Dear Eva:
Once again, you have cut through the BS of my thinking. On the one hand, I
can find rational answers such as the Basic Income which I am sure will
provide a corrective for the capitalistic system. I can also agree with
others answers, such as WesBurt's proposals or some of the thoughts of Tom
Walker.
Then I enlarge the problem by thinking/reading of population, energy,
resource depletion, or the book I picked up at the library today called Dark
Grey which deals with the demographics of an aging population and how
economics has no answer in providing a system in which we can save enough or
tax enough for a pension system for the elderly. This morning, I read how a
research team in California are onto what they call the immortality cell in
which they have been able to extend the life of a fruit fly up to three
times it's normal lifespan. A couple of days ago, I read an online book
called Can America Survive in which the author makes a very convincing case
that the Earth could support a sustainable population of only 5 million
hunter/gathers and 5 million living in an industrial/technological society.
Though we might quibble with the numbers, it seems rational to believe that
we can't keep 6 billion mouths and assholes functioning on this small planet
indefintely.
And yes, every state is debt and almost every person on the planet is in
debt to someone, somewhere. So what happens when a chain of non-payment
begins? It boggles my mind. Unlike you, though, I do have some small
comfort - death happens to us all and I chose to believe in an afterlife -
in fact many afterlives. I guess we'll have to each die before we find out
who is right on that belief.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
----------
>From: "Durant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>Date: Wed, Jul 7, 1999, 10:14 PM
>
> This is a utopia if based on capitalist
> economics. (Or have I already mentioned this?)
> Welfare capitalism was tried, and when the upswing
> collapsed, it failed. Even the richest states are in debt,
> even when they only spend pitifully small percentages
> on welfare.
>
> Eva
>
>> Thomas:
>>
>> One of things I have always like about Galbraith is that he accepts that the
>> poor are entitled and deserve some joy and comfort and security in their
>> lives. Something which the majority of the moderate and overly affluent want
>> to deny. It is as if poorness is not enough, a little suffering is good for
>> the soul, especially if it someone elses suffering.
>>
>> You know, being poor is not so bad, and most of us who experience it find
>> ways to still enjoy our lives. However, it is the constant pressure from
>> those more fortunate that somehow if we have sex, go to a movie, have a
>> picnic in the park we are violating our status in life. Give us a basic
>> income and get off our back, I think would be endorsed by the majority of
>> the poor. Allow us to have dreams for our children and we will live
>> modestly.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Thomas Lunde
>>
>> ----------
>> >From: "S. Lerner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]@dijkstra.uwaterloo.ca
>> >Subject: FW JK Galbraith and Basic Income
>> >Date: Tue, Jul 6, 1999, 9:52 AM
>> >
>>
>> > Much to my delight, the following appeared in today's Toronto Globe and
>> > Mail: A13 ("J.K.Galbraith, who is 90, delivered this lecture last week on
>> > receiving an honorary doctorate from the London School of Economics. It is
>> > reprinted from The Guardian." )
>> >
>> > Excerpt: "I come to two pieces of the unfinished business of the century
>> > and millenium that have high visibility and urgency. The first is the very
>> > large number of the very poor even in the richest of countries and notably
>> > in the U.S.....
>> > The answer or part of the answer is rather clear: Everybody should
>> > be guaranteed a decent income. A rich country such as the U.S. can well
>> > afford to keep everybody out of poverty. Some, it will be said, will seize
>> > upon the income and won't work. So it is now with more limited welfare, as
>> > it is called. Let us accept some resort to leisure by the poor as well as
>> > by the rich."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
