- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Down the Drain Goes a P3
Why Whistler flushed a sewage public-private partnership. A special report.
Showdown in paradise.
Whistler is a town full of wealthy citizens. You wouldn't usually expect them to oppose the private sector. But on Monday, Whistler dealt a decisive blow to the public-private partnership (P3) model in B.C.
In B.C., as well as other provinces, P3s are increasingly being used as a tool to meet municipal infrastructure needs, and Partnerships B.C. has stated that P3s are expected to meet 10 to 20 per cent of B.C.'s capital infrastructure needs.
Which means that what can seem at first glance like a narrow discussion about how to treat sewage in a world-class resort community is actually a debate with much broader significance.
The P3 project in Whistler received significant time, community scrutiny and input. Indeed, the story of how this particular project was rejected, re-sold, then rejected again, says much about how hard people are willing to fight on both sides on the province-wide issue of P3s.
Latest chapter
The most recent round of the debate that's been running since 2001 happened on Monday night when Whistler council met to decide whether to take the proposed P3 to a referendum or cancel the project entirely.
The supporters and opponents raised now-familiar P3 issues. Proponents said a P3 would save considerable money (15 per cent -- or about $11 to 16 million -- over the term of the 12-year contract), increase environmental accountability and speed up the construction process. Opponents of the project, spearheaded by the Whistler Water Watch, were concerned about cost overruns, lack of control in the event of a spill, and risk to the environment. As part of the "alternative approval process," which just concluded on June 12, Whistler Water Watch gathered over 1,800 signatures.
On Monday night, Whistler Water Watch presented the ballots to council. The mayor, Ken Malamed, said was surprised at the number, and suggested council extend the vote by two weeks to give the P3 supporters more time to make their case. In the end, however, in a 4-3 decision, the council voted against the extension and also voted against continuing to a referendum. This effectively killed the P3 project.
But while there's dispute about the method, no one in the community disputes that Whistler needs a new sewage treatment plant. Even though in September 2004, the Sierra Legal Defense Fund awarded Whistler second place amongst 22 cities across Canada for its tertiary sewage treatment system -- the highest level possible -- and while the publicly owned and operated treatment plant boasts a highly efficient operation, with an operating cost per unit treated that is less than the average of 17 other Canadian waste water treatment plants, it's an aging facility. With complaints about odour, 150 discharges into the Cheakamus River over the past eight years, and a need to prepare for the influx of people during the Olympics, an upgrade is in order. So while few residents would argue that the treatment plant is in need of an upgrade, the privatization plan has become a point of contention.
In fact, the community didn't begin with the privatization option. At the beginning of the debate about how to proceed, in 2001, Mayor Melamed and council rejected a P3 solution entirely. But on May 30, 2002, the B.C. Liberal government announced the creation of a new policy -- the Capital Asset Management Framework -- which requires that public sector agencies investigate alternatives for capital development, including the P3 option.
So after rejecting the P3 option, the province asked Whistler to revisit its decision. And on January 10, 2005, in a 5-2 decision, Whistler announced its support of the P3 option to "design, build and operate" the upgrade to the existing wastewater treatment plant. If the project were to go ahead, design, construction and daily operation would be handed over to a private company.
Risky business
Why did the municipality change its mind in favour of the P3? One of the driving considerations, says Melamed, was the approach of the Olympics. "Not only [is] a certain percentage of the risk transferred to the private sector, but also they were suggesting an accelerated construction schedule." For the mayor, the potential cost savings were also an important factor; the contract was to be for a fixed price, with any cost overruns to be picked up by the company. The mayor has also said that the environmental compliance potential of the P3 option was better than that of the public sector.
Melamed says he had reservations about the P3, but going through the process made him more confident that P3s could deliver on their promises. For him, it came down to having faith in the consultants and professionals, as well as listening to the community's concerns. "I have heard both sides of the argument," said the mayor, "and...I have said to the community that I am prepared to accept [that] in both cases there are risks. I am prepared to accept the risks of the P3 model."
