Knowledge For All

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
October 2010

Yeah, yeah, yeah, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. So what can we do about it? This is one of the most challenging questions I hear. On the one hand the questioner agrees with me that things are deeply wrong. On the other hand they see the engine of destruction frozen in place and no mechanic in sight. What is to be done?

My own approach is two fold. On the one hand I focus on the moral values or ethical principles that have stood the test of time and have shown themselves to be reliable guides in stormy weather.

On the other hand I focus on the new possibilities that globalizing technology and new ways of thinking are making available. Take Wikipedia for instance. Wikipedia was only started in 2001 and as of January 2010 it was attracting 78 million visitors monthly to a site created by 91,000 voluntary contributors.

So Wikipedia is not only an online encyclopedia, it is also representative of a new way of solving problems, of forming community and of sharing knowledge. It is a mechanism for harnessing the power of the crowd.

One of the ways an unregulated market economy works is it allows for capital to find or develop monopoly situations which can be exploited until something breaks. One of those little situations involves the publishing of highly specialized but very important scientific journals. An example might be Nature, the most cited scientific journal. This year the University of California threatened to boycott the Journal because proposed subscription charges were going to increase 400%. In spite of the argument by Nature Publishing Group that they were simply trying to eliminate a historical discount benefiting UC and few others, the news resonated deeply with university librarians who had seen journal subscriptions increase in price faster than any other segment of their budget, often after journals were taken over by larger for-profit corporations.

A Canadian librarian from UPEI, Mark Leggott, is leading the rebellion. In his case the last straw was a science database subscription, Web of Science, which was increasing its price by 120%. His response, and the response of UPEI, was to cancel the subscription and then to organize an alternative based on the power of the crowd. The response is called “Knowledge for All” and it is being supported by the Council of Atlantic University Libraries. Knowledge for All is not a small project. The dream is to index all the world’s scholarly journals, which means something between 4 and 5 million separate articles annually, using an approach that could be called community driven, crowd sourcing or open source, or following a wikipedia model. It will save a lot of money too.

Librarians in PEI and elsewhere are saying the system is broken. However, instead of throwing up their hands, they are teaching themselves how to become their own mechanic. Relying on the shared frustration and shared ingenuity of the group, just like the farmers of yesteryear, they are proposing to build a brand new kind of co-op. It will be light on centralized administration and heavy on group participation. It directs the new globalizing technology to the service of the community and aims at Knowledge for All. How cool is that?

• Visit my website: christopherlind.ca
• Visit my latest book: Rumours of a Moral Economy
• For other moral economy blogs see christopherlind.blogspot.com
• Visit my Facebook account: www.facebook.com/christopherlind2

Unpaid work ignored once more

Another Moral Economy Column by
Christopher Lind
12 August 2010

Meet Maureen. Maureen is a single parent of a sick child and this is how she describes her day. "I administer 10 hours of peritoneal dialysis. I prepare charts which are reviewed by doctors. I dispense medications around the clock. I change surgical dressings. I oversee daily vomiting sessions.... I order medical supplies.... I lift a 46 pound child countless times along with her wheelchair. I transport and lift 60 boxes per month of dialysis fluid. I oversee physiotherapy exercises.... I have the responsibilities of a doctor, a nurse and an orderly. All of these responsibilities are over and above the task of responsible motherhood."

I think Maureen is a hero. So are the hundreds of thousands of other parents who make responsible parenting a priority in their lives. In 1985 the Canadian Government endorsed a UN call to measure and value women’s household work. However, prior to 1996, the Canadian Census asked women like Maureen to report they had never worked in their lifetime. It was absurd but true.

The wall of indifference and incomprehension began to crack in the late 1980s when the National Farmers Union began a survey to quantify the work of farm women. Under the leadership of NFU Women’s President, Nettie Wiebe, they were able to persuade Statistics Canada to change the census. Previously, the census only allowed for one person to be listed as the farm operator and it was most often a man’s name whose was listed. After 1991 there were several slots available on the form and so women’s names could be listed as well. Like magic, the number of women farmers in the country increased dramatically.

