I like this Harry much better. None of this "let me lead you into agreeing
with me." Just plain old fashioned sarcasm. Something that is needed in
this day and time with all of the hogwash being put out there for public
consumption by people who should know better and ask more of themselves.
Bravo Harry but you left out something. How come a country the size of
California with no natural resources and too many people is the second
largest economy in the world? And its been in an economic funk for years.
We should have such an economic funk. And the third is a country about
the size of two Wisconsins. Both of these countries have us so scared
that we pay for their defence and post bases on their sovereign territory.
Might there be something other than theory that accounts for such vitality?
Another interesting stat is that the SE US is has the highest GSP in the
nation. The wealthiest area in the wealthiest nation in the world. But
Germany or two Wisconsins is almost another trillion higher than the richest
area in America and Japan with all of its lousy economy still is the size of
the state of California while having a GDP that is almost three times the
richest area in America. And they have no resources except people
and......... One last little note about not using up all of that land
in Canada. They thought the prairies were inexhaustable until they almost
exhausted them. They lost 70% of their land fertility in less than one
hundred years. I'm sure that your small population could match that if
they tried. And then what would they have?
But you made some good points and I would hope that you would go for the
Mega next time and make some real comparison between systems and evaluate
them.
Best
REH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: [ow-watch-l] 10-year Tory war on welfare
devastates Ontario's poor - New study by CCPA shows 37% 'real value' plunge
in assistance rates
> Ed,
>
> Thanks for this latest description of people in trouble, complete with
> percentages and complaints about the failure of the Tories to do something
> about it. At least they could have raised welfare by 1% as did the NDP -
1%
>
> On the other hand they were apparently elected on the basis "slashing
taxes
> and public spending" so they were merely carrying out the will of the
> people. None of us is against democracy - I think none of us are against
> democracy, are we?
>
> If I were a neo-Classical economist rather than a Georgist ideologue, I
> would accept these figures and ask for more statistics - better yet, for
> further studies.
>
> However, I'm not a neo-Classical.
>
> Ontario is a large Province positively bulging with goodies. Its resources
> are phenomenal, with forests extending for ever, minerals in huge
> quantities, and there aren't a lot of people there.
>
> In any kind of free economy, we can expect that prices will continually
> drop as new techniques, along with innovation and invention, reduce costs.
> That's real costs. Lowering the value of the currency artificially to
raise
> the number of dollars needed to buy things does not actually raise costs
as
> most things rise as well to even things out. Prices rise and so do wages.
> An amazing sleight of hand that has no reason attached to it.
>
> The trouble is that a constant income in an inflating economy means fewer
> eggs and rashers on the table. And welfare people - and for that matter
> seniors on pensions - may find their plates empty. Social Security in the
> US along with other payments may have a COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment).
>
> To a Georgist, this seems both funny and stupid. First, the government
> reduces the value of money, then it gives some more dollars to offset the
> decreased values. It would seem sensible simply not to meddle with the
> money - but government neo-Classicals have never been accused of being
> sensible - at least, not to their faces.
>
> The Report says: "Meanwhile, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment
> in Ontario has increased by 24% over 10 years and the cost of food has
> risen by 13% since 1999."
>
> In a Province, larger than France and Spain combined, positively bulging
> with resources, with hardly anyone living there, the cost of a two-bedroom
> apartment has increased by 24% and the price of food has risen by 13%?
>
> (Assuming nuclear families of four, living in single family houses, then
> each family in Ontario would be living on a 66 acre spread. Heck, if you
> settled the entire US population divided into nuclear families, into
single
> family homes - they would have 3.5 acres apiece. Too cold in the North?
> Settle them in Southern Ontario. Of course, then they would only have 1.75
> acres for the kids to play.)
>
> Now, I have no intention of spreading Ontario people across the Province
> (or even Americans) but surely the point is made. Ontario is enormous,
> sparsely populated, awash in resources of every description, yet the poor
> are starving and cannot afford a decent place to live.
>
> It never seems to occur to the neo-Classicals as they raise their bleary
> eyes from the latest bunch of statistics to ask why?
>
> Why are food prices increasing, when they should be coming down? Could the
> poor be persuaded to reduce their intake of caviar
>
> Why does the cost of accommodation rise, when it should be coming down?
