Re: more from Johns Hopkins

[Ray E. Harrell]

Subject:
Re: more from Johns Hopkins
   Date:
Thu, 03 Sep 1998 01:02:11 -0700
   From:
"Ray E. Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 References:
1

Jay Hanson wrote:

 IMHO, it's mostly a problem of psychological denial -- with a healthy dose
 of vested interest to lock it in place.

REH:
I agree up to a point.

Jay continues:
The first step would be for people to admit the problems
real (even some members of this list won't).

REH:
For one of those who might seem resistant, I would say
that to me the issue is not whether something should be
done but whether there is something to put in the place of
the kinds of work activities that destroy the environment and
stimulate pollution.

I have suggested that the traditional Greek solution is not a
bad one.  Begin with developing the perceptions through the
Arts and make work fit the goals of individual and group
psycho-physical development.  My cynicism about that has
to do with individuals in power being willing to give up and
negotiate the world that is to come.I suspect there will be
wars over whose favorite image of an ideal future will predominate.
Both the stressed environment and a rise in plagues will likely
provide the tools for tyrants to stress people into nonsensical,
manipulatible directions.

Jay continues:

 The second step would be to admit that the
 consumer society must now end.

REH
As Thomas pointed out, the idea of work is important.
Don't pay people for doing nothing.  Pay them for doing
something that is useful in the elevation of human and
individual consciousness.Develop programs for the
changeover and instead of consuming iron, consume
esthetic products that delight and develop.

Jay

 If we could overcome denial, we might have a chance.  But I see it as the
 "alcoholic" syndrome: the alcoholic can't overcome denial until he is lying
 in the gutter drowning in his own puke.

REH
If we are addicted to anything, it is the anesthetized physical
and emotional patterning that has been necessary to live the
last 250 years in the West.  There have been many strategies
developed to help people survive the Industrial Era.

I meet them in my performance classes.  Working with the powerfully
talented, the great exercises of the Western Theater rip the skin
from their eyes and the painful memories from their histories.   Most of
them are not mature enough to handle such flooding and leave to go
back to the simplicities of the Auto plant or the computer program, no
matter how gentle or sensitive the teacher.

(But, as you point out, their  jobs are going to have to change.   Why
can't we be "human" like the Dutch and program job change into
the life pattern as a worthy goal and provide the money for the
training?)

Or they are afraid of specific physical terms that their religions
categorized as "dirty", a taboo strengthened  in order to escape
the previous sexual diseases that killed most of Europe.(If you
think teaching ecology is difficult you should try teaching children
a logical and healthy response to their pleasure.)

Although sexuality  is suspect, paradoxically it is the only "allowed"
complete human pleasure.   The Pleasure Principle, the bodies most
accurate measure of success or failure,  teaches the child.  Adults
inaccurately classify childish pleasure in growth as "sexual."   That
way they can encapsulate the wholeness of pleasure in the fragment
of sexuality  and prove that the rest of life is a struggle and should
expect little other than profit.

Even among the former Communists, (good 19th century scientists)  this
has been turned to a puritanical rigidity that is almost afraid of the feel
of a lengthening muscle other than a penis.   The 19th century model
of healthy work is a contracting muscle pulled to a "toned" hardness.
The penis, on the other hand, is a contradiction to their model of how
work happens in the body.As stated earlier, their model is one of
shortening (contraction) and rigidity with the natural flow of pleasurable
energy through the muscles being hardened like bone.   This 19th
century medical "work" model has been discarded in the dance,
Olympic and professional sports worlds because it causes injuries as
tight rigid muscles are easily damaged.

But the puritanical streak in regular science is still abroad in the non sports

and non artistic  world and it causes amazing physical problems as people
encounter the real issues of loss of home, identity and money in a new world.
(I would refer you to Nicholas Tinbergen's acceptance speech of the Nobel
Prize when he exhaustingly analyses this in his discussion of human postural
patterns through the Alexander Technique.)

