Ed Said:
>Very interesting, Thomas. But who would actually bell the cat? Despite
the
>many efforts of high idealists like the World Federalists, we don't have a
>global super government, and given the increasing divisions between the
>various parts of the world, it is most unlikely that we will within our
>lifetimes, or even our great grandchildren's.
Thomas: Good question - the answer has to be government. Of course if only
Canada implemented a Basic Income scheme would all the rich leave - perhaps
we might look at it as a good things such as putting all the lepers on an
isolated island.
>
Ed said:
>In some research I did a few months ago, I found that the now rapidly dying
>neo-liberal dream of free markets and democracy for all may not have been
so
>far off base. Generally, what that research revealed is not really
>surprising: that the world's richest and most democratic countries have the
>most equitable distribution of income while the poorest countries have the
>least equitable. What this suggests is that economic development and
rising
>national prosperity may indeed be the key to greater distributional
>equality.
Thomas: Well, tell that to the 10% unemployed or those living below the
poverty level.
>
Ed said:
>Your essay raises the question how much income would have to be distributed
>from the rich to the poor to ensure that the latter had a livable income.
>UN data indicate that in 1995 the 4.8 billion people living in "Low and
>Middle Income Countries" had an average per capita GNP of $1,090, whereas
>for the 0.9 billion people living in "High Income Economies" GNP per capita
>averaged $24,930. What would the rich have to give up to make a noticeable
>difference to the poor. A bit of arithmetic shows that a doubling of the
>per capita GNP of the poor world, to an average of $2,000, would require an
>approximate 20% drop in the per capita GNP of the rich. A tripling of the
>income of the poor would require a 40% drop. You can imagine the turmoil
>that would cause. And there is always the question of whether a doubling
or
>tripling of the income of the poor be enough to really make a difference.
Thomas:
As I said in my intro, this is only half the posting. And it was basically
to answer the middle class knee jerk reactions to the concept of a Basic
Income. My plan was only done for Canada, so I can't respond to your
information. I think when you see the actual concepts of redistribution I
developed, it may not sound as far fetched as your figures indicate.
>
Ed said:
>What I would suggest is that providing a more equitable distribution of
>income is not something that can proceed in the same way nationally and
>globally. Nationally, as rich Canadians, Americans, Swiss or Japanese, we
>can well afford to consider the possibility of a basic income for our own
>citizens. What is true for each of our rich countries is not likely to be
>to be true for the world as a whole, or indeed for poorer countries. I've
>done some comparisons of Canada, a rich country and Nigeria, a poor
country.
>Not surprisingly, the distribution of income in Nigeria is far less equal
>than distribution in Canada. This suggests a redistribution for Nigeria.
>But one is then led to the question of what there is to redistribute. The
>average income of the richest 20% of the Nigerian population is minuscule
in
>comparison with the richest 20% of the Canadian population. This is not to
>deny that there are some very rich Nigerians, but if all of their income
>were carved away and distributed among their poor compatriots, would it
>really make that much difference?
Thomas: In the spirit of the paragraph, I would only state that the idea is
not to bring everyone up to Canadian standards, at least not initially -
maybe in 50 years. The idea is to try and develop some structure that could
be used by any country to more effectively redistribute what they have.
>
Ed said:
>What the foregoing suggests is that what poor countries need if per capita
>income is to rise is an increase in investment - and in ever so many
>countries like Nigeria, a very large increase. But, the question of where
>this investment might come from aside, this puts us on the horns of another
>dilemma. With investment would come growth, with growth population, with
>population pollution and the unsustainable drawing down of non-renewable
>resources, all of which is already unsustainable. Let's face it, it really
>is a bitch of a world!
Thomas: The last thing poor countries need is more investment. What they
need is more money in the hands of those who have crushing demands for food,
shelter and other goods that will move them away from starvation and misery.
The way to do that is to get some money in their hands to spend. This will
create a demand for investment. So, I see it as demand first and investment
follows. The current model sees investment to build something using raw
materials and a payroll to a few employees which will then create some small
demand. I choose to believe that mothers and fathers, given some money will
buy shoes for their kids - this will create the need for shoemakers. Top
down says this country has oil or minerals or cocoa plants and we will build
a plant or mine to process these assets. And yes Ed, it really is a bitch
of a world. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
>
>Ed Weick
>