From the time council voted in favour, two main issues came up: the privatization of drinking water and the protection of public sector employees. In response, council passed a resolution ensuring drinking water would not be privatized, and created a bridging agreement to protect plant workers for the first two years. But despite these assurances, the community of Whistler remained divided on the issue and the P3 option started to meet with increasingly significant opposition.
Boil water?
For Pina Belperio, a co-founder of Whistler Water Watch who helped to lead the fight against the P3, none of the mayor's or council's assurances held any water. Belperio says that Whistler Water Watch had no objection to a private company coming in to build the plant; what they objected to is the "design, build, operate" approach -- or privatization -- of a public facility. Belperio says there were issues of economics, water security, environment, accountability and transparency.
"We have seen in other communities that where a company comes in, prices start going up and services start going down," she argues, and points to what happened in places like Africa and South America. This past January, in the city of Cordoba, Argentina (which handed over the management of its water to the French company Suez in 1997), the residents faced a 500 per cent tariff increase on their water bills.
Closer to home, privatization has also led to problems. In 2005, the Indianapolis Star reported problems after Veolia Water -- the largest water company in the world -- was hired to run the city's water utility. "In January," says the article, "thousands of gallons of untreated water slipped into the system and prompted a boil water advisory that shut down some companies and sent home about 40,000 public school children." The paper further reported that supply shortages led Veolia to ask customers to limit their water usage during peak hours. Additionally, the U.S. Attorney's Office issued subpoenas in an investigation regarding allegations of falsified water quality reports.
In 2000, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control issued a statement announcing that U.S. Filter (now Veolia Water North America), was assessed a $91,000 penalty for pollution violations. The press release stated that, "The penalty action we are taking today is the result of an ongoing series of violations that involved exceedances with respect to the facility's discharge standards, as well as a one-time 13-million gallon discharge from the pump station that in our opinion easily could have been prevented."
Shipping sewage to Squamish?
Belpario was also concerned about environmental issues. On March 2, 2004, Partnerships B.C. (PBC) submitted a report to Whistler entitled "Partnerships BC Business Case: Whistler Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Project, Final Draft." According to Belperio, this report was never made public. Dayton & Knight Ltd., the engineering firm that has been advising Whistler on water and waste water issues for much of the life of the town, reviewed the proposal and said the Partnerships B.C. proposal is based on "unrealistic and erroneous assumptions."
The Dayton & Knight report (released under the Freedom of Information Act) revealed that the P3 plan included trucking untreated sewage to Squamish in order to reduce costs. But "trucking of untreated solids to a composting plant in Squamish," says the Dayton & Knight report, "is a high risk solution from a financial, environmental and political perspective."
In addition, the Dayton & Knight report suggests that Partnerships B.C. had underestimated the cost of trucking the waste to Squamish by a significant margin. For some, this option raises serious questions with respect to the commitment of both the province and Partnerships B.C. to the environment -- particularly as Whistler is committed to the Natural Step. Furthermore, the proposal downplayed the legal liability and risk to the environment in the case of a spill.
Some people had concerns that trucking the waste would contribute to global warming. It also raises questions about Partnership B.C.'s purported desire to save taxpayers' money, in that it also exposes taxpayers to the possibility of an increased project cost due to the upward trend in fuel prices.
The Dayton & Knight report reveals that many key aspects of the sewage treatment plant are omitted, "specifically or by implication of cost reduction," from the PBC "shadow bid," including odour upgrades at WBS and dewatering buildings, and overall odour control for digesters. Also, the PBC makes no mention of the costs associated with covering the bio-filter with a roof that can support snow loads. Belpario says she was concerned the cost of the project would actually be much higher, since many key aspects of the sewage treatment plant were deleted in order to improve the case for Partnerships B.C.'s arguments.
Belperio says, "The other concern we have is that wastewater is a way in for...drinking water [privatization] and we don't want to give that over." While Belperio notes the council's resolution that drinking water will not be privatized, she says the next municipal government is free to change this.
