Steve wrote:
>Just a reminder that the "income" vehicle is tokens or credits which are
>utilized to purchase goods and services. The metaphoric "pie" must be
>perpetually available - indeed expanding while population grows -
Thomas: Wrong thinking from my point of view. It is not that the
metaphoric pie has to grow, which usually means a small group controls more
and more, rather I think assets have to circulate more freely. The demand
is there but cannot be fulfilled because the poor do not have cash. Give
the poor cash and there will be a demand for what they need. The market
then is responding to demand. The idea of limiting wealth is to create a
circularity rather than two positions, one very rich and one very poor. I
have no real problem with wealth. I have a problem with excessive wealth
that curtails the circular flow of money. In this sense, I think
circularity fulfils your criteria of "perpetually available" by putting a
floor on poverty and a ceiling on wealth.
Steve said:
if the>"income" is to sustain those dependant upon it. According to
scientists,
>the pie is shrinking as the number seeking slices is increasing.
Thomas: Population is a problem, but I believe that when people are able to
fulfill some of their goals and needs is will become less of a problem. In
those western countries that experience affluence, the tendency is for the
birth rate to drop. I think a Basic Income, over time will act as a form of
birth control.
>
Steve said:
>I agree that the extent of concentration of monetary and natural wealth is
>a negative for a sustainable future. However, a redistribution is not
>likely to rectify matters by itself. Some *responsibilities* to the "whole
>of society and the global Commons" seem to me to be a form of individual
>"work" which might be sought by society.
Thomas: What responsibilities are being shown by the current market
economies towards society and the Global Commons? Damn little, I would say.
Again, I would ask you to ask yourself, "Why this preoccupation with "work"?
What is wrong with a society that enjoys leisure or creativity or learning
or companionship as worthwhile ways to spend time. It seems to me that you
might be in the Church of the "work ethic".
Steve said:
This could include reproductive
>dis-incentives *for all members of society*, as well as policies to
>minimize negative impacts of human activities on others and on the Commons.
Thomas: If you are concerned about the "negative impacts of human
activities on others and the Commons", then I would suggest by any objective
criteria that our society with it's arms races, wars, stock markets,
unemployed, and on and on should be your primary concern. The elite of this
world are having no qualms about creating negative impacts on everyone they
can as long as they profit. Thanks for your comments Steve.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>Steve
