With the winter holidays behind us and a New Year ahead of us we now have a chance to ask ourselves how we want 2016 to be defined.
It’s a time when we celebrated the arrival of thousands of refugees from war-torn Syria. How is it that Canada has a national refugee policy and no national strategy for dealing with poverty and homelessness?
Although there was no discussion about poverty in the Liberal platform for the federal election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in his mandate letter to Jean-Yves Duclos (http://bit.ly/1O7l9kn), the Minister for Families, Children and Social Development asked Duclos to, “Lead the development of a Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy that would set targets to reduce poverty and measure and publicly report on our progress, in collaboration with the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. Our strategy will align with and support existing provincial and municipal poverty reduction strategies.”
A federal policy for poverty would help address the growing divide between those who have and those who don’t in our society.
We need to rethink how we understand poverty and homelessness in our society. As Franklin D. Roosevelt argued, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
Presently resources and policies to address homelessness fall predominately on municipal governments. This means that cities are responsible not only for the costs of short-term housing but also any other homeless strategies including emergency shelters. The politicians at city hall are debating the budget for 2016 and already have jettisoned funds for some of the emergency shelters that were funded in 2015 after three people died on the streets in Toronto. Coun. Joe Cressy reports that last year brought the number of homeless deaths in Toronto since 1985 to 792 people. Deaths like these, that can be prevented are a sad comment on us as a society.
According to a 2013 survey conducted by the group Homeless Hub there are some 5,200 homeless people in the GTA. While the majority of those surveyed have access to some form of shelter, 450 people live permanently on the streets of Toronto. In a city where condominiums are being built on almost every corner we need to provide housing and access to housing for all our residents. As a society this should be one of our primary goals.
The researchers at Homeless Hub argue that one of the problems is how we look at homelessness.
They say we manage homelessness rather than eliminating it. Looking at plans developed by other communities and governments Homeless Hub advocates a Housing First policy that prioritizes finding stable long-term housing for those in need before addressing the issues that led to the loss of their homes.
At present an ad hoc system of emergency shelters and transitional housing is administered by different groups and agencies results in a tiered bureaucratic system that is difficult to navigate for anyone, let alone those who have been forced onto the streets. The homeless trying to access housing in this system are also required to meet certain criteria that can place strain on their already difficult circumstances.
This can include substance abuse counselling or other behavioural therapies in order to secure housing.
The ideas behind this system are moralistic, dating back to the 19th-century idea of the deserving and the undeserving poor.
The Housing First policy turns this model on its head, arranging first for housing and then for any other supportive services needed once individuals have secured safe homes.
Communities that have adopted the Housing First policy note a reduction in the number of homeless and the cost of administering to those in need. It is a win, win for all involved.
The homeless gain stable homes, the community gains individuals who can contribute again to society and the bean counters in local government see a reduction in overall costs.
Our Love-Hate Relationship with Gimmicks
When Jennifer Egan’s novel “A Visit from the Goon Squad” won the Pulitzer Prize, in 2011, much fuss was made over its penultimate chapter, which presents the diary of a twelve-year-old girl in the form of a seventy-six-page PowerPoint presentation. Despite the nearly universal acclaim that the novel had received, critics had trouble deciding whether the PowerPoint was a dazzling, avant-garde innovation or, as one reviewer described it, “a wacky literary gimmick,” a cheap trick that diminished the over-all value of the novel. In an interview with Egan, the novelist Heidi Julavits confessed to dreading the chapter before she read it, and then experiencing a happy relief once she had. “I live in fear of the gimmicky story that fails to rise above its gimmick,” she said. “But within a few pages I totally forgot about the PowerPoint presentation, that’s how ungimmicky your gimmick was.”