The conclusion of Dayton & Knight's report is that, "Support for the DBO can be made only for political or self-serving reasons. Its selection over the current traditional approach lacks or excludes common sense, ethics, imagination, history and reason."
False promises?
Proponents of P3s argue that they allow cash-poor communities and governments to complete projects faster, defer payments and transfer risk from the public sector to the private sector. Those who support P3s further suggest that the private sector brings innovation and efficiency, which in turn can reduce construction costs.
Stuart Murray, the public interest researcher at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, has completed a major study on P3s. According to Murray, the promise of risk transfer and savings produced through innovation and efficiency is overstated. While Murray is quick to point out that he does not believe that governments are deliberately out to increase cost, the fact remains that P3s are considerably more expensive.
While proponents of the P3 model often argue that innovation and efficiency will save the public money, Murray states that this is, in fact, a false premise. Unlike the public sector capital projects, P3s have three barriers that they must overcome: first, there are more expensive procurement costs, which on a large project can be several millions of dollars; second, there is the issue of profit margins, from which investors expect at least a 10 per cent return. And third, interest rates can run much higher than when borrowing from government. In the case of projects that are financed by the business or consortium doing the project, interest rates run much higher than when borrowing from government -- with private sector borrowing rates being a minimum of one per cent more. While one per cent may not seem like much, it can add millions of dollars to a project over the life of the contract.
It takes a village...of lawyers
Moreover, says Murray, once the P3 is up and running, it is still not able to operate more cheaply than the public sector. Often, says Murray, the most expensive line items in the procurement process for governments and the contractor are the hiring of lawyers, accountants and consulting firms to provide advice as to how to design the bids and structure the contracts.
Murray says that, "These cost barriers are high enough and the returns on private sector innovation are low enough that the private sector is not able to overcome the cost barrier." He also says that with respect to risk transfer, such as fixed-price contracts, corporations carefully calculate and weigh the potential cost to the company and invariably pass this along in the form of an increased cost to the government. "Again," says Murray, "the private sector is carefully calculating what the risks are...and how much additional money they have to charge the government." In essence then, governments are able give the illusion of meeting fixed price contracts while corporations are given pre-packaged profits.
The issue of profitability should not be overestimated. In an August 2002 report by the United States General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office), on the issue of privatization of water infrastructure, companies cited profit potential as a key issue when considering whether to take over a public utility. Respondent companies cited several areas that they look at when assessing profit potential: potential to improve efficiency, proximity to other utilities, potential of companies for system growth, and the terms of the proposed contract.
Interestingly, the report also cites two examples of "deal breakers" with respect to profitability. One is restrictive contract provisions with regard to maintenance, the other is the desire for unlimited liability guarantees being placed on the companies by the community.
So are there any successful P3s? Many P3 advocates point to the Moncton water treatment plant as a success. In a January 2006 letter from the Moncton director of special projects to the municipality of Whistler, Ronald H. LeBlanc outlined the supposed benefits. In 1998, Violia and Moncton entered into a 20-year agreement to design, build, finance, and operate its water treatment facility. The arrangement was completed on the basis that the community would save $9 million in capital costs and $12 million in operation and management costs over the 20-year contract. According to CBC, the city has been happy with the quality of the water. The union in Moncton, however, has suggested that the plant could have been built for $14 million less if the project had been done in the traditional manner.
One of the key problems in evaluating the success of P3s is that the proponents have virtually no projects that they can point to which have met the stated goals of ultimately saving money and being more efficient. To counter this, proponents point to projects that are under way or being proposed. As an example, Murray pointed to the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships, which recently gave the Abbotsford Hospital an award for project of the year. The important thing to note, says Murray, is that the project is not yet built and that there are no audited statements looking backwards to see if the project was indeed cost effective.
Problems and profits
Given these issues, many people are wondering why the provincial government is pursuing the privatization course. Some experts suggest it's because the current B.C. government is aggressively neo-conservative and pro-business. They think that the way that government can be made more effective is to hand over as many aspects of it as possible to the private sector. Blair Redlin, a researcher at CUPE, suggests that the long-term contracts on which most P3s are based, coupled with increased costs, effectively "ties the hands of government."