But pleasure is required for many non-polluting professions as an indicator
of growth.   The Arts demand it and those who can't break the programming
crash on the rocks of their personal issues. (Note the American President
and his 

Re: Basic Income

[Keith Hudson]

I refer to Thomas Lunde's original subject and Ed Weick's comments on it.
I'll abstract one para:

(EW)

This is an idea that goes way back to Major Douglas and the original social
credit.  I don't think it can happen that way.  The reason that the poor
have no money is that they are not on anyone's payroll.  To get on a payroll
people have to produce something of marketable value.  To enable them to do
that, you need investment.* Once you have investment and payrolls, savings
are possible and so is additional investment.  Simply giving people money to
chase nonexistent goods in the hope that those goods will become existent is
extremely risky and potentially highly inflationary.


Well said. The * is mine and leads me to say that there is another
component needed here also. You also need individuals able to respond to
changing skill demands. For this you need good education, for this you need
good early socialisation and for this we need a major redistribution of
educational resources away from the university end and towards the
playschools/ kindergarten end. I don't know about Canada, but in this
country and in America, this is just beginning to happen (privately and
governmentally) but it will probably take at least two or three generations
for this to become well and truly implanted in the social culture.

Keith

P.S. I hope FWers will forgive me when I sometimes accidentally use my
commercial signature. I'm not trying to advertise on the fly.  



___

Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Tactical seperation of free trade in goods and finance capital?

[Eva Durant]

 
 
 I've read the review and have gone back to reread parts of the Manifesto
 itself.  What incredible idealism the Manifesto contains!  And what
 perversions in the name of that idealism have actually occurred!
 
 



ok, I slept on it and I cannot leave it... what is more Idealism
in the manifesto, than any belief that the capitalist
framework would bring solutions to the problems
still aptly described and still persisting, with
the added closup to environmental catastrophy? 
Socialism or barbarism still well describes the scenario.

However, perversion did occur, but there are 
well defined and presently avoidable  or not even 
re-creatable
conditions that were
leading to the same pattern of deformity.


Eva

Re: more from Johns Hopkins

[Eva Durant]

 
 Even among the former Communists, (good 19th century scientists)  this
 has been turned to a puritanical rigidity 


If you mean Marx et al, you're wrong. The most picked up
and ridiculed of their ideas  by contemporaries were 
those on free love, which they developed from the
french utopian socialists if I remember correctly.

Eva



 
 REH
 
 
 
 
 

Re: Basic Income

[David Burman]

I read with interest Thomas's sun god analogy, which I think is brilliant.
I would only add that perhaps our sun god is "the Marketplace" with its
"invisible hand." The work ethic is more like an archaic ritual habit in
service of this god. The habit, like all habits, formed when our northern
European culture was struggling to prosper agriculturally against
unfavourable climatic conditions. It took a lot of hard work and ingenuity,
which led to technological developments and industrial development. This
process was helped greatly by following the dictates of the Marketplace
god. And truly, those who prospered under this system, either by hard work
or ruthlessness and cunning, could point to their having been favoured by
God for their devotion. 

Does this help?

David

At 06:13 PM 01/09/98 -0500, Thomas Lunde wrote:
To all FW'ers:

I will be leaving for Amsterdam in a couple of days to present a paper I
wrote entitled "The Family Basic Income Proposal" at the BIEN Conference.
The genesis of this paper came from a challenge by a FW participant arising
from some comments I made in a thread called "Some Hard Questions on Basic
Income" last February.  I tried posting my rebuttal to the challenge as an
attachment several times but for some reason the server did not put the post
through.  After several months, I privately posted it to several list
members asking for feedback but received consideration from only one
individual.  I then became aware of BIEN, a European organization that has
been exploring the concepts of a Basic Income in Europe and of their
upcoming Convention in Sept.  I submitted my paper and it was accepted and I
have been invited to present it.

