|
As my
colleague who was born in India says, the first picture of a Canadian child
dying with a distended belly will be the spark that ignites governments to end
this current (farcical) set of activities.
There
will be no starvation in Canada. There will be panhandlers on street
corners and panhandlers using the food banks. Dignity is lost all around:
Those who receive and those who give (although they feel mighty righteous at the
moment.)
We can
end poverty. There can be a basic income. Somehow there is little
incentive to change.
We
live in a democracy. As Amartya Sen said, there is no history of
starvation in democracies.
As I
said in my earlier posting, the current system may be remarkably
stable.
arthur
So
what if all the righteous middle class people stopped sending their unused
canned goods to the food banks? Well the hungry people might just vote
in a government that promises radical change. Right now
everyone wins: political parties promise change and don't; middle class feels
good about sending food to the food bank; working poor can supplement their
foodstock by heading to the food bank. The system may be quite
stable. Maybe there really is no wish to change.
arthur
I'm on the Board of a
downtown foodbank and have spent a little time there. The people who
came to pick up food fell into several groups. There were older men,
fifty plus, who had migrated to Ottawa because there was nothing for them in
the valley communities. Their education and skills were limited, so
there was nothing in Ottawa either. There were young mothers, some with
children, who gave you every impression that they didn't want to be there;
they hurried in and they hurried out. There were a number of cocky young
people, some perhaps students, some living at the "Y", who acted as though
they were indulging the foodbank with their presence. None of these
people acted as though they wanted to change the system. All they wanted
was the food - except for the older guys who also seemed to want to hang
around and talk a little.
There's an aura of
powerlessness about it. The churches that operate the foodbank know that
if they didn't do it, nobody would. So they keep doing it and their
members keep bringing the cans of tuna and the packages of pasta. The
churches might want to take an advocacy position, but that might infringe on
their charitable status. The politicians get themselves elected and
their promises become mere promises, not commitments. Most of the people
who use the foodbank hate doing it, but they need to eat. Watching it
without having to depend on it, I wish it would all go away. But it
won't. It's what the world is like and how it will stay. Perhaps
Canadians, as people who live in the developed world, should feel fortunate
that they can afford foodbanks. Ever so many parts of the world can't,
and people starve.
Ed
Thomas, very good posting. Ontario has just
raised the minimum wage from peanuts to peanuts. Many of the poor
are working full time and even double time, but are still unable to meet
the rent or buy enough food, let alone get their kids the kinds of in toys
("status goods") that are going around. They can try eating freedom
and justice, but they don't taste very good when you can't make ends
meet.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003
3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Slightly extended (was
Re: [Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
They don't need money, Thomas.
They need justice and the freedom to enjoy
it.
Harry
Thomas:
In a way, you are right. Being poor and
working with the poor as customers and neighbours let's me see the
many ways the poor are lacking justice. A recent article in the
paper made the outstanding statement that 37% of workers in Canada are
not covered by the Labour Code and laws. When wages for the poor
are kept artificially low, then the only way to compensate to maintain
a survival standard is to work more. Of course, there are about
4 to 5% who are mentally incapable, or physically disabled or in the
case of single mothers, family challenged. However, the work
more solution has only produced the working poor, who still have to
use food banks and subsidized housing, if thet can get it. Not
only that, as you suggest, they do not even have the freedom to enjoy
what little they have. I would agree, that justice and freedom
would go a long way to compensating for money - or as you might
suggest, make the earning and spending of money a by product of an
effective system of justice and the freedom and thereby create a
surplus to enjoy.
Respectfully,
Thomas
Lunde
|