As many people have pointed out, the goals of private contractors and public agencies are often very different. Perhaps this is why Adam Smith, arguably the grandfather of free market economics, suggested that one of the key duties of government is "erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."
For Pina Belperio and Whistler Water Watch, problems with P3s are obvious: "I don't see how they can save money when ultimately they have to make a profit."
Guy Warrington is a freelance photojournalist and reporter. He lives and works in Vancouver. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Should You Run from that Medical Test?
- 'The Dictator'
- Death in Remand: Stacked Deck
- 'Moonrise Kingdom'
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
30
Login or register to post comments
darcy.mcgee
5 years ago
Comments on "Down the Drain Goes a P3"
Wow That First Paragraph Of This Article Is Really Annoying With All The Capital Letters
Chris H
5 years ago
One thing is quite clear with P3s ... the public always gets screwed. Once a private company is in charge, they will do anything to make bigger margins and more profit. They aren't accountable to the public like government is. How would you feel if someone did a cost-benefit analysis on your child's life?
We have to be very careful when entering into service agreements with private corporations. It isn't just a BC Liberal problem either. Look at Aircare ... we can thank the NDP for that one! New car owners pay the same amount to get their car automatically passed that people driving around in old clunkers do. All so a private company can mantain their revenue stream. We want openness and accountability! Isn't that what Gordon Campbell promised us? Secret 990 year contracts should never happen.
Fiat lux
5 years ago
The letters PPP stand for Plundering the Public Purse.
There are thousands of examples right around the world, yet ideologically warped political minds still support it, hoping for miracles that never happen.
The Bank of Canada Act has a clause permitting all levels of government to borrow for such projects, interest free. That was the main purpose for the setting up of the Bank some 70 odd years ago, but shoved under the carpet to please the bloodsucking money lenders .
In other words, no government should borrow from private sources, especially from abroad, because that money is freshly created from the air for the purpose by the banks and then people have to pay interest through the nose for nothing.
In any case, the presently, secretly negotiated GATS treaty at the WTO will forcibly open up all publicly owned services for multinational privatization.
Yet the vast majority of people have never even heard of the GATS, while our governments are eager to sign it, as they did with the FTA and NAFTA disasters.
The purpose of these fraudulent treaties has nothing to do with the "free movement of trade", but the abolishment of the democratic decision making powers of all levels of government, in other words, the killing of democracy.
After the GATS is signed, municipal councils won't even be able to make zoning bylaws and multinationals will be able to import slave labour "experts" to replace locals.
Look up the facts first, before coming back with ideological denials.
Ed Deak, Big Lake.
jesterjogger
5 years ago
Yep those arrogant a$$wholes in whistler are always sh!tting on Squamish.
They get a billion dollar highway to make it easier to get to their wife-swapping parties and we get every greedy developer in western Canada raping our town.
They get millions in provincial taxpayer funded amenities and we get a filthy f'n wal-mart.
Well I got news for you whistler!
With gordo and his developer cronies massive gentrification plan, soon Squamish will have it's own cabal of nimby, rich, elitist a$$wholes and you'll have to deal with your own crap for once.
hunter
5 years ago
jesterjogger- Unfortunately sh*t flows downhill.
DPL
5 years ago
The POlicy alternative folks put out a report funded by a union , panning P3's,they investigated in many places. Suddenly the newspapers go into overdrive. P3's are just great, and the Policy folks are left wingers. With the media on side, no wonder so many folks havn't caught on. Companies are designed to make money. Peter Drucker once said" The first concern for a company is to make a profit, or words to that effect. So who is Peter Ducker? Just about the most influential thinker in the US of A.
20MileRanch
5 years ago
Congratulations to RMOW for making a decision in the best interest of the public. What is interesting to me is the amount of time and effort required of volunteers to hold on to public assets.
Al Gore, in his "must-see" film An Inconvenient Truth, reminds us that we must use our resources wisely. He goes on to say our political system is a renewable resource.