This summer, I had the opportunity to travel across Canada for 6 weeks and
visit friends and family.  In each instance I tried to open conversations on
the concept of a Basic Income.  In each and every conversation, the idea was
ridiculed and conversely I had trouble explaining the whole concept because
in conversation, it is difficult to fully develop a complex idea.  Out of
the frustrations of those conversations, I feel I learned a lot.  Most
important, I learned that those I spoke to, a farmer, a small business
owner, a lab technician, a bus driver, an artist, a housewife, a government
employee, that each was totally indoctrinated with the concept that work was
so important that the thought of giving all Canadians the security of a
Basic Income was basically unthinkable to them.

Out of the anger my questions and explanations my subject had generated, I
have come to a tentative conclusion that until the "middle class", primarily
those who work by selling their time and skills can be convinced of the need
for a massive change in the redistribution of income, the concept of a Basic
Income will not become a reality.  I found myself sitting down and writing a
rebuttal to this attitude which I called "A Message to the Middle Class on
the Financing of: The Family Basic Income Proposal".  It is a long essay but
sometimes it takes some time to develop a new viewpoint.  I am going to post
this by E Mail tonight in 5 separate posts, each representing a page of the
complete essay.

Today, I was investigating for the first time our new Web Page and it was
with some surprise, that I read about BES, a Conference held in Ottawa on
June 3 this year to explore the concept of "Basic Economic Security" for
Canadians.  Many of the questions raised at this Conference were questions
that I wrestled with in putting together my paper.  I had to make choices
and develop an economic explanation of how my choices could be financed.
The choices I made are not necessarily "right", only the choices that I made
but they are a start from which a critique or support could rally around and
as such, I believe they have value.  Because my circle of friends do not
include "experts" and my time and financial resources are very limited,

there may very well be glaring errors in my assumptions.  If so, I will try
to accept criticism gracefully.

I plan to put my original paper on the list in E Mail format on Thursday,
allowing for some time for response to my first paper.  This message is to
inform those who may choose not invest the time to just file or delete the
ten or so posts that I will be sending under the Subject heading - Basic
Income.  So, let the adventure begin.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lunde
 

collapse defined

[Jay Hanson]

From: Ed Weick [EMAIL PROTECTED]

There are no doubt many factors that determine whether civilizations
collapse slowly like Rome or quickly like the FSU and ex-Yugoslavia.   I
believe a large factor is ethnic homogeneity.  After all, our culture
demands that we find someone else to blame.  It's another positive
feedback
if the scapegoats are within our own borders.

My point about Rome was that it never really collapsed.  Over the
centuries,
it became transformed into civilizations which were no longer really Roman,

Tainter defines "collapse" as a "rapid transformation to a lower degree of
complexity, typically involving significantly less energy consumption
(Tainter 1988)".  This may or may not include widespread violence.  In fact
"collapse" could look a lot like the kind of society some people are
advocating.

Jay
  -
COMING SOON TO A LOCATION NEAR YOU!
http://dieoff.com/page1.htm

Re: more from Johns Hopkins

[Jay Hanson]

From: Ray E. Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I have suggested that the traditional Greek solution is not a
bad one.  Begin with developing the perceptions through the
Arts and make work fit the goals of individual and group
psycho-physical development.  My cynicism about that has

This would be an ideal direction.  Shift personal satisfaction from the
consumption of commodities to the arts.  [ I agree with the rest of your
points too Ray. ]

I am cynical too.  In his new book, THE FUTURE IN PLAIN SIGHT, Linden has
really done a great job of describing the consumer society.  He makes the
connection between reason, the irrational, and religion.  Moreover, he tells
us why the system can't change:

"The consumer society thrives on its own discontent.  This is what makes the
system so supremely resilient and adaptable.  Unfortunately, a system that
transforms all attempts to change it into consumer interest loses the
ability to recognize danger and adapt.  If every public expression of fear,
anger, or outrage is assimilated as a market opportunity, the system can not
change."
[p. 260]

Linden sees nine different reasons society is likely to collapse early this
coming century.  Significantly, none of Linden's reasons are based on
Meadow's, Tainter's, Prigogine's, or Campbell's work.

