----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Weick" <[email protected]> To: "RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:37 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] about some things going across the futureworks list
> So much of the discussion of a GAI or any other measure that would help > the unemployed, the poor and the homeless seems to be based on aphorisms > like "A penny saved is a penny earned" or "Cleanliness is next to > Godliness" (though I'm not sure how the latter fits). Can't we just > accept that a lot of the people down and out or on the street need help > just like auto manufacturers and workers need help and like people in the > upper echelons of financial firms need multi-million dollar bonuses? > > Ed > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arthur Cordell" <[email protected]> > To: "'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 8:59 AM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] about some things going across the futureworks > list > > >>I think what Charles is implying that rights must be coupled with >> responsibilities. We have morphed into an entitlement society and a GAI >> should not be just one more thing the state supplies. There must be some >> "social development" or some sort of social cohesion so that when >> cross-subsidization takes place (as it does in all communities), there is >> a >> sense of responsibility to the whole, to the community. >> >> Paying taxes willingly implies a sense of being open to >> cross-subsidization. >> It is payment with a purpose. Being on the GAI end should imply >> acceptance >> as part of a social contract. >> >> Arthur >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Brass >> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:51 PM >> To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION >> Subject: Re: [Futurework] about some things going across the futureworks >> list >> >> This sequence began with Arthur suggesting a guaranteed minimum income as >> a >> way >> of dealing with a perceived impending lack of jobs for many. It has come >> to >> be >> about money(in part because I asked how a gmi might be funded) and there >> is >> much to say on that front. >> >> However, I don't believe that money is the key issue (though I do believe >> that >> our current money systems are breaking down if not actually broken). The >> key >> issue is this sentence taken from Tim's post below: >> >> A basic rule of economics, I mean real economics, not monetary >> delusions, >> is >> that you do not import what you can make locally. To keep everybody >> employed, >> and income distributed correctly, you put increased productivity into >> increased >> leisure time rather than increased profit taking. >> >> Sorry, Tim, this highlights a fundamental misunderstanding about >> economics >> (including what 'profit taking' means) but much as I would like to >> explore >> that >> the key issue is this notion of 'increased leisure time' being some sort >> of >> ultimate goal. >> >> The unemployed have ultimate leisure time. And in countries like mine >> (Australia) at least they have nearly enough money to enjoy it. Yet, >> they >> continually complain that they are bored and they are overrepresented in >> crime >> and other social dysfunction statistics. >> >> Until we do a lot of human development work, giving people more leisure >> time >> (even assuming we can do this economically) have proven to be a recipe >> for >> disaster. >> >> >> It seems to me that what people want is to feel like their lives are >> making >> a >> contribution, and that some of that contribution rubs off on them (ie >> that >> they >> get at least some discretionaly enjoyment opportunities as a result). In >> our >> modern world, that translates into - they want do useful work and to earn >> enough to spend discretionally. And, as I have said before, there is >> more >> than >> enough useful work to go around if just we can work out how to distribute >> and >> value it properly. >> >> regards >> >> >> >> -- >> Charles Brass >> mobile 0409 198 738 >> >> >> Quoting tim rourke <[email protected]>: >> >>> Often very interesting things come across this list. I have >>> monitored it for years but said little on it. >>> >>> It has some of the usual problems with internet discussion lists >>> which are not strictly monitored. You have a lot of people with >>> ideological type cognitive problems promoting their hobby horses. >>> And a lot of people who think they are taking art in some sort of >>> debate, who would not form or follow a coherent line of thought if >>> their lives depended on it. >>> >>> I do not have much patience for this. On some occasions when I >>> challenge ridiculous thinking, I get a really vicious, >>> narcissistic type of response and sometimes dumped off the list, >>> so I do not bother much anymore with trying to correct net >>> nonsense. I look for discussion lists, boards, and blogs where people >>> are not allowed to post drivel. >>> >>> Here are a few points I want to make. I know a bit about Basic >>> Incomes because I run a web site on the topic in Toronto. There are >>> a lot of people shooting their faces off about this, too, without >>> thinking it out and knowing what they are talking about. They claim >>> to be supporters, but they discredit the idea. >>> >>> One idea is that the cost of a BI program would be reduced because >>> part of the income gets taxed back. Nobody really into BI or other >>> things the same idea is called, supports that idea. There is no >>> sense in giving people money and taxing it back. It is not >>> politically supportable to give a Basic Income to a people who are >>> already very wealthy. This is the "wealthy banker's wife" dilemma. >>> >>> There is a cutoff where a Basic Income starts to be gradually >>> withdrawn and Income taxes gradually imposed. One test of how good a >>> model of a Basic Income is, is how much of the population will be on >>> the 'get' side, and how much on the 'give' side. The ideal is to >>> have the top 20% of the population paying. >>> >>> This is how civilization is supposed to work; everybody receives >>> according to his or her real needs. Taxes are imposed on those who >>> have more than they need in order to have an economy and a >>> democracy. Massive concentrations of wealth should never be tolerated. >>> >>> When concentration of wealth is tolerated, as it is now, the wealthy >>> begin playing with their money and abusing the unchecked power their >>> wealth gives them. They start to confuse wealth with money , as >>> though playing with money was what the economy is about and >>> making the things needed for living is trivial. "Manufacturing can >>> take care of itself". Pft! >>> >>> We are now getting the results of this, where one country has an >>> economy totally based on military power and exacting tribute form the >>> rest of the world. It can no longer make anything except weapons. It >>> thinks it can just get everything from China; the proles at home >>> are too uppity. >>> >>> So now it has a huge balance of payments problem. The Chinese do not >>> want their money anymore. In about another year they are going to >>> run out of capacity to pay for their imports and they are going to >>> start collapsing. >>> >>> They will spend about a generation rebuilding their economy, >>> relearning how to make things, how to do things, how to act like >>> human beings again, and what civilization is. >>> >>> A basic rule of economics, I mean real economics, not monetary >>> delusions, is that you do not import what you can make locally. To >>> keep everybody employed, and income distributed correctly, you put >>> increased productivity into increased leisure time rather than >>> increased profit taking. >>> >>> People are also learning that in order to maintain the land base >>> on which civilization depends, demand must be restricted to what >>> that land base can support. It is not; how high can we pump up >>> production and consumption? It is; how can we satisfy all needs with >>> the least effort and least resources? >>> >>> Where a Basic income fits into this is that it helps to break the >>> control of an owner class over people's lives, so they can work for >>> their benefit, not someone else's. When everyone is assured of their >>> basic well being, then they are prepared to accept less and to share >>> the world with other people. >>> >>> History is an endless conflict between civilized people and the cro- >>> magnons. The latter cannot grasp civilization; they see it as >>> something they can exploit. They see themselves as in competition >>> with everyone, instead of having a common interest. They need to >>> finally be removed from power and segregated away from the normal >>> human being, so we can finally complete the evolution of the human >>> and the fully developed civilization in which we humans can thrive. >>> >>> That is enough. tr >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