Perhaps, in light of trade agreements which are designed to strip us of our democracy, the public should form a corporation and compete with private corporations for our public assets. The provincial government is certainly seeing to the transfer of public assets as quickly as possible.
All of our hydro capable small rivers were quietly licensed into private hands without the public having any opportunity to participate and when they tried hard to be involved the provincial government made a law, BILL 30, which will keep the public out by law.
When laws are created to be used against the public interest (BILL 30) it is time for people to act. It is the people in Whistler and all the communities in BC who will lead the way in defending our rights and title to our public resources. The most important public asset we have in BC is water for drinking, for habitat and for hydropower.
fanshaw
5 years ago
Despite all that is known about P3s, a Global TV reporter talking about the new outpatient hospital in Surrey this week continued to repeat the canard that they save taxpayers money. How can citizens make an informed choice when the news media is part of the Liberals' PR machine?
Worrywart
5 years ago
"The purpose of these fraudulent treaties has nothing to do with the "free movement of trade", but the abolishment of the democratic decision making powers of all levels of government, in other words, the killing of democracy."
I could not agree more with Ed Deak. Democracy is quickly being stripped away by stealth. god knows what the "three amigos" signed us up for in their Texas lie fest? However, the rumour is a continental currency by 2010, which would strip away more of Canada's economic independence. Of course, there is no time to discuss such issues when fighting the "War of Terror"
Keep up the good work Ed, it's great to see that some people are awake!
Bailey
5 years ago
Jane Jacobs, the city planning lady who authored "Dark Age Ahead" drew a very good distinction between the social purposes of government and private interests.
They are very different interests, and while they aren't in absolute conflict, society does need both functions, their interests are in conflict.
She begins by renaming the functions. Government she calls the guardians, while private and corporate bodies are for production and exchange.
She makes two points that seem salient here.
One is that cities and societies at large prosper by replacing imported goods and services with local ones. Even when the cost per unit is higher, if the economic activity is local, the multiplyer effect as the money goes to local families, then to local suppliers, and so on, taxed at each stage of course, is pure prosperity.
The other is that guardians must guard. They cannot be permitted to have business interests at the same time. The conflict of interests is intolerable.
The purposes of society may not be inimical to business, but the purposes of business are pure poison to a functioning society.
RickW
5 years ago
Fiat Lux:
Or,
Psychopathic Personality Predisposition..........
RickW
5 years ago
Ed:
The citizens are throwing the bums out in S. America. They don't seem to care what some previous government signed. I figure we could learn a lesson or two here.........
Fiat lux
5 years ago
I'm glad to see the citizens waking up at least in some parts of the world, to gain something they never had, but when are they going to wake up here, where we have the most to lose ?
Ed Deak.
Coyote
5 years ago
Ed Deak.
Regrettably, but in a word, "PAIN", Ed. There are just so many folks out there it seems, with their heads in neutral, or shopping, that they are going to have to feel THE PAIN first, it seems, before they start to get their poop together.
When everybody is looking after #1, which is the dominant "isolation" or "separation to control" effect of highly advanced, organized and media controlled "greed" capitalism on the mass collective mind, it seems to me, one can only really await its collapse and the crashing of reality into the room, coming through the roof.
And its acomin', babe.
Patience is the magic word, has been my experience. That and readying ones own intellectual toughness, and those as can, organizing as best they can, and agitating, agitating, agitating.
It's got to get beyond just that too, mind, but that seems to be where it starts-, in this period. Agitation = Education. (Though there are also times when things can suddenly begin to turn around and change very fast politically and socially too, as folks start to catch on.)
Fiat lux
5 years ago
With millions of others, many of my friends long dead, we've fought with arms and worked for 45 years to bring down Soviet communism. But even with our contacts, we were most surprised, and were thankful, when it crumbled with a whimper and virtually without any bloodshed.
The only thing I'm hoping for that neocon/neolib/neoclassical capitalism will croak in the same, relatively peaceful way and then the rebuilding of the human race can begin.
Ed Deak.