> Could the poor be persuaded to reduce their needs to 3 or 4 bedrooms?
>
> Then perhaps they wouldn't be spending 70% of their income on rent.
>
> The Report suggests some things which are pretty foolish, but
> neo-Classicals don't seem to see the foolishness. Most economists I've met
> are pretty able people. Yet, perhaps the drudgery of plowing through
> endless pages of highly sophisticated nonsense has made them unable to
> answer the simple, yet obvious questions, such as Henry George's"
>
> "Why in spite of increase in productive power do wages tend to a minimum
> which will give but a bare living?"
>
> The question is still not answered by the neo-Classicals, who beneath
their
> enormous output of the unimportant, hide very little that is of
consequence.
>
> One can understand the frustration of Archbishop Dom Helder Camara, who
> looked at the economic mess that is Brazil and made his most famous
statement:
>
> "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the
> poor have no food, they call me a communist."
>
> Harry
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ed wrote:
>
> > From another list.
> >
> > > 10-year Tory war on welfare devastates Ontario's poor
> > >
> > > New study by CCPA shows 37% 'real value' plunge in assistance rates
> > >
> > > Toronto - A decade after the last small increase in benefits, and
eight
> > > years after the Harris-Eves Tory government won power and declared war
> > > on welfare, Ontario's poorest citizens are finding it almost
impossible
> > > to meet basic needs such as food and secure shelter, says a new study
by
> > > the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
> > >
> > > Called Targeting the most vulnerable: A decade of desperation for
> > > Ontario's welfare recipients, the study has been compiled by Michael
> > > Oliphant and Chris Slosser of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto.
They
> > > have released it in the same week as the announcement by the federal
> > > human resources department of a new measurement system of poverty
called
> > > market basket measure (MBM).
> > >
> > > When the Tories were elected in 1995, dedicated to slashing taxes and
> > > public spending, they targeted the province's so-called 'Cadillac'
> > > welfare program, making no allowance for the actual cost of living in
> > > Canada's second most expensive province.
> > >
> > > Welfare rates were cut by 21.6%. Since then, inflation has also risen
by
> > > a cumulative 15.8%, boosting the real impact of the Tory war on the
poor
> > > to an astonishing 37%.
> > >
> > > Last increase was 1%
> > >
> > > The last time welfare rates were increased in Ontario was 10 years
ago.
> > > At that time, a 1% increase by the former NDP government was denounced
> > > by the Tories, who were then in opposition.
> > >
> > > Ontario has since fallen below every recognized measure of poverty,
even
> > > the inhuman minimum extolled by the Sarlo-Fraser Institute, the voice
of
> > > big business in Canada.
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Ontario has
> > > increased by 24% over 10 years and the cost of food has risen by 13%
> > > since 1999.
> > >
> > > Ontario's shelter gap - the difference between a shelter allowance and
> > > the average rent - is also increasing. Even if the current shelter
> > > allowance covered rents, the total amount allowed for basic needs
fails
> > > to cover non-rent living costs.
> > >
> > > In Ottawa and Thunder Bay, the basic needs allowance a single welfare
> > > recipient receives does not even cover the monthly cost of nutritious
> > > food.
> > >
> > > Devastating
> > >
> > > Higher rental prices have been devastating, especially in the two
> > > largest urban centres: the GTA and Ottawa. As a result of the
increasing
> > > shelter gap, the average family of four in Toronto diverts $244.25
from
> > > the food budget (basic needs allowance) to meet the cost of rent; in
> > > Peel $298; in Windsor $141, in Ottawa $158; and in London $157. The
> > > Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto reports that the average family on
> > > welfare in the GTA spends 70% of income on rent.
> > >
> > > "Eight years after welfare rates were slashed by over 21%, significant
> > > reinvestment is now required to halt and reverse the erosion of
welfare
> > > incomes under the Harris-Eves government. We propose that the basic
> > > needs allowance be returned to its pre-1994 level, and that the cost
of
> > > inflation be added. Furthermore, the flat shelter allowance should be
> > > replaced with a rate that is variable by location and tied to the
> > > prevailing average rents in each city," the authors say.
>
>
> ****************************************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles
> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
> Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242
> http://home.attbi.com/~haledward
> ****************************************************
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
>
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