Following the effort of the NFU, in 1991 a Saskatchewan housewife refused to fill out the compulsory long form census because it did not recognize her unpaid domestic work. Her name was Carol Lees. Canadian law says you can be arrested for refusing to fill out this census. Carol began picketing a federal government building in Saskatoon as a way of goading the government into following through on its threat.

This attracted the support of other women’s groups. Members of the National Council of Women joined her protest and the BC Voice of Women called on women to boycott the next census if questions on unpaid work were excluded. In 1993 Carol formed the Canadian Alliance of Home Managers to reduce the invisibility of unpaid work. In 1995, the Canadian Government gained great mileage at the World Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, by announcing they would include a question on unpaid household labour in the 1996 census.

As a result we learned that 91% of Manitobans over the age of 15, and living in private households, contributed unpaid work each week. We also learned that the total amount of unpaid work done in Canada is equivalent to 12.8 million full-time, full-year jobs. Two thirds of these jobs would be held by women.

The Canadian Government has now decided to scrap the compulsory long form census. The head of Statistics Canada has resigned amid the furor because the government was claiming the agency supported this change when clearly it did not. Lost in the debate is the fact the Canadian Government has also scrapped the question on unpaid household labour.

Good government policy should be based on sound data. By removing this question the government is preventing all government agencies including provincial and municipal agencies and not for profit groups from having access to sound data. Is there an agenda here? Of course there is. This move rolls back advances in gender equality by almost 25 years. This is the same government that has cut funding for women’s advocacy groups.

Maureen deserves better than that.

Visit my website: christopherlind.ca
For other moral economy blogs see christopherlind.blogspot.com
Visit my Facebook account: www.facebook.com/christopherlind2

Canada Post in Parliamentary Rummage Sale

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
10 June 2010

Rural Canadians are resilient, multi-talented people. However, they also depend on a few key institutions to support their diverse way of life. One of those institutions is the Post Office. Fortunately Canada Post recognizes their unique role. This is how the Crown Corporation describes its self-understanding on its website:

“For longer than Canada has been a country, Canada Post has been part of the bedrock of rural Canada. Today we remain the only company that serves all Canadians, in their communities, and this is not going to change.”

The last year was a difficult one for Canada Post. Its volume of mail dropped 8% in 2009 and this decline wiped out 5 years of steady growth. Even though net income increased, the Crown Corporation was unable to issue a dividend to the Government of Canada because of the challenging financial conditions.

Canada Post has a mandate to provide postal service to all Canadians. The reason it can carry out this mandate without a massive subsidy is because it can use the profit from more profitable routes to subsidize the less profitable ones. As you might imagine, the Canadian Government faces constant pressure to allow competition on those more profitable routes. It is only the pressure and vigilance from 843,000 rural Canadian households, the ones who most stand to lose from the decline of Canada Post, that keeps the cross subsidy intact.

This makes the initiative of the current federal government all the more puzzling. It has introduced an omnibus bill, C 9, to remove an exclusive privilege from Canada Post to deliver mail to addresses outside Canada. Now Bill C 9 does other things too. In fact, this single Parliamentary Bill amends over 80 separate pieces of legislation. It changes the rules for Credit Unions, it changes the rules for pensions, it even changes the agreement on social security between Canada and Poland. Possible the shortest amendment in the whole Act is the one paragraph that removes international mail delivery from the hands of Canada Post.

Why would the Government want to do this? Maybe because they have tried it twice before and failed – once before the election in 2008 and again when Parliament was prorogued in 2009. This time they have buried it so deep in other unrelated amendments it looks like they are hiding it. Omnibus bills are best used for fine tuning and technical adjustments of legislation. They are poor choices for substantive changes in policy.

