Thomas Lunde wrote: > One model, that I might suggest you and Keith feel comfortable with is the > basic existing model of capitalism as it is practiced in America and Europe. > Basically, income is distributed through work and therefore we need more and > more work for economies to grow - without any stated goal of when growth > shall be achieved. And with this model, more and more people work harder > and longer to satisfy the goal of growth.
I think my recent comments on heredity, and many earlier postings, made it clear that I am quite critical of, and even opposed to, neo-con capitalism and especially the (quaNTitative) growth ideology. So your "model One" is a strawman argument as far as I'm concerned. On the contrary, my main point in this thread is that --contrary to the capitalist growth/"productivity" ideology-- there is a lot of work that needs to be done but is not being done (because it isn't considered to be "profitable"), and a general BI won't get it done either, because the GBI would suck away money from funding this work in an organized way, and then you can't rely on BI volunteers to do that work on their own. That's what I meant with "we have to re-define productivity", and Ray expressed the details of this very well in his posting of today 12:41 -0500. > In Model Two, the model I am defending would be a Basic Income. My argument > for this is that there is no need for us, as human beings, to continue to > live at the level of lack of needs that is currently present for three > quarters of the world or more and that it is time for our Nation States to > redefine the Rights of Man to include the right to a Basic Income. And it > is up to countries with wealth to show the way. > > It is not really a question of money. It is a question of perspective. > Once we can clarify a perspective, then we can find the means to implement > that vision. If I have defined the problem correctly, I will be pleased. > If not, I ask you for your perspective at the level of the needs of human > beings as the background for your choice. I did not question the needs, only the means to fulfill them. People can't find jobs. There is necessary work, but not yet shaped as jobs. I say: "Re-define work, and people will find jobs." You say: "Let them eat BI -- who needs jobs, anyway?" > It is not really a question of money. This can only be assessed when we know what percentage of the $300 billion the current social programs cost. > It is a question of perspective. Yes, e.g. whether one wants to allow much larger injustice like heredity and the sell-out of natural resources. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