It's a good book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684811332

Jay -- www.dieoff.org

How did Russia GET plumdered? (fwd)

[Michael Gurstein]

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:14:08 -0600
From: "Emilie F. Nichols" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How did Russia GET plumdered?

Forbes - September 7, 1998

Russia used to live off its commodities exports. When a handful of
privateers got control, the country went bankrupt. 

"Tomorrow they will take up arms" 

A chat with Russia's former trade minister Oleg Davydov 
by Paul Klebnikov

THE YELTSIN GOVERNMENT allowed the cream of the Russian economy to fall
into the hands of a tiny group of adventurers who, instead of growing their
businesses, shipped the profits abroad. In this "privatization" the
government received almost nothing. Oleg Davydov occupied top trade
ministry posts in both the Soviet and the Yeltsin governments. 

FORBES interviewed him in Helsinki recently. 

FORBES: How did Russia let itself be plundered? 

Our Western advisers and the IMF told us that the state had to abandon all
its business activities, that government revenues had to come only from
taxes. But it was a utopian vision. We privatized all the biggest
companies, all the most profitable ones, the biggest exporters. The
government thought it would get strategic investors from the West. Instead,
we got some kind of offshore companies [really owned by Russians]. Look at
the aluminum industry. Not one strategic investor appeared. Not Alcoa. Not
Pechiney. Instead we got the Chernyi brothers [shady metals traders]. They
gained control of aluminum exports at a time when aluminum cost $2,000/ton
on world markets but could be bought at $500/ton inside Russia. All the
producers became deeply indebted to the brothers, who made deals with the
plant directors to acquire aluminum at the Russian price. 

Which they then sold at the world price. 

The tragedy is that if the privatized companies were state enterprises
today, they would be recording good profits, they would be paying taxes,
paying workers' wages, investing in their plant and equipment. But these
so-called owners arrived, and what happened? There are no profits. No tax
payments. The plant and equipment are getting worn out. And the money goes
abroad. 

Did privatization go too far, too fast? 

Why did they [the "reformers"] have to privatize the alcohol monopoly?
Vodka production is by far the most profitable part of the economy. In the
U.S.S.R. it used to account for 23% of government revenues. 

Another mistake was to immediately dismantle all the government foreign
trade monopolies. These organizations had decades of experience and
representatives all over the world. They charged 0.5% commission and
remitted all the difference [between domestic commodity prices and world
prices] to the government. 

When these legal channels became inconvenient [for Russia's new
businessmen], there appeared a huge mass of foreign entrepreneurs, mostly
crooks like Marc Rich, who began to teach us various ways of taking the
money out through offshore companies. That is what bred our whole system of
corruption and criminality. 

How did they do this? 

Natural resources were very cheap in Russia. I remember when oil cost
$40/ton domestically, but was sold for $110 on the world market. Typically,
the director of an oil company struck a secret deal with traders [to divide
up the profits]. We managed to break apart the old trade monopolies, all
right, but we didn't create a new system of control. In theory, 100% of the
export revenues had to be converted back into rubles. But the Bank of
Russia found that in 1992, 50% to 70% of export revenues were not
transferred back to Russia; in 1993—30% to 40%. The money just disappeared. 

I often posed this question to Norilsk Nickel: Why don't you trade on the
London Metal Exchange? You deposit your metal in a warehouse, hire a broker
or place your own broker on the exchange, and every day you trade your
metal there. Your operations are completely transparent. You have an
exchange; you have a price; you have an official account where the money
goes; you have a paper trail. Everything is legal and civilized. Why do you
hire some middleman who makes some kind of deals directly with the buyer? 

Clearly, they didn't want transparency. 