Coyote
5 years ago
I do think the manner in which the old USSR collapsed does tell us something else about the ways in which that process can occur. And though I think it likely was that Russian "state capitalism" was destined to give way to a however crude kind of "liberal capitalism", as occured in a kind of "soft implosion"-, for the mass of Russians, what has replaced it can scarecly be described as any better. Indeed, save for the criminal and bureaucratic class become capitalists, the current period is probably just a somewhat more modified version of the old nightmare. They are the same peas in the same pod, just wearing different ruling class faces.
So while I certainly wouldn't rule out the same thing happening here, at the end of the "entire system", and possibly even it being a "nice" way for it to go-, there's still going to likely be a struggle in the aftermath to set it all back in a progressive and "democratic" motion direction.
For if the current period is any indicator, with the rise of "criminal gangs" in Russia and here (Hell's Angels etc.), that is entirely possible to carry over into the new period as well. And that tendency will likely have to be fought against in the days when it all "no longer works" as well.
Though I hope you are right, and one way of doing things simply flows seamlessly into another. It probably depends again, on how much folks have their collective shitt together, and their level of social and political understanding, and whether they engage it or not. Mostly, it's just all my basic instincts warn me, that it ain't likely going to be just that easy. "Yo foolin' yerself, boy!" the little voice says.
Still, one can dream. :-) There is a stage, at least, at which it is harmless-, as much as there is one at which it also hampers dealing with reality. :-)
Bailey
5 years ago
I can argue that the neo-conservative movement in the west is a result of a schism within the Soviet system.
Ayn Rand, founder of Objectivism, was a Soviet who fled to the US to teach her own version of the Soviet dream. Her novels and philosophy were and are very influential in the creation and propagation of the neo-conservative world view.
Like mainstream Soviet thinking, Objectivism is elitist, oppresses the workers, punishes any dissent or even any indication that their dogma may not be universally true. As anyone who is elderly, disabled or damaged can testify.
Her Objectivist world view holds that there are no values that aren't reflected by financial values. A large Christian group within the neo-conservative fold even seems to hold that the poor are poor because Jesus doesn't love them, so they should not be prevented from starving except if they accept the word.
Then they will be saved, fed and allowed to assume their rightful places as exploited workers for the companies of the faithful.
The Soviet system didn't fail and disappear, it simply re-bloomed in new soil.
The Democratic Communist thing was just a front, like the Democratic Capitalist thing is now. They weren't really democratic or communist then, any more than they are democratic or capitalist now.
Coyote
5 years ago
Which is the exact point I have been trying to make here many times-, only you said it more directly and better, Bailey. Thanks for that. :-)
Only the "appearance" of the old Soviet system failed, while its underlying reality "morphed" itself into the new "Criminal Gang Capitalism", trying at least to present more classic and acceptable "capitalist" characteristics to the world.
Similarly, it is only the "appearance" of our "capitalist society" that is democratic. The reality is, it is never far removed from the dominant control of wealth and corporate power, from its electoral beginning through to its final "state governance" result. Even then real power, control of wealth/resources/ and capital property is always at their command. It gives them an actual "vetoe power" over everything else-, all facets of economic, political and social life within our society, no less in fact than the old Soveit system of "State Capitalism".
So long as there is a relative "prosperity" however, folks either do not bother to see it, or catch on, or they simply refuse to. It is "material prosperity", at least at an "adequate" level for "most", which makes makes capitalism tolerable to the mass of society. When and as that begins to break down, and the quality diminishes in their lives, then will the other rips and tears in the fabric of the system all begin to be noticed and grate on their sensibilities.
People will even tolerate poverty, was the experience of the 1930s in this country, so long as folks think the misery and means of sustenance are at least about shared equally by everyone around them. Capitalism becomes almost immediately intolerable at that precise point where it is no longer able to hold peoples attention and loyalty with "glitzy stuff" or "bling" however. Then everything else that is wrong with the system, all its annoying inequalities, become quickly apparent as well.