What is at stake here is the question of solidarity of urban Canadians with rural Canadians. It is also a matter of fairness and whether rural Canadians can get access to the same level of service from the government as other citizens. It is also a matter of economic development. If Canada Post has to cut back on rural accessibility in order to cut costs, it will make it more difficult for new businesses to start up in, or relocate to rural areas.

This amendment, buried in bin 15 of the rummage sale known as Bill C9, may seem small but its implications are huge. If you care about your rural postal service, call your MP and ask that this fundamental policy change be given its own bill and its own dedicated debate.


Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube

This column is published in the Western Producer, Canada's largest farm newspaper. For other moral economy blogs see christopherlind.blogspot.com

Do Good and Do No Harm

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
April 8, 2010

In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas summed up our ethical imperatives with the phrase “Do good and do no harm”. This was not original to him. He was affirming what he learned from early Greek philosophers. The medical profession makes the same claim, which it learned from Hippocrates over 2,000 years ago. This simple formulation expresses a very powerful and complex moral command.

For example, humanity is hungry for energy. Even as we fret about the consequences of releasing so many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from burning oil and gas, we also frantically search for new ways of expanding our dwindling supply. One of the dramatic new developments in the energy field has been the re-evaluation of our supply of natural gas stored in shale rock formations. The largest formation of this type in North America is the Marcellus Shale, which lies underneath New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Ohio. It also extends underneath Lake Erie and into southern Ontario between Port Stanley and St. Thomas. In 2002 it was estimated that this shale formation contained 1.9 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of recoverable natural gas. Only 7 years later that estimate was increased over 100 times to 262 TCF. (The largest shale gas field in Canada is the Horn River basin in northeastern British Columbia with an estimated 25-50 TCF of recoverable gas.)

The difference in the estimates has to do with new techniques of recovery. Through a process called hydraulic fracturing, small explosions are created underground by pumping in fluids to create pressure. These explosions create fractures that release the gas and allow it to be extracted. The fluids are mostly water and so many people are concerned about competing uses of water. Similar concerns about water use are raised with the Bakken shale formation in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and even the Tar Sands in Alberta. In an arid climate, who gets first use?

The fracturing can also change the flow of underground water aquifers creating risks for nearby communities. A small amount of the fluid (0.49%) is made up of a variety of chemicals like ethylene glycol (used in antifreeze) and petroleum distillates (used in makeup remover). It used to contain diesel oil, which contains benzene (a carcinogen). In densely populated eastern North America these concerns have caused intensive environmental reviews.

To be concerned about energy production in an energy hungry world is a morally good thing. However, there are two major ethical concerns that need to be addressed. Firstly, it makes a moral difference if we are working to feed someone who is malnourished or if we are feeding someone who is a glutton. No one can argue that North Americans are malnourished when it comes to energy. We are the biggest energy pigs on the planet.

Secondly, when we work to accomplish something good, we need to make sure we are not also causing harm. It would be unethical to increase our energy supply at the cost of polluting our water supply.

Some decisions do require a moral balancing of goods. We might be willing to divert water from golf course irrigation to energy production but we would probably be unwilling to divert it from food production. Food is essential but my favourite six iron maybe not so much.

---

Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube

This column is published in the Western Producer, Canada's largest farm newspaper. For other moral economy blogs see christopherlind.blogspot.com

FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
December 2009

I have been ashamed of my country only twice in my life. The first time was when we declared war on Iraq in 1990. The second was last week when I listened to a British journalist upbraid Canadians for allowing our government to undermine new international action on climate change. I never thought Canada would declare war in my lifetime and I never thought my Canadian government would undermine collective efforts to do the right thing internationally. I was wrong on both counts.

The connecting issue for both of these events is oil, or as the Beverly Hillbillies used to say “black gold, Texas tea”. In 1990 we were protecting Western interests in the oil resources of the Middle East. In 2009 we are protecting Western interests in the Alberta tar sands. I am not sure we are protecting Canadian interests because I don’t know what interests Canada would have in polluting the Athabasca watershed, destroying 500 sq. kms of landscape, increasing the cancer risk of nearby populations and increasing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. On the other hand, the Government of Alberta says there are 173 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered from the tar sands using today’s technology. At $50 per barrel that means there is over $8.6 trillion to be made, and more as the price of oil rises. A lot of people have an interest in that.