People today are saying: Where is our oil? Where is our gas? Today they
[striking miners] have blocked the railroads. Tomorrow they will take up
arms. 

Re: Re: Basic income

[Thomas Lunde]

-Original Message-
From: pete [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: September 2, 1998 8:46 PM
Subject: FW: Re: Basic income


 "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Thomas:  Population is a problem, but I believe that when people are able
to
fulfill some of their goals and needs is will become less of a problem.
In
those western countries that experience affluence, the tendency is for the
birth rate to drop.  I think a Basic Income, over time will act as a form
of
birth control.


Perhaps, but this is a different situation than that which drives low
birth rates in affluent countries. I wonder what the birth rate is
among the moderately independently wealthy, that is, those whose
fortunes allow them to live just comfortably without ever having to
work. That is a more relevant comparison for people who will have
a modest but secure income and freedom from financial worries.

It is possible that such security will lead to increased birth rate.

  -Pete Vincent

Thomas:

Of course we don't know and I only threw out my tiny bit of intelligence
which has been garnered from reading.  And as other writers have pointed out
there is the whole cultural/religious viewpoints that would also have to
change.  I guess that this is a question about the Basic Income that I don't
have a definitive answer on.  What I would say though is that we are at 6
billion and growing by 80 million a year, (which is 2 1/2 Canada's every
year) and something is going to give.  That is going to create a need at a
most graphic level for some change, euthanasia, limit children per couple,
write off a few billion by natural disaster, drop a few A Bombs in the
Middle east, make abortion mandatory, who knows.  At some point our
governments and religious leaders are going to have to come out of denial on
this problem and make some decisions.  In the meantime, could we please
start exploring some other ways than our present mess in redistributing
income?

Respectfully,

Thomas Lunde

Basic Income Page 9

[Thomas Lunde]

The Numbers


In round numbers, Canada’s population is 30 million and if every citizen
received the Basic Income, the total cost would be $450 billion.  Canada’s
current budget is $150 billion leaving a shortfall of $300 billion.  Seems
pretty impossible, doesn’t it?

Just for example, let’s say that it takes $50 billion of our current budget
of $150 billion to run the country’s infrastructure and we add this to the
cost of a Basic Income.  This would raise our Budget requirements to $500
billion.  (The other 100 billion is money paid out to EI, pensions, Indian
Affairs payments, the Armed Forces, Medicare and all other programs that can
be discontinued because the Basic Income will replace them.  Plus the single
biggest expense in the budget which is our National Debt.)

According to Stats Can, 11 million Canadians are employed full time and will
continue to be employed.  For these Canadians, their Basic Income is paid
through a transfer made by the employer.  This transfer will bring the
government $165 billion leaving us with a shortfall of $335 billion. (11
million times $15,000 equals $165 billion)

Let us also estimate that part time workers, and those who make extra income
but do not reach the Family Basic cutoff point at which they are registered
will rebate an additional $50 billion dollars.  ( You must remember that it
is in their interest to do so.  Remember Scenario 1 in which he remits his
income of  $3,250 and yet they receive $30,000 in Basic Income.  All
citizens have to realize that the reason for this is to provide "families"
with a Basic Income rather than maximizing individuals income as in the
present system.)  We are now left with a shortfall of $285 Billion.

As the government withholds $4500 of everyone’s Basic Income and applies it
to the three Universal Programs plus the debt, this transfer will bring the
government another $135 billion leaving a shortfall of $150 billion.  (30
million Basic Income recipients times $4500 equals $135 billion)

Now we come to the tax on "all income" over the $15,000 Basic Income.  I
propose a flat tax of 25%.This will raise approximately 45 billion.  (The
Basic Income of 450 billion less the Net Domestic Income of 632 billion at
25% will generate 45 billion in taxes.)  This will leave a shortfall of 105
billion.  I suggest that this shortfall can be raised through the concept of
Wealth Limitation which I have argued for in my essay, "A Message to the
Middle Class on the Financing of The Family Basic Income Proposal."
Additional funding will come from government tariff’s and duties, licenses
and other income sources currently in place.


