> 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.
>
I query this statement. The difference between rich and poor is
widening in the richest countries. perhaps this data on the
distribution of incomes left out those who have no income at all.
These "prosperous" countries are going from one recession to the
next, with no economist/politician having the foggiest about next
day, not to mention the years ahead. (Not that they care.)
With the instability and lurking environmental meltdown
this is a total bankrupcy of this - now global - system.
Eva
> 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.
>
So in an average family in the high income countries
is 4 x $24,930 = $99,720 Even on this superficial way
one can see that the 40% drop of this; cca$60,000 wouldn't be
scuffed at by a majority of families - definitely not here in the UK.
However, it could be never done this way without structural change.
Why would capitalist regimes work to dry up the sources of cheap
raw materials, cheap labour, unlimited destruction of the
environment? Why should they help other people to be
self-sufficient, thus stop being a market? Etc, etc.
> 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?
>
> 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!
>
... especially if you find it impossible to think outside the
capitalist framework.
Eva
> Ed Weick
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