The word “gimmick” is believed to come from “gimac,” an anagram of “magic.” The word was likely first used by magicians, gamblers, and swindlers in the nineteen-twenties to refer to the props they wielded to attract, and to misdirect, attention—and sometimes, according to “The Wise-Crack Dictionary,” from 1926, to turn “a fair game crooked.” From such duplicitous beginnings, the idea of gimmickry soon spread. In Vladimir Nabokov’s novel “Invitation to a Beheading,” from 1935, a mother distracts her imprisoned son from counting the hours to his execution by describing the “marvelous gimmicks” of her childhood. The most shocking, she explains, was a trick mirror. When “shapeless, mottled, pockmarked, knobby things” were placed in front of the mirror, it would reflect perfectly sensible forms: flowers, fields, ships, people. When confronted with a human face or hand, the mirror would reflect a jumble of broken images. As the son listens to his mother describe her gimmick, he sees her eyes spark with terror and pity, “as if something real, unquestionable (in this world, where everything was subject to question), had passed through, as if a corner of this horrible life had curled up, and there was a glimpse of the lining.” Behind the mirror lurks something monstrous—an idea of art as device, an object whose representational powers can distort and devalue just as easily as they can estrange and enchant.
Stakeholder vs. Shareholder Capitalism: What Is Ideal Today?
At Morningstar, we’re proud that our research teams not only operate
independently but that our analysts are encouraged to explore ideas and
raise contrarian viewpoints. The enemy of any research organization is
groupthink. A research organization needs to hire people who aren’t
afraid of challenging the status quo and who are always thinking about
how to foster a culture where people feel comfortable speaking up and
encouraging us all to think harder and sharper.
And we debate just about everything. Is the market overvalued? Should private equity be allowed into retirement plans? What categories are most suited to active investors? How much should an annuity cost? And I’d say one of the hottest areas of debate these days is ESG. Does ESG help or hurt investing performance? What ESG risks are truly material to cash flows? What should be included in a “globe rating,” and on and on.
Within the field of sustainable investing and with it evolving so rapidly, there is really no facet that we don’t debate. And today, we’ve asked a group of researchers from across Morningstar to represent opposing sides of a particular ESG argument. But we didn’t have to look far for one that’s taken centerstage in 2020.
HILL: The Great Reset
If you haven’t heard about The Great Reset yet, you will.
Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” slogan, of which no one knew the meaning or purpose, is a direct lift from The Great Reset Manifesto, let’s call it, concocted by the dreamy-eyed elites of the world who attend annual ritzy, star-studded winter retreats in Davos, Switzerland under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.
“In short” the wealthy elites of the world proclaim to the rest of the world, “we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
To save the world, these elites demand “the world must act … to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions; …every country… must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed”.
In other words, these elites demand that the entire world embrace socialism; impose much higher wealth taxes, which they will avoid paying, that’s a given; promulgate onerous regulations on banking and industry; and pass massive Green New Deals, which would “only” cost U.S. taxpayers and consumers $93 trillion to implement.
Liberal socialists never say anything about cutting government spending, lowering government regulatory burdens on business and people, getting rid of archaic government programs that have been proven ineffective, or removing legal barriers for people who want to start a business and provide a better life for their family.
Liberal socialists simply believe a lot more government is good. Conservatives don’t. It is pretty much that simple.
Every command issued by Great Reset/One World Government proponents strikes at the core of American individualism. American individualism and self-initiative led to the creation of such ground-breaking innovations as the IPhone, Amazon and Google, nothing close to which has ever been invented under socialist or communist regimes. Wait until the Great Reset dries up American innovation; Millennials and liberals will then see the adverse side of too much governmental control of our economy, then they will be ready for more free market capitalism.
Americans should understandably feel a little queasy when they hear Prince Charles or Canadian PM Justin Trudeau gush about how the COVID pandemic provides the “perfect opportunity” to change everything. Only totalitarians at heart think a pandemic or crisis is “a great time to impose their will on the world.” Hitler took power during the post-WWI economic depression in Germany to “restore the Fatherland,” to name perhaps the worst case in recent history.