destruction the entire nation and, in its wake, the world. By July 8, 1932, New York Times industrials had fallen from 224 at the end of the initial panic to 58. U.S. Steel, the world's biggest and most efficient steel-maker, which had been 262 points before the market broke in 1929, was now only 22. General Motors, already one of the best-run and most successful manufacturing groups in the world, had fallen from 73 to 8. These calamitous falls were gradually reflected in the real economy. Industrial production, which had been 114 in August 1929, was 54 by March 1933, a fall of more than half, while manufactured durables fell by 77 percent, nearly four-fifths. Business construction fell from $8.7 billion in 1929 to only $1.4 billion in 1933.

    Unemployment rose over the same period from a mere 3.2 percent to 24.9 percent in 1933, and 26.7 percent the following year. At one point, 34 million men, women, and children were without any income at all, and this figure excluded farm families who were also desperately hit. City revenues collapsed, schools and universities shut or went bankrupt, and malnutrition leapt to 20 percent, something that had never happened before in United States history—even in the harsh early days of settlement.

    This pattern was repeated all over the industrial world. It was the worst slump in history, and the most protracted. Indeed there was no natural recovery. France, for instance, did not get back to its 1929 level of industrial production until the mid-1950s. The world economy, insofar as it was saved at all, was saved by war, or its preparations. The first major economy to revitalize itself was Germany's, which with the advent of Hitler's Nazi regime in January, 1933, embarked on an immediate rearmament program. Within a year, Germany had full employment. None of the others fared so well. Britain began to rearm in 1937, and thereafter unemployment fell gradually, though it was still at historically high levels when war broke out on September 3, 1939. That was the date on which Wall Street, anticipating lucrative arms sales and eventually U.S. participation in the war, at last returned to 1929 prices.






    Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
    , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Labour Shortage = Union Busting

    The only labour shortage in Alberta is finding unskilled folks to work at Timmies, and even there they are now paying $14 an hour plus benefits. But as for skilled labour, well they are working there too because they can't find jobs through the Merit Contractors and their business pals like CNRL and the Padrone's of CLAC.

    These guys being anti-union would rather hire temporary workers for $14 dollars an hour no benefits. To do union jobs that pay over $22 an hour with benefits.

    Worker shortage a 'myth' - union
    'Lots of skilled people in province'
    Alberta's labour shortage is a myth, says the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

    Tim Brower, IBEW Local 424 business manager, says non-union contractors are using the "myth" of a labour shortage to bring in temporary foreign workers who are taking away jobs from Albertans. "There is a shortage of unskilled people in this province. I won't deny that," he told reporters at the legislature yesterday. "Tim Hortons is looking for people. 7-Eleven is looking for people ... but when it comes to skilled people in this province, there is no shortage. I am the expert. I have them available."Brower said 1,000 electricians in his union are unemployed or working other jobs because they can't find work in their trade. "I have run into my members working at Home Depot handing out electrical components," he said. "Some of them are driving trucks.



    And since our new Minister of Human Resources; Monte Solberg loves his Timmies it's no wonder he is joining his pals in the non-union construction sector in Alberta calling for more Temporary Workers. Thats so more unionized workers can get jobs at Timmies. There are lots of unemployed skilled workers in Alberta, but of course they belong to the building trades unions.

    Companies like CNRL and others that are using Merit Shops to build oilsands projects are taking advantage of this to undercut the unions. Heck even right wing Edmonton Sun Columnist Neil Waugh noted this 'fact' last summer. And he notes it again today in a scathing attack on lack of planning by the new Stelmach regime.

    That's because the Merit Shops are not independent contractors at all but spin offs of unionized companies! Merit Shops are about as independent as CLAC is an independent union. Neither of them are and both are spin offs of Alberta's Big Construction Companies trying to bust the Building Trades Unions.

    Kushner is the president of the Merit Contractors Association and the person most responsible for getting a review of the Code rolling. Call them merit contractors, or open shops, it all means non-union (or at the very most, an "alternative" labour group such as the Christian Labour Association of Canada).

    Alberta's non-union construction industry began 20 years ago, as the oil price slump of the early 1980s shut down jobs and pushed companies into bankruptcy. Driven by the earlier, decades-long boom and labour shortage, construction labour relations had become a perpetual upward spiral of wage increases. Faced with the crunch, companies had to cut costs or go under.

    The end result was the famous "spin-off" company, a term industry people are reluctant to use to this day. After locking out their employees for 25 hours, the firm would hire them back in a subsidiary company, or through a labour broker, at lower wages. After the dust settled, the complexion of Alberta�s construction industry had changed forever.

    Today, there are few union contractors working in the commercial/institutional sector, while the large industrial projects are built almost exclusively by organized labour. The Merit Contractors Association represents 670 companies in Alberta, employing over 20,000 persons who complete 32 million hours of construction work annually. The Association has been growing at a rate of 36% a year, for the past four years. During those four years, it�s been lobbying ceaselessly, in its own right and through its members, for changes to workplace legislation, making annual presentations at Standing Policy Committee and appearances at Conservative Party functions.



    See

    Labour Shortage

    History of the WRF

    Alberta's Free Market In Labour

    The Labour Shortage Myth

    AFL Agrees With Me

    Lack of Planning Created Skills Shortage in Alberta


    Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,