Letters to the editor, March 7: ‘I want elitists … running our political, business and cultural institutions’

Open this photo in gallery:

A word

Re “The Epstein files represent a larger, scarier truth” (Opinion, Feb. 28): The contributor writes about the corruption and entitlement that power and money enable, and I agree. Unfortunately, he freely uses “elites” as a synonym for the wealthy and powerful, invoking the anti-elitism rabble-rousing with which populists love to gin up their followers.

I, on the other hand, want to champion elitism. I want elitists – highly competent, accomplished, thoughtful and hard-working people – running our political, business and cultural institutions.

After all, who would we prefer as our leader: Donald Trump or Mark Carney?

Brian Green Thunder Bay, Ont.

In theory

Re “There is only one escape from the affordability crisis” (Report on Business, Feb. 28): Economic growth models assume productivity drives per capita incomes. But there are lots of theories about what drives productivity growth: pure research, size of the economy and investment in machinery and equipment are just a few examples.

All these theories assume no unemployment, no oil sands, no climate change, no trade barriers; resource prices and costs are irrelevant, ditto immigration. Specifically, they assume none of those things matter to GDP per capita growth. Many economists and commentators seem to like turning economic assumptions and models into beliefs and policy prescriptions.

I suggest we focus on unemployment, trade barriers and the like first, and leave belief in our ability to grow productivity to another day. After all, Robert Solow, the clever fellow who first identified the productivity paradox, had nothing positive to say about any of these theories.

Reg Plummer Economist (retired), Natural Resources Canada, Finance Canada, National Energy Board; Ottawa

House of cards

Re “Canada’s housing market has frayed our social fabric. How did this happen?” (Opinion, Feb. 28): Any economic price issue is dependent on supply and demand.

The demand problem here is driven in large part by principal residence gains being tax-free. People consider house prices to be a sure thing because of it, and investors are happy to ride on their coattails.

Many other countries restrict home ownership to benefit their residents. We should implement principal residence gains taxation so that capital gains are calculated after adjusting original costs for the Consumer Price Index, as well as restrict single-family home ownership to one home per resident adult individual.

Losses should be deductible because of tax equity. Spread the implementation pain across society, because I believe all society is responsible for this bubble.

There is a market solution to this market’s problem.

Mark Tilley Newbury, Ont.

I believe urban containment – the policy that all housing growth be contained within existing municipal boundaries – is the root cause of Canada’s housing affordability crisis, not market forces. It does so because “build up, not out” masks one large, inconvenient truth: private land ownership extends ad coelum to heaven.

Instead of the traditional purchase of affordable, undeveloped suburban land, urban containment forces new housing entrants to purchase land and airspace from property owners who have no interest in selling, or the small remainder who know what they’ve got: membership in what is essentially a land oligopoly.

Absent expropriation of private property, the smartest of growth is unlikely to achieve housing affordability. We are left with soulless commutes and affordable roofs, unless one is part of the roughly one-third of Canadians who are retired or working from home, in which case urban sprawl just means affordable roofs.

Andrew Bond Central Saanich, B.C.

There is the reality of supply and demand.

If we build more homes, or reduce the number of households, then housing prices will go down. Building any kind of housing results in greater supply and puts downward pressure on costs. This is true for market-rate housing just as well as for affordable housing.

There is also the role of local government in stifling the building of new housing. Many cities steadfastly refuse to loosen zoning codes to permit more density.

Toronto’s failure to allow sixplexes across the city is just one example of how low a priority housing can be. Overly lengthy and demanding approval processes are another disincentive.

Finally, Toronto specifically taxes housing through development charges, other levies and, along with the Ontario government, a land transfer tax.

Tanya Bartucz Toronto

With great power…

Re “What do AI firms do when users tell chatbots their dark, violent thoughts?” (Feb. 28): OpenAI CEO Sam Altman laments the lack of privilege accorded to users of artificial intelligence to guard their disclosures to the robot, likening it to a “therapist.” What?

In the real world where privilege is accorded, whether in medicine or law, it (and potential disclosure) is subject to regulatory oversight and ultimately licensing and personal liability. Someone – a human person – is responsible and accountable, for the obvious reason that their right to practice is at stake.

I am astonished to learn that the leading minds extolling AI are so ignorant of this fundamental principle. Or am I to infer that they believe regulatory oversight simply shouldn’t apply? Where would that leave us?

Since a robot cannot be held personally accountable, its human masters certainly should. Would Mr. Altman be that person?

Ron Beram Gabriola, B.C.

Problem solved

Re “What is Europe even for? Decline and tragedy at the heart of the West” (Opinion, Feb. 28): It sometimes happens that one article supplies the solution for a quandary brought up in a second.

Here we have a 400-page report by Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank chief and Italian prime minister, describing rational solutions to Europe’s decline, but it was “quickly forgotten.”

Yet a week earlier in The Globe and Mail, contributor Hélène Landemore described citizens’ assemblies where seemingly intractable problems (for politicians, at least) are solved amicably among groups representing the wide range of polarization now endemic to failing societies (“Love is one of democracy’s most powerful resources” – Opinion, Feb. 21).

Evan Bedford Red Deer, Alta.

Deep cuts

Re “Nova Scotia budget cuts publishing grant in blow to sector” (Feb. 28): That Tim Houston’s Progressive Conservatives would make cuts which barely scrape the surface of their own budget, but have an outsized deleterious effect on cultural industries, feels egregiously ill-timed and shortsighted.

As our country faces an existential threat, do politicians not recognize the folly of eliminating opportunities for Canadians to tell and share our stories, to communicate our identity?

The cost to our quality of life – not to mention our ability to retain educated citizens, attract medical professionals and foster tourism – is inordinate relative to the cost of supporting the publishers, filmmakers, museums and galleries that make Canadians who they are.

Ginny Ratsoy Kamloops, B.C.

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com