A. Benefits

1.  The core of this idea is the transfer of wealth from individuals to
families.  It is not correct to say, just poor families, as some of my
examples have pointed out.  It is to put adequate resources available to all
families, no matter what their composition but especially to larger
families.  One criticism that might be directed at this approach is that it
would encourage large families.  I don’t know whether this is true or not.
Anyone who has had children, knows that it is a 20 year job, hard work,
stressful and time consuming.  As a father, I can tell you that I would not
sign up for another 20 year stint to just get another increase in my income.
However, even if it were true, would it be so broad based as to change the
demographics - I think not.  If it was, we have a built in safety release in
that we could cut back on immigration if it was important to limit our
numbers in Canada.  Perhaps those it might encourage to have large families
are those who love children deeply and would be the best parents.

Basic Income Page 10

[Thomas Lunde]

2.  The second feature is the redistribution of income.  Currently, income
earned from wages is taxed more than income from other sources such as
investment and corporate taxes.  This has created a major imbalance in that
income tax accounts for 70% of government revenue while corporate taxes only
account for 20%.  Not only will the tax burden be shifted to a more equal
distribution by taxing all income equally, it will still contain the seeds
of a progressive tax system.  A simple example:

John is a single man who earns $40,000 per year.  The $15,000 deducted at
source, leaves him a $25,000 taxable income which amounts to a tax bill of
$6,250.  His total income is $15,000 from the Basic Income and $18,750 from
his earned income for a total of $33,750.  His tax rate is approx 15%.

Harry is a single man who earns $80,000 per year.  The $15,000 deducted at
source, leave him $65,000 of taxable income which amounts to $16,250.  His
total income is $15,000 from the Basic Income and $48,750 from his earned
income for a total of $63,750.  His tax rate is approx 20%

3.  It will eliminate all payroll taxes.  The Basic Income supplants
Medicare, Old Age Security, and EI deductions.  Therefore employers only
have one deduction to make and none out of their money.  They rebate to the
government $15,000 and that is it.  This eliminates massive amounts of
bookkeeping and creative accounting that is currently used because of
payroll deductions.  This lowers overhead, reduces personnel and increases
profits which the government taxes at a flat rate of 25%.

4.  It will downsize government.  As all programs such as CPP, Old Age
Security, EI, Workman’s Compensation, disability pensions, government
pensions (if they still exist will only require a top up), military
pensions, transfers to First Nations and any other income transfers to
individuals.  Not only will government be smaller, it will need less
buildings, land and other infrastructure costs.

5.  It will redistribute income back to rural communities.  People will find
it economical to live in smaller communities and the Basic Income will bring
much needed cash which will create a demand for jobs and services.

6.  It will restore decent wages to workers.  Those companies who are now
bringing us lower prices by paying low wages will not be able to find
workers unless they pay enough above the Basic Income to attract workers.
This has been one of the major flaws of the capitalistic system in that
wages are low because employers have a surplus of people who have to work to
survive.  As this is a tide that will apply to all low wage endeavors, they
will all have to raise the price of their product.  There will be savings
for them in no payroll taxes and less accountancy personnel that will help
them offset the demand for adequate wages.

7.  Our workforce will change from one in which a person has to work to one
that wants to work.  For most people, we are synonymous to draftees in the
Army.  We have to work.  With a Basic Income, especially based on family
grosses, those who work will be volunteers.  I think we will find that the
quality of our workforce improves dramatically as we shift from those who
are forced to work to those who want to work.

8.  Education will be available to all - period, at any time of their life
in any way they choose.  Post secondary education will be free as well as
technical training in vocational colleges.  With more people unemployed,
education will be the option which will continue to produce a highly
educated and motivated workforce.

9.  I suggest RRSP and all other forms of tax deferred income be eliminated.
As everyone has a basic income of $15,000 which will be maintained by a COLA
clause, there may be some who want to top up their retirement but I don’t
think they should do it with tax deferred income.

10. I suggest that prisoners forfeit 90% of their Basic Income to pay for
their own incarceration, thereby eliminating the cost to taxpayers in the
current system.

11.  This is a growth model in the sense that automation will continue to
reduce the need for a fully employed population.  This model allows families
to not be dependent on only labour earned income.  As automation increases,
business profits will rise so that the loss of labour based taxes will be
compensated by automated productivity producing profit at the business
enterprise level.

12.  This model retains many of the good features of the capitalistic model
while reducing the need to cause poverty at the lower end.  Anyone of
enterprise in this model should certainly be able to make money and retain a
large part of what he makes.

13.  Just as Canadians have used the benefits of Medicare as a way of
defining themselves as a people that are different from, for example the
Americans, I predict that the The Family Basic Income Program would reduce
the tensions of separation suggested by the Province of Quebec and alluded
to by other Provinces and increase the 

Basic Income 6

[Thomas Lunde]

The Family Basic Income Proposal
by Thomas Lunde
March 9, 1998


Money, we all need it, but too few of us are getting it.  Traditionally, we
got money through work or investment.  One of the millennium crises, is the
collapse of work as a means of getting money for many people.  Nowhere is
this more apparent than for families and young people trying to enter a
workforce that only exists for a favoured few.

The problem up till now, has been to prevent a few people from owning all
the money.  Governments attempted to solve that situation through a concept
known as the "progressive income tax".  This idea stated that those who
earned the most should pay the highest taxes and that the government would
collect this money and redistribute it throughout the economy to create more
fairness.

There was a second method of redistribution and that was through social
programs that used the concept of Universality.  We see this in Medicare and
public education.  So, in Canada, no matter whether you are poor or well
off, you can receive an education and health care.  These systems are now
under attack due to lack of money.

Where is all the money?  There has never been as much money as there is now.
In fact, the problem is that money is no longer being redistributed
effectively and some segments of the money environment have been successful
in reducing their contribution.  And that brings us to the accelerating
problem of an adequate philosophy.

As the idea of the "progressive income tax" and Universality became eroded
as a philosophy, a new model of income redistribution needs to be developed.
With this goal in mind, I believe that many possibilities should be
explored.  I will open this dialog with an income redistribution plan that
incorporates the old and shifts the philosophy from the individual to the
family.

For those of you who remember your history lessons, the revolution of the
Enlightenment was the shift of individuals from being property of a lord or
king to individuals with "rights".  Citizens, became the basic building
block of democracy and the complimentary economic system of capitalism
allowed each individual the opportunity to seek happiness for themselves.
This has led to a Darwinian economic system in which individuals strive for
themselves, and view the "common good" as an evil which infringes on their
"rights" to the pursuit of happiness.

In contrast, I would ask you to imagine an economic system where each
individual receives from the government a weekly cheque that over a years
time amounts to $15,000. Standardized at this amount with a COLA clause to
prevent erosion over time. This cheque is given to new born babies, senile
elderly, mentally handicapped, prisoners, in fact every member of society.
This is the Basic Income portion of my proposal.

To receive these payments, it is only necessary to have one qualification
and that is to define your family status.  You can be a family of one, a
nuclear family or an extended generational family, a gay family, a lesbian
family, perhaps even a religious or group family.  By telling the government
your chosen family status, you indicate the accounting procedures of The
Family Basic Income Proposal that apply to your family. Perhaps the best way
for me to present this idea is to give you a number of scenario’s based on
typical families and then I will present my explanation of of how this
Proposal can be financed.

Basic Income

[Thomas Lunde]

Dear Thomas,

How would B I help in these conditions? I'm not trying to razz you, just
passing along examples of what I read weekly.

Steve

Thomas:  I'll give it a try.  First and foremost the population is out of
control - why?  Is it religion, cultural beliefs in terms of support for the
aged, promiscuity, no birth control?  I don't know, but I seem to remember
that Bangladesh was created as new political entity, though for what
purposes escapes me.  Did the start with too much population or was that the
result of political decisions?

": many people are landless and forced to live on and cultivate flood-prone
land: the backgrounder states.  Well, if they would have had some kind of
Basic Income, perhaps there would not be so many landless or those who are
landless could have used a portion of the Basic Income to get started in
some urban venture.  But with no work, no paycheck, no money, those are not
options.

"limited access to potable water" is often the result of not having the
money to drill deeper than villagers can dig, therefore a Basic Income may
have provided enough surplus to get a well drilled, or conversely someone
could have drilled a well and sold water knowing that it was a basic human
requirement that could be paid for out of the Basic Income.

"Experts say that while Bangladesh's system of embankments may save a few,
it is only making flooding worse for others, and that it may be time for the
country to stop fighting the waters."  I would venture that these dikes were
suggested and financed by experts who didn't live there and perhaps even
over the objections of those who did live there.  If those people would have
had an economy because there was a constant infusion of funds through a
Basic Income, it is possible they could have lobbied or hired their own
experts to counter the experts who brought in this apparently disastrous
solution.

"Bangladesh, the basin at the foot of the Himalayas, has floods every year.
But never in memory has such a bad flood lasted so long — nearly two months.
Could we suppose, I know it is not proven, but could we suppose that
deforestation to provide an export commodity contributed to the floods?
Could we suppose that other countries near and far who have been pursuing
the capital growth model of exploiting every opportunity to make a profit as
creating situations that are altering the Earth's climate patterns?  Could
we suppose that if every citizen of the world had the right to a Basic
Income, that many of them would not voluntarily choose to engage in
destructive practices but are doing so know because if they don't they and
their families may not survive?

Of course I don't have an answer for Bangladesh and neither does any other
economic or political system or it would not be in this mess.  My argument
is that money in the hands of the poorest, gives the poorest a resource to
increase their own survival - something they have no hope for under the
current system.  I remember as a child how important the family allowance
cheque was to my mother.  It was $12 a month supplementary income she could
depend on and with that $12 some small hole in the dike of our family
finances could be covered.  Even the smallest Basic Income would alter the
lives of millions of people in Bangladesh, it is when you have nothing that
it seems and often is hopeless.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lunde




Talk about a country on the edge, Bangladesh is having more problems.
It seems a prime example of overpopulation with collapse just a matter of
time.

   Ed Glaze   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

CIA Factbook -- Bangladesh
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/bg.html

Location: Southern Asia, bordering the Bay of Bengal, between Burma and
India
Population: 125,340,261 (July 1997 est.)
Area - comparative: slightly smaller than Wisconsin

Natural hazards: droughts, cyclones; much of the country routinely flooded
during the summer monsoon season

Environment - current issues: many people are landless and forced to live on
and cultivate flood-prone land; limited access to potable water; water-borne
diseases prevalent; water pollution especially of fishing areas results from
the use of commercial pesticides; intermittent water shortages because of
falling water tables in the northern and central parts of the country; soil
degradation; deforestation; SEVERE OVERPOPULATION (emphasis added, last
place listing not)


Bangladesh -- Yahoo search
http://www.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/Bangladesh/Country_Guides/



http://wire.ap.org/
SEPTEMBER 03, 02:30 EDT
Bangladesh Split on Flood Control
by FARID HOSSAIN
Associated Press Writer

DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) — Bangladesh has seen the waters rush in with a fury
similar to that of the monsoon that has killed more than 600 people this
year.

But that was 10 years ago, when Abdur Rahman's one-story house in Dhaka's
northern Mohammadpur district was submerged.

This year, Rahman's neighborhood remained dry. He