I'm not sure that the following comment from Dennis Paull made it to the
list. In case it didn't, I'm forwarding it.
Ed Weick
>Hi all,
>
>The problem with downsizing government is that drives economic activity
>in the direction of increasing activities that generate immediate
>income and downplaying activities that have long term social benefits.
>
>I purport that universal education, cleaning the air and water, opening
parks
>and libraries are activities that will not happen without the long-range
>perspective that only broadly based organizations like governments can
>provide.
>
>It is not yet clear whether health care can be adaquately provided by
>private interests alone, but I doubt it. It is too easy to cease care for
>the poor who then infect everyone else.
>
>It is possible to dream of large semi-private groups with the necessary
>foresight to provide for the needs of all their members, but then these
>groups are really acting like governments. So why not let them serve as
>governments. Towns and school districts come to mind.
>
>There has been a concern here for how to overcome the "greed" factor that
>is built in to capitalism, and perhaps our own genome as well.
>
>Thomas's Basic Income helps, in as much as it says that there is a generous
>amount that is "enough." It encourages rich people to spend their wealth
>which allows the money to recycle back into the economy. Great wealth today
>has the unfortunate propensity to spend on its self protection (political
>lobbying, crushing of competitors, etc) instead of the creation of more
>broadly based wealth.
>
>If the cap asset amount appears generous enough ($50 million??) then the
>arguments against it don't hold much water. What Basic Income says is that
>it is alright to engage in activities that do not create wealth, but might
>be good for the soul, community or environment.
>
>It's most important benefit is to change the public's attitude away from
>the acceptance of greed as a social good.
>
>Dennis Paull
>Los Altos, CA
>
>[Ed Weick wrote]
>
>>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 an=
>>d
>>in other liberal-democratic countries many services that people require a=
>>re
>>paid for via the tax system - health, welfare and education being among t=
>>he
>>foremost. What about a system that puts the money people now pay in taxe=
>>s
>>back into their pockets as part of their basic income. This could be do=
>>ne
>>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 - tha=
>>t
>>would have to be worked out. But the point is that an approach something
>>like this would provide basic income; would downsize government; and woul=
>>d
>>largely get government out of the education, welfare and health fields, a=
>>ll
>>fields in which it is criticized for not doing a good job.
>>
>>Ed Weick
>>
>>
>
