Ray, surely the idea is not to redistribute everything. Surely all that is needed is some form of redistribution that ensures that everyone in a society has enough to live on if they happen to lose their jobs or are unable to work for some other reason. Unlike welfare, it should be something that is so integral to society that no one could be labeled or stigmatized because they make use of it. If it existed, we wouldn't need things like welfare, disability payments, or employment insurance. On the part of society, the operating moral principle would be that every citizen is entitled to it. On the part of the citizen, the operating moral principle would be to use it only when one had to. Some people would have to use it permanently, but hopefully most only temporarily. It's like the basic income proposals Sally Lerner used to promote on this list.
Ed Weick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > Interesting thought. But where do you stop? You could make a good case > for total income distribution by redistributing all wealth within the > graduates of a society. But, aside from the problem of waste of those not > yet ready to handle such a gift, there is also the problem of the loss of > inherited cultural heritage. Families pass down knowledge about specific > industries through their environment. How can you both stimulate growth, > have rescue for short term temporary situations and maintain a generational > continuity in community intellectual property? > > REH > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:52 AM > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > Ed, > > > > You are probably correct. But I fear that well meaning and well > intentioned > > people are enabling this move as they set up food banks and church related > > activities that cushion the shocks. These buffers relieve governments at > > all levels from the reality of the impacts of their actions. > > > > Food banks were a bad idea when instituted and now they have taken on a > life > > of their own. Will they ever be wound down or will they be, like the > > homeless on street corners be a permanent part of our lives. A hand out > > asking "got some change?" "Got some extra food?" > > > > Dignity is lost in small drops. > > > > Hardly a day goes by in Ottawa when one or another charity has a bike > ride, > > marathon, food drive or rock concert to raise funds. Funds which should > > have been there from government tax dollars. > > > > Meanwhile govenment cuts and cuts but finds other ways to "tax" such as > > through lotteries, casinos, etc. Most of this hitting the lower income > > groups hardest. Those who are looking for the "big win" A way to get out > > of the hole in which they find themselves. Most win nothing, of course, > but > > are simply caught in a regressive grab for tax dollars. > > > > I know they can just say no. Don't buy lottery tickets and don't go to > > casinos. But the draw is so great (amplified by flashy TV ads) that it is > > hard to live in poverty and not take a chance, a chance to fundamentlly > > alter the conditions of one's life. > > > > All very dystopian. > > > > arthur > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Weick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:34 AM > > To: futurework; Harry Pollard > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > > > Not really sure of what you are arguing here, Harry. On the one hand, you > > seem to be arguing that work can always be found, and on the other that > the > > economy is so inadequate that there are large numbers of people in > trouble. > > I think one has to understand that the economy responds to influences that > > are independent of government, but that government policy has a large > > bearing on how it will respond. It would seem that, right now, the US > > economy (perhaps the global economy) has taken a rather serious downturn > and > > people are losing their jobs and their livelihood because of this, in many > > cases having to turn to church operated charities. What policies > > governments implement can slow or accelerate this process, though not > likely > > reverse it. What the Bush administration is doing would appear to be > > accelerating it. It is almost as though Bush, through his tax cuts, has > > consciously decided to let the economy sink, abandoning the poor, but > > rewarding the rich. One could speculate that he foresees two US > economies, > > a happy one for the rich but a very difficult one for the poor. We may be > > witnessing the emergence (unmasking?) of a class system with a wealthy > > nobility at the top, and a growing lumpenproletariat at the bottom. Of > > course there will always be peasants and artisan in between trying to move > > up, but deathly concerned about sliding to the bottom, and willing to take > > wage cuts to try to stay somewhere close to where they are. > > > > Take a look at an op-ed piece in today's NYTimes: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/opinion/29HERB.html?th > > > > Ed Weick > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:27 PM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fw: Reality Internet > > > > > > > > > > Ed, > > > > > > People in trouble can be helped by churches and other good people who do > > > that kind of thing - until they get back on their feet. > > > > > > Work can always be found for people who are unable to do very much - > > either > > > because they are not particularly clever, or because they have some kind > > of > > > disability. In all cases there need be no loss of "dignity" because > these > > > things happen (shrug) and a helping hand at the right time does a mess > of > > > good. (I think those last few words are colloquial American rather than > > > anything English.) > > > > > > Except, the modern economy is so inadequate that those in trouble are > not > > a > > > small number eagerly helped, but a huge proportion of every country's > > > population. (People in trouble are not only those in the soup kitchens.) > > > > > > Economic problems cannot necessarily be laid at the feet of economists. > As > > > a group, the economists I have known have been generally been superior > > > people. However, they are working with inadequate tools. At the time > they > > > should be querying the flawed material, they are busy trying to get > their > > > degrees, so the economic ABC's are accepted quickly as they head toward > > the > > > difficult stuff. > > > > > > I've only been friendly with one Nobel economist, and much of what he > > said > > > I didn't understand. But, he was enthusiastic and was good enough to > think > > > (or pretend) I understood. (On the other hand, the economic Nobels I did > > > understand I was mostly confronting.) > > > > > > Yet, none of them, right or left wing (try to imagine right or left wing > > > physics or chemistry) know enough about the economy to ensure that > anyone > > > who wants to work has many choices from which he can pick. > > > > > > It's a problem of distribution. Yet, so inadequate is modern economics, > > > that it cannot provide us with just economic distribution, but must rely > > on > > > political distribution - a practice guaranteed to inspire a web of > > > corruption and inevitable injustice. > > > > > > All because economists were swept through the inadequacies of their > basic > > > theory by the need to get to the complicated stuff. There is no time to > > > discuss what should be the simple question - which you have heard > before. > > > > > > "Why in spite of increase in productive power do wages tend to a minimum > > > which will give but a bare living?" > > > > > > This was asked in 1979. I suppose not even Brad can blame failure to > > answer > > > this on Bush. > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Ed wrote: > > > > > > >The following exchange is from another list in which the poor and > working > > > >poor discuss their problems and those who are in a position to try to > > help > > > >them. Many of the problems arise out of the difficulty of accessing > > > >Canadian federal and Ontario programs, and the meanness of those > > > >programs. The messages say, in various forms, that if you are down and > > > >under there isn't much you can do to get up and out. "OW" is "Ontario > > > >Works", a program that makes welfare recipients work for the money they > > > >receive, which may not be bad in concept, but which is often very bad > in > > > >application. > > > > > > > >The official line of the Government of Ontario is that "Ontario Works > is > > > >working. Since 1995, approximately 600,000 people have left the welfare > > > >system, with savings to taxpayers of more than $13-billion." It > doesn't > > > >say whether the people who have left the welfare system have found jobs > > or > > > >have simply fallen out of any system. > > > >Some of you may find the exchange interesting. > > > > > > > >Ed Weick > > > > > > > > > **************************************************** > > > 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: 6.0.484 / Virus Database: 282 - Release Date: 5/27/2003 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
