|
I agree with the concept of a basic income or
guaranteed annual income, but I don't think there's been much discussion of it
in government since the early 1990s, and certainly nothing very
recently.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:16
PM
Subject: RE: Slightly extended (was Re:
[Futurework] David Ricardo, Caveman Trade vs. Modern Trade
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
|
