Such a lack of imagination from supposedly intelligent
very highly paid individuals. Do they have no shame? Of course
I'm talking about the IMF. People who get money because they major
in money, not because they do anything particularly significant in the long
run. Remember the banker's answer for Yugoslavia?
It was the 15th century equivelent of the IMF that ran the slave trade
from Africa. They don't know who their mothers were. So
Keith what are you going to do with the 40% unemployment once the economy is
lean and agile? Kill them? You're better than that and if you
aren't no one will read your book. Its a simple matter of economics.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 2:57
PM
Subject: Don't shoot me. (wasRe: Fw:
[Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
Ed,
Don't shoot me. I'm only the
messenger.
At 12:51 16/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
(KH) Your special problem in Canada is that
your government(s) has already committed itself to future welfare payments
of over 400% of your present GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford
those, goodness knows. You cannot possibly afford to consider any extra
welfare payments. You will certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very
large one, too, one imagines!). (EW) Keith, absolute nonsense! I have no idea of where you got
your numbers, but no government, even ours, is that stupid.
I'm afraid that the IMF thinks so. This
from a report, "Who will Pay?" by Peter Heller, Deputy Director of Fiscal
Affairs, IMF. Canada already has an explicit debt of something like 40-50% of
GDP, but has committed itself already to future commitements of about 400% of
GDP. See the Economist of 22 November 2003 for a summary of the report.
In respect of future commitments, Canada is already twice as bad as France and
Germany and they're already right up to the hilt in what they can squeeze from
the taxpayer.
But I do appreciate your sense of humour. I don't know if
you saw my piece on how a BI might be cobbled together from existing
programs. And this morning I posted a suggestion that you could have a
universal BI program with clawback provisions. But, surely, clawbacks invalidate it as a BI. You might just as
well suggest further sets of welfare provisions. But even a Labour government
over here is talking about the need to reduce all sorts of pensions and
benefits in the future, and we've much less current debt and far fewer future
commitments than Canada.
Keith
Ed
- ----- Original Message -----
- From: Keith Hudson
- To: Ed Weick
- Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:38 AM
- Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW Basic Income sites
- Ed,
- At 19:18 15/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
- A special problem we have in Canada, and I know we're not unique, is
the division of responsibilities under our constitution. The
federal government is responsible for some things, the provinces for
others. Too many people at the table to get an easy
agreement. Thank God we have a large voluntary sector that
actually does things while our two levels of government wrangle
themselves into stalemates!
- Your special problem in Canada is that your government(s) has already
committed itself to future welfare payments of over 400% of your present
GDP. How on earth you are ever going to afford those, goodness knows. You
cannot possibly afford to consider any extra welfare payments. You will
certainly need a voluntary sector (and a very large one, too, one
imagines!).
- Keith
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 3:19
PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income
sites
I agree. I was too sharp in my response. I apologize.
I think Ed's posting covers why it is affordable. But we may
not be
socially ready for BI. We are used to taking from the pot but
not giving
back. My fear is that BI will only accentuate taking and not
giving.
It may not be a good idea, in my view, since we have yet to
educate/socialize people understand that they are part of society
and that
while society is responsible to them with BI, they are also
connected to and
involved with society such that they are expected to give back to
society.
Blame on too many years of "smash and grab" consumerism/capitalism
or
"bowling alone" or what have you.
arthur
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Futurework] FW Basic Income
sites
Arthur Cordell wrote:
> I think similar criticisms were levelled against the minimum
wage, child
> labour laws, old age security, medicare, etc.
>
> Same old, same old. Can't afford it today.
Wait. Wait. Someday.
>
> Rubbish.
Being in favor of the minimum wage(*), child labour laws, old age
security,
medicare, etc., but opposed to BI, I think there's a fundamental
difference
between the former and the latter: BI is of the "perpetuum
mobile" kind.
(not in the sense that BI works forever but that it won't work at
all)
It would be a pity if name-calling ("rubbish") and misrepresentation
of
my arguments ("can't afford it today" -- no, can't afford it
tomorrow
either!) would be the only "arguments" of Arthur in reply to my
posting
and BI-example ($1.2 billion) of 13-Dec-03. Let's hear some
good
arguments (if possible with numbers) please... [if there
are any]
(*) Btw, I was informed that a Canadian province has reduced
the
minimum wage from $8 to $6 (Can.). For comparison, it's about
$15 in
Switzerland. I guess that's why a Swiss emigré mechanic
recently
had to return from Canada to work for 6 weeks here, and with the
money
he earned he can live for 5 months in Canada with his whole family.
So Arthur, perhaps Industry Canada should introduce a _livable_
minimum wage for _workers_ first, before you fancy about an
unaffordable BI for everyone being "affordable".
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
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
|