A few thoughts on the MHS saga

To the Editor

Back on December 16, 2008 a big head line in the T&T read “Moncton High School repairs soar to $60M” that sure got people’s attention. The province knew that the school needed repairs and had set aside $12M for the work. But after it spent $500,000 on a report outlining the costs of renovation, we were told that the minimum price tag would be $48M and could mount as work began. In that same article we were assured it would cost between $20 and $25 million to build a new school to accommodate 1,350 students. Thus the stage was set for the MHS repair or replace debate.

Those who understand how things really work in life, or who are naturally pessimistic, guessed that when all was said and done only one factor would matter; the perceived cost of the solution. I don’t mean to say that people who fought to save MHS were wasting their time; they were taking the right stand even if it was a nearly hopeless one.

Fast forward to February 7, 2012 and the T&T article that explains the current situation. Royal Oaks developers have convinced the province to build a new school in their subdivision. A school that is now estimated at $40 million. A school that will not have the grandeur or character of old MHS, is going to cost nearly what the renovations would have. Just imagine if the debate started out: $48M on MHS or $40M on a new school. But we were convinced that the province did not have deep pockets and a new school would cost less than half what repairs would run.

"It's a fait accompli." democracy does not matter, only business deals do, so lets get on with life.

Thus we have three points to deal with. First, the logistics of making sure the new school in its out of town location is viable. Some other site may be better, but it is unlikely that the province will alter course now. So we must improve Elmwood Drive and the infrastructure of the area. Second, the question of a name; call it Oak View High or something but don’t pretend it is Moncton High. A name is an important factor. Third, the fate of the old building; which should include a museum room dedicated its former function as a school. Although most of the building may be converted to offices, shops condos, the theater and gym should become part of a center open to community use.

The real irony of the MHS saga will be when the final bills are calculated. I expect that the new school, especially with infrastructure costs, will be more than the renovation costs spent to turn old MHS into a safe and usable place.

Think about it.

How to run a Province

To the Editor: ( unpublished )

“Premier Alward will soon appoint a group of independent business people to help the provincial government run more like a business.” I read on the front page Jan 27. This is not an innovative plan; think tanks (mostly sponsored by corporations) have been pushing the idea for years. Government must act more like business because free market competition forces businesses to be efficient. That sounds sensible but its not the whole story.

Running a country or a province like a business is the wrong path to take.

A corporation includes two types of people; share holders who get a percent of the profits and workers who get a wage. The prime objective of a corporation is profit. A state includes only citizens and its prime function is to ensure the wellbeing of these people.

If we consider a state like a corporation, we would assume the citizens are share holders. Thus the executives / government would act in our best interest. That is how the theory goes. But in reality we the people would be treated like workers, a necessary feature of the corporation. Just as the wages of workers are an expense to the company, and it tries to reduce them as much as possible, so our social programs are an expense to the state.

In the business world workers are squeezed so the company can get more for less. Managers with innovative ideas about how to reduce costs are rewarded. Of course workers are never happy with wage roll backs or benefit downgrades. But corporations keep finding new ways to make them swallow bad deals.

We can expect similar treatment from our corporate run state. Citizens faced with innovative ideas about how public services can be trimmed. Millions can be cut without any harmful effect; we are told, but few of us believe it. “We must make significant changes to how we spend public money if we are to balance the budget and deliver services that are affordable and sustainable.” Alward said in his speech.

According to Statistics Canada, New Brunswick had a total revenue of $8,254 million and a total expenditure of $8,625, million thus a deficit of $371 million for the year 2009. However it is critical to point out that $936 million of the expenditures were debt service payments. The often expressed idea that government is spending way too much and must drastically downsize itself and cut back social programs is flawed. If we were not saddled with debt service payments, which are growing fast, the regular revenue would have covered the regular expenses.

My point is that a province is not a business, the state is not a corporation, it should not be run like one. Of course we need responsible financial planning but the prime goal of government must be the wellbeing of its citizens not the balancing of its books.

If Premier Alward wants to make real innovative changes, he should assemble an advisory body of political scientists, public policy scholars, political philosophers and a few historians. They all know that the economy is important, but they will also present ideas of what the state should be and what it can do. A council of businessmen will offer only the neoliberal outlook, calling for public downsize, deregulation, and the creation of a more business friendly environment.

Think about it

A Danger to Civilization

To the Editor

They are a danger to our way of life, they must be stopped. Those idealistic students and the underemployed former middle class who support them want to ruin our society. We must support our corporate rulers in their battle to suppress and discredit the Occupy Movement. If we do not, then we face economic disaster.

