Thomas Lunde:
Caspr Davies, who posted the original article, and has written a thoughtful
essay as a follow-up. I find his conclusions in line with my own and taking
the liberty of supporting a kindred soul, I am posting them to the Lists
that I posted his original article too.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
This article gives a good description of the growing gap between the
rich and poor, and of the shrinking middle class.
I was taught and firmly believe that the health of a society is
indicated most clearly by the size and well being of the middle group.
After the second world war, there were almost 30 years of unprecedented
prosperity during which the wealth (at least in the "developed"
nations) was distributed more equally than at almost any time since
tribal times. Since 1972, that trend has reversed. GDP, which measures
economic activity regardless of its environmental or social
consequences, counting the money spent on cancer treatment, oil spill
clean up, divorce courts and prisons in just the same way as it counts
the money spent on education or food, has continued to increase, but
almost every other measure of well-being has declined, and the social
consequences are very palpable.
The author asks, "What is the relationship between equity and economic
growth?" This is the central question asked by Henry George 120 years
ago in Progress and Poverty. His answer was that all livelihood
ultimately depended upon access to land (in which he included all
natural resources, and ALSO such things as government-created
monopolies (i.e. things like salt in Gandhi's India, taxi cab licenses,
radio and TV licenses, and all patents). Where those resources, which
were provided by nature as commons for the good of all, are held in a
few hands, the holders of them can and do claim all the value of both
labour AND capital, leaving the labourer or ordinary businessperson no
more than they need for elementary subsistence. George's answer was for
society to charge those who benefited from the exclusive use of land
or any other part of the commons the full economic rent therefore, and
to distribute the rent equally to all so that all might benefit.
Since George's time, the enclosure of the commons has gone on apace.
The electromagnetic spectrum has been given free of charge to the
holders of TV and radio licenses; patent laws have been dramatically
strengthