Life in the Big City

Alan Broadbent is correct when he claims, “Our metropolises crave more money, power, and control” (“Brighter Lights, Bigger Cities,” June). But his article fails to persuade on two counts: cities are hardly the generators of the wealth of a nation to the degree he claims, and the money for improvement of the social and physical infrastructure is in fact now available to those cities, especially the metropolises.

Broadbent is misleading when he writes, “traditional resource-based industries” contribute only 13 percent of economic output and that “wealth once derived from the land...derives from information and design.” Broadbent actually contradicts this assertion when he says that “with the development of the oil industry” Alberta has tapped into its resource wealth. Does he really think that Calgary’s wealth results primarily from “information and design” In addition, the Toronto Stock Exchange is doing very nicely on Alberta wealth, just as it did earlier in the last century on the minerals of northern Ontario and Quebec.

Broadbent also asserts, “It is popular not to tax,” but unless wealthy persons in finance, mostly resident in the metropolises, are advocating that they should be taxed much more than they are, such statements are little more than crocodile tears. Broadbent, the head of a capital investment corporation, is certainly not part of the solution concerning the New Deal for Cities. I realize that income taxes are somewhat progressive, but they could be much more so, considering all the tax writeoffs that the affluent claim. Look to social democratic Sweden, where the conservative political platform would hardly alter the heavy and much fairer tax load that pays for superior public services. Broadbent and his friends should be encouraging our governments to act courageously, to raise taxes to fill potholes, strive for income equity, and push for full employment.

Jim Lemon, Professor Emeritus
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario


American Dreaming

Mark Kingwell (“The American Gigantic,” June) traces a history of the “American dream” through the twentieth century, and his conclusion, based on a comparison of income trends of the rich and the poor, is that its egalitarian tendencies have eroded. About halfway through the article Kingwell addresses the role of Ivy League universities in the “American dream” and concludes that, while it was always assumed that attendance at these schools promised subsequent wealth and status, it is only in recent decades that success has been attributed to intellect and not class.

Kingwell finds this assumption of reward based on intellect open to question. He refers to an unidentified analyst, perhaps expanding on the “ticket to success” metaphor, explaining the choice of Ivy League schools as a “luxury-brand loyal-customer reward: if you spend so much with the same carrier, you expect an air-miles payout at some point.” Kingwell accuses the analyst of “begging the question” (the philosophical term for circular reasoning)—a rhetorical technique that diverts attention from the issue at hand. For Kingwell the issue is not whether class or intellect determines success in the Ivy League—it is clearly class. The analyst, in focusing on the financial reward, is effectively confirming that opinion, without questioning how the university could claim otherwise. But then Kingwell writes, “These and similar “honest’ justifications for selection merely beg the obvious question—in fact, two of them.” When Kingwell articulates these two questions it is obvious that he is using “question-begging” in the sense of “raising an issue,” a usage that purist philosophers would regard as incorrect, if not downright outrageous.