The neocons are playing with fire here, in this new stage of capitalism's development, organizing the return to an older capitalism, previously rejected as unworkable, and undermining the quality of working people's live. To here they had more or less successfully neutralized them as a serious threat to the integrity of the system, even the trade union movement had been turned into a tame dancing bear. (Much still so.) They are putting all that previous effort to create a "socialized" kind of capitalism in jeopardy. And that has a consequence out there for them in time and space.
Fiat lux
5 years ago
I have long maintained that capitalism and communism, at the practical level the same theories, with expropriation power concentrated in the hands of a self appointed power elite, are twin bothers under the skin, and have been writing on it for many years.
Must be 35-40 years ago, when I was talking to a stockbroker customer of mine in Vancouver and said that if Canada had been under communist rule for 50 years, the same people would be living in the British Properties as were then. He never spoke to me again and I lost his business.
During the phoney Cold War, both sides had the chance to ruin the economy of the other. Especially the Soviets, who could easily have wrecked the stockmarkets and with them the whole system. They had the money and the knowledge and could easily have hired the strawmen to do it, but they didn't. Why? Because the arms race diverted attention from the real issues and enriched the rulers on both sides.
The biggest and most cruel joke is what the PR hacks were pumping as the Berlin wall was being broken down: "The people of the East have chosen capitalism over communism"
They did no such thing. They wanted to be free from their brutal ruling class and fell into the hands of another. The system collapsed on its own, because of total corruption, as capitalism is working its way down as we watch.
There comes the time in every empire, and the globalized free market economy is nothing more, or less, than the biggest empire in history, when the faith based corruption the system survives on, runs out of steam and collapses.
This is what happened under the Soviets, but as far living conditions are concerned, some of the countries are just beginning to get back to the same levels they had under communism and some, like Russia itself, are still way behind even of the miserable state they had then.
But their ruling classes, many of them the same communist hacks, are richer and more powerful, than ever. The largest foreign villa and yacht owner group on the Mediterranean are former communist cadres, now capitalist millionaires.
Ed Deak.
RickW
5 years ago
Fiat lux:
And on a philosophical level as well, I have maintained there is no difference at all between communism and capitalism (practiced ideally). In the one, you must strive to be the best you can be, as the best way to serve the society, which in turn best serves your needs. In the other, you must necessarily strive to be the best you can be to serve yourself, and by association the society in which you live........
So as the goals of the ideal are the same, so it would follow that the types of "viruses" that can corrupt both would be similar, if not the same.
Coyote
5 years ago
Hmm. Sehr interresant, nicht wahr? Seems Bailey, Fait and myself are in a general kind of agreement. The former Communist (Stalinist wing), the former anti-Communist, and what...??? ...Bailey the "liberal" academic? :-)
We might disagree on this or that point, or even a big issue or two, here or there, but overall, we share an analysis result. Interesting. I'm not quite sure what to make of it, or even how important it is, but interesting nonetheless.
Bailey
5 years ago
It's not surprizing. The industrial revolution took place in a world where monarchs owned all; property, workers, the means and the products, and maintained this power by military means.
Not a shock then, that industrialists adopt this template for exercising command and control. Capitalism and communism both are social attempts to correct the problems inherent in this pattern.
The problem is that none of the three corrects the biggest problem of monarchy, which is that monarchs are more likely than the general run of people to be crazier than bedbugs.
We say it in a lot of wise little ways:
-It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
-All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-Money changes everything.
There are hundreds of ways we say the rich can't be trusted. Too much money just makes you crazy,
But money is what rules us. the successful thieves who become rich are now the owners of corporations who buy governments, who make laws for stripping economies by...guess who.
As long as we regard large amounts of money as a qualification to exercise undue influence over social imperatives, we are stuck in a monarchy, where the king is still a fink.
Fiat lux
5 years ago
Well Rick, I have seen real communism at work and it isn't the textbook definition you quote. There the individual has to be the most concerned with his own self interest, as nobody knows who is an informer, working even with drummed up charges, to put you out of the way and serve his own promotion and survival.