People feel shame when they see themselves as others see them, and their behaviour contradicts their stated values and beliefs. It makes us want to cover ourselves, or hide because a real part of ourselves feels exposed. It was more than a little irritating to be shamed and exposed by a Brit. After all, what crime could Canadians commit that Britain hasn’t done many times over? On the other hand, the feeling of shame suggests the journalist had touched a nerve. Why would I feel shame if I had nothing to hide?

Even though it seems like this is a debate about mining in Alberta, it is really about you and me. Even though I live in Toronto I am fully implicated in this issue. I drive a car that burns gasoline. I heat my home with natural gas. My pension fund earns income from Suncor and some of the other 91 commercial projects located there. My government wants to make the politics of climate change to be about what the Chinese will or won’t do, and what the Indian government will agree to or won’t. But the climate is changing more because of what Canadians and Americans are doing than anyone else. The average Canadian produces almost 5 times more carbon dioxide than the average Chinese produces and more than 10 times what a citizen of India produces. My government is being mean and petty, selfish and deceitful; but if you and I don’t change the way we live, we’ll be no different.

If you’re old enough to remember the cartoon strip “Pogo” then you’ll remember cartoonist Walt Kelly’s most famous line “We have met the enemy and he is us”. Kelly used that on a poster for the first Earth Day in 1970. It’s still true.

---

Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube

For other moral economy blogs see here
This column is published in the Western Producer, Canada's largest farm newspaper.

ARE WE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER OR NOT?

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
October 2009

Every other day I open the newspaper and read some new speculation about another federal election. Will we, won’t we, and what story will we tell ourselves this campaign is about? Given the crisis we are still in the middle of, the story should probably be an economic one.

Prime Minister Harper seems to be anticipating this because he keeps goading the Leader of the Opposition into saying how he would deal with the new fiscal deficit. Harper inherited a fiscal surplus and proceeded to eliminate it by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Now he is trying to scare the electorate into believing his opponent would raise taxes, whereas Harper would not. Liberal Party leader Ignatieff is then put in the fantastic position of declaring that he would not raise taxes because a growing economy would automatically raise government income.

Can we please start speaking honestly to each other? The fiscal deficit has been created in three ways. Firstly the federal sales tax (GST) was cut from 7% to 6% and than to 5% by the Conservatives. Secondly, the economy has gone into recession because of the fallout from the collapse of the housing bubble in the US. Thirdly, government spending has increased in order to stimulate the economy and all the parties agreed to this.

I am confident that things will turn around. However, when they do, our increased income won’t pay off the deficit all by itself. We will also have to reduce our discretionary spending so we can get back to reducing our debt, which is now much bigger than when all this started. (Societies always have a debt because we are constantly investing in the future, but that’s another story)

There are only two ways we can do that. Either we can raise taxes or we can cancel or reduce services. The Liberals like to trumpet their achievement of slaying the deficit dragon in the mid-90s. How did they do that? Well, first of all they refused to reduce or eliminate the 7% GST introduced by Brian Mulroney’s government, thereby increasing revenue. Then they reduced funding to the Provinces to pay for health, education and welfare, thereby cutting expenses. Those provincial funding cuts caused provinces to cut back welfare rates, introduce or increase healthcare premiums and reduce funding to school boards. So, the deficit was paid for in part by the poor, the sick and the young.

So, here’s a News Flash: I do want taxes to be raised and I want a debate about whether that should be through increasing the GST (a 1% increase generates about $11 billion/yr) or increasing income taxes. I worry about Harper’s plan because I am afraid he will ask the weakest members of society to pay for it. I worry about Ignatieff’s plan because this is exactly what the Liberals did last time. From my point of view we should all pay for this together because we’re all in this together. Is that so hard to talk about?