This statement is overly dramatic but does contain some truth. They do aim to destroy our way of life. They are not against democracy or the rule of law, they do not want to demolish civil rights or kill capitalism; although the target is a close cosine. They want to end consumerism.

To understand why this aim is a danger, we must realize how our economy works. Growth is good. You hear it in the media all the time; “an expanding economy is a healthy one”. If we have a demand for goods and services, then companies will expand to meet this need. They will employ more people, who can then afford to buy more stuff. Or so the basic theory goes. (If they employ people in Asia it does not help us here.)

An example: The many news articles that talk about keeping ‘market confidence’ high. They are really talking about encouraging people to buy stuff. If the people are not confident in the stability of the economy; the security of their jobs, they may buy less and thus decrease the demand for stuff. Companies in response will produce less and require fewer workers. Out of work people don’t buy very much, so the market instead of growing will shrink. This is economic depression.

However the Occupy Movement has a different outlook on the situation. They see consumerism as a key problem, rather than the useful driving force of the free market. To understand what consumerism is, we must consider the business man’s point of view: The absolute worst product to sell is an item that never needs to be replaced, because you can not have an endless volume of repeat customers. Conversely the best product is a single use item, which will need to be replaced frequently.

An example: Disposable cheep crap made in Asia is the general result of consumerism. Advertizing gets us to buy stuff we don’t really need. Low-cost low-quality manufacturing ensures it will not last very long. Being produced in Asia means part of each $ we spend departs the country instead of circulating here. Aside from being bad for the abstract balance of trade accounts, this activity leads to overspending on the part of the individual and massive amounts of garbage, most of which is still not recycled.

Before Christmas we saw ‘buy nothing day’ to draw attention to this issue. Most people thought it was a harmless. But if you think hard about it, the danger of the idea should be clear. If we buy less, the corporations will see their profits decline, thus they may abandon their big box stores, putting people out of work; economic disaster.

So let’s keep the consumer system strong by running up credit card debts, to buy cheep stuff we don’t really need. Because the alternative is just too uncertain to face.

Old Idea on Wealth Inequality

To the editor;

I recently read a few articles in the T&T about wealth inequality: Are CEO salaries good for the economy (Jan 4), Top executives make a year’s average salary in half a day (Jan 3), and Tax the fat cats back to human size (Jan 5).

I could try to express my shock over the fact that the average top 100 CEOs make $44,366 in half a day or I could rant about the injustice of the situation. But instead I will turn to some words of wisdom from an old Greek philosopher.

In Plato’s book “The Laws” (not “The Republic”) he talks at length about wealth inequality. I would like to point out a few of the things he says.

1. The pursuit of money is an acceptable occupation, but it is the lowest in the scale of honor.
2. A dishonest man can always become richer than an honest man, because he can earn twice as much, employing both honest and dishonest means.

3. Every state must avoid having extreme conditions of wealth and poverty. Such conditions will lead to civil war. The wealthy will use every trick they have to protect their riches. The poor will resort to fire and the sword to redistribute the wealth.

4. Both poverty and luxury corrupt the soul.

So what was Plato’s suggestion to resolve this problem of inequality?

The state should limit both poverty and wealth by setting a minimum and maximum amount that may be earned. Four social classes would be established. The poor would be guaranteed a subsistence level income, in terms of free food and essential goods equal to what could be generated by a small family farm. The lower middle class could then earn up to twice this amount. The upper middle class could earn up to four times the base amount. The rich could earn up to eight times the minimum income. Wealth generated beyond this amount was to be turned over to the state or used in the building of a public facility for the city. Penalties were to be harsh, including the confiscation of half the total wealth of an offender.

To put this in modern terms, let us assume the subsistence level today is $1,000/month (more than welfare pays) thus an annual income of $12,000. This would be the guaranteed minimum income or base amount. The lower middle class would make $24,000. The upper middle class, $48,000 and the rich would be allowed to earn $96,000 annually. Shockingly low amounts aren’t they?

In a world with top elites making 189 times more than the average citizen it’s almost impossible to imagine the rich making only eight times more than the poor.

Maybe we don’t need to adopt such a tight restriction on the wealth gap, but we should do something and soon. In a democracy we, the majority, should have the power to ensure that equality laws are enacted. But some how the elite 1% have gotten laws in place to benefit them and protect their wealth. No matter what party is elected, the rich and the corporations usually receive tax brakes not increases. Maybe this is why some people claim our democracy is faulty.

Think about it.