I'm in contact with my surviving, old classmates, some of them prominent former Party members, Marxist economists and philosophers. We exchange emails and talk pleasantly on the phone, but I can never get over the question, which one of them sold me off and who handed my mother over to the secret police for torture, trying to find out how I got to Cambridge? They may all be innocent, but the suspicion is always there. Very typical scenario under every power elitist system.
so called "free enterprise" capitalism hasn't reached the same stage, yet, but moving in the direction with our phone conversations and emails listened to and read by the US and perhaps Canadian spy agencies to preserve the collectivization rights of the rulers.
As far I'm concerned, all ideologies and politicians tied to any of them are welcome to go to hell.
Ed Deak.
RickW
5 years ago
True, Ed. That's why it "failed" -- and it's why the system we have is failing. We are falling farther and farther (or is it further?) away from the ideal. But the only way to fall is down, and that way there be dragons..........
I wonder why we have become so scared of pursuing ideals, Ed...........
Kam Lee
5 years ago
Down the Drain Goes a P3!!
Thank goodness. The idea that a company would do anything for a city like Whistler, without taking huge profits. Won't happen. This is another example of gordo's and his right wingies showing their true colours, again. Remeber this.. BC is the only province / state be run by a CONVICTED DRUG ABUSER. Thats food for thought also
dave49
5 years ago
It is interesting to consider the parallels between the alleged benefits of P3s and "free" markets in electricity. In both cases, it is really an extension of a philosophy that the market is the best allocator and determiner of prices. That simplistic notion ignores market failures and is based on an assumption of reasonable, ethical behavior by the parties involved. Clearly, many of the sweethearts of the corporate world (Enron, WorldCom) had no interest in the latter.
Many have touted the benefits of a free market in electricity, but to my knowledge, it only worked in the state of Pennsylvania and a state in Australia. However, I don't know why those cases succeeded while California's and Ontario's were such debacles.
I've heard the Sarabanes-Oxley legislation in the US has spawned two anti-transparency trends. First, more public companies are going to private ownership. Second, there is a new venture/high tech exchange in London which does not require compliance with US law.
Fish-counter
5 years ago
This is an interesting story, but not in the way you might expect.
The key issue is that Whistler has a tertiary sewage treatment facility. This means that there are two settling processes and a digestor to ferment the residual solids. The City of Calgary has a similar system. There is nothing new about this whatsoever. So why does the City of Victoria not have even the most rudimentary primary sewage treatment facility?
The P3 idea is definitely the flavour of the month, though to me it should be an acronym for pain, pain and more pain.
The community of Whistler should consider exporting their expertise to the capital city, and showing the engineers of Victoria how to build and operate a state-of-the-art sewage treatment facility - something which seems to elude them at present.
If they are quick about it, they may be able to build a facility before the 2010 Olympics. This would be a tremendous benefit, both to the Olympics and to the province of BC because it would save us all the embarrassment of explaining the archaic, disgraceful situation in Victoria, to hundreds of thousands of disbelieving visitors who take simple amenities like sewage treatment for granted.
So, the people of Whistler should pursue their own model of development. The rest of us should watch with interest, and try to emulate their example. WIth al its flaws, it is at least a genuine effort to treat the problem. Flushing raw sewage into the ocean is totally unacceptable in the 21st Century. I like Mr. Floatie, but I would not want to see him in Whistler in 2010. That would be too embarrassing for words.
H.G
5 years ago
Does anybody know the specifics of Bill.30 mentioned above,or a site were I can find out the exact wording.?Thanks to who ever can supply this info.
bob the cat
5 years ago
H.G
Google Bill 30...lots there.
Fish-counter
5 years ago
Good news! The City of Victoria and the CRD have finally been told to clean up their act and put in a sewage treatment plant. What a catharsis!
I bet the number of annual conventions increases, the tourism business will increase, the local shellfish may be edible, and the beaches will be open to swimming.
Please, lord, make it a state-of-the-art system with primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. Let them get it right for once. This isn't the FastCat Fiasco. We don't need "research", we need concrete and proven technology.
And Best Wishes to the town of Whistler too. British Columbians can be proud again when the solids have settled.