Joseph Heath tells a funny story that relates to this. He is in an auto repair shop when the customer ahead of him starts criticizing her bill. “How much of this is taxes?” she asks, “I just want to know how much those bastards are taking from me!” After further conversation the woman announced she had to leave because she was late for her shift as a nurse. “Wait a minute”, replied Heath, “you’re a nurse, at a public hospital? That means you work for the government! Those ‘bastards’ are using this money to pay your salary. That’s like Tom Cruise complaining about the price of movie tickets.”

Heath’s point is that the right wing has convinced the population that the government is a consumer of wealth (like a parasite) whereas the private sector is a producer of wealth, whereas the public sector actually contributes to the economy just as robustly as any other sector. This attitude is deeply rooted in some segments of the US. One of the attitudes I commonly heard expressed in Saskatchewan was that the government is the biggest co-op going – healthy attitude that!

Joseph Heath teaches philosophy at the University of Toronto. His latest book, Filthy Lucre was published this year by Harper Collins.


Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube

For other moral economy blogs see

WHEN MORALITY IS AGAINST THE LAW

Another Moral Economy Column
By Christopher Lind
27 August 2009

Have you ever downloaded music from the Internet? Do you know anyone else who has – a son or daughter perhaps? Have you ever sent a copy of a song you liked to a friend? When you did, were you sharing a treasured experience and giving a gift; or were you shoplifting and passing along stolen goods? Those are very different images for the same activity aren’t they?

Joel was 16 in 2003 when he received a letter demanding $5,250.00 for 7 songs he had downloaded through a file sharing service on the Internet. Joel was scared by this official and legal letter demanding payment so, with help from his parents, he sent along a cheque for $500 and explained that he was a high school student and couldn’t afford anything more than that. They offered to settle for $3500 and his cheque was returned.

Joel graduated from high school and moved to Boston to attend university. Four years had passed when he received a notice requiring him to appear in court. He was being sued, along with some 30,000 other people, by companies like Sony Music, Warner Brothers and Arista records, all coordinated by the Record Industry Association. Joel offered to settle for $5,000 but the record companies now wanted $10,500.

At this point a Law Professor offered to represent Joel in court. Charles Neeson holds the William F. Wed Chair in Law at Harvard University where he is also the founder and Co-Director of the Birkman Center for Internet and Society. Prof. Neeson believes that the Internet is a digital version of the old common grazing lands of the 17th century. Prof. Neeson believes the Internet was started as an open domain but has recently been fenced off by capital investors who want to increase their profits through new exclusive property rights.

Joel lost his court case this summer, as expected. He was found guilty of downloading 30 songs and required to pay compensation of $22,500 per song. That means $675,000. He will appeal.

Sociologists will tell you that markets are embedded in society through law, politics and morality. However, it is possible for markets to partly embedded and partly disembedded. The market for property rights in digital music is embedded in American law through the Digital Theft Deterrence Act. However, it is not embedded in morality. Not only are there professors and academic institutes that think digital file sharing is not theft, there are artists too. John Perry Barlow, lyricist for the famous musical group, the Grateful Dead, believes that the online world presents us with a new form of the ‘gift economy’ “where no moral blameworthiness attaches to non-commercial sharing”. When new markets are created, morality is often contested. When public libraries were created, large publishers campaigned against them because borrowing books was going to take away their profits. It is still possible to find old paperbacks with a notice inside the front cover warning the reader that this book could not be lent or even resold.

Markets require legitimacy – political, legal and moral legitimacy. When Mahatma Gandhi marched his followers to the sea in order to make their own salt, he was breaking the British law by refusing to pay the salt tax. Was he a criminal? According to the British colonial legal system, yes. Was he morally right? According to the Indian people, even more so.

You can follow Joel’s story for free at http://joelfightsback.com


Visit the website at christopherlind.ca
Visit the YouTube channel at Moral Economy column on YouTube