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.
Sorry, Thomas, but as I read your piece, I was under the impression that you
were concerned with global income security. Perhaps it was the following
passage that led me to believe that:
"The world has 6 billion people, I’m told and .05% of 6 billion is a very
small figure and yet even that small percentage amounts to 30 million
people. (This is equal to the population of Canada.) I am optimist enough
to believe that everyone except 30 million would answer "yes" to the above
question, for who could want for more than they can possible have and still
deny another a pittance. This leads to a following question, "What system
could we devise that reduced no one, encouraged everyone (less 30 million)
and provided a Basic Income sufficient for food, shelter, cleanliness and
the possible opportunity of exploring some of their desires to every person
within a nation. (or on the whole planet)"
>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.
This is an idea that goes way back to Major Douglas and the original social
credit. I don't think it can happen that way. The reason that the poor
have no money is that they are not on anyone's payroll. To get on a payroll
people have to produce something of marketable value. To enable them to do
that, you need investment. Once you have investment and payrolls, savings
are possible and so is additional investment. Simply giving people money to
chase nonexistent goods in the hope that those goods will become existent is
extremely risky and potentially highly inflationary.
It is really very difficult to say how the world can get out of the bind
that it's in. There is a huge misalignment between production and need. As
you say, there are crushing needs for the basics in much of the world, but
the global economy is not designed to fill those needs. It is designed to
cater to those who already have pretty well everything they need but who can
pay for more. In a more rational, moral and humane world, this would not
happen. But can the world ever be rational, moral and humane? As I have
argued, and as Keith Hudson argues, we are essentially tribal. We look
after ourselves and the devil take the hindmost (and even a lot of the
midmost). It was all spelled out on a T-shirt I saw on the West Coast -
"The guy who comes second is the first loser". And yes, someone was
actually wearing it. A rather clean cut young guy. College boy.
Don't give up Thomas. I rather like the idea of a basic income. I'm not
sure that I agree with Keith Hudson that it should be done on a local or
regional basis, but he may be right. But here is a thought: In Canada and
in other liberal-democratic countries many services that people require are
paid for via the tax system - health, welfare and education being among the
foremost. What about a system that puts the money people now pay in taxes
back into their pockets as part of their basic income. This could be done
on a "flat" basis, where everybody gets (or gets to keep) the same amount,
or on a progressive basis where the poorer you are the more you get - that
would have to be worked out. But the point is that an approach something
like this would provide basic income; would downsize government; and would
largely get government out of the education, welfare and health fields, all
fields in which it is criticized for not doing a good job.
Ed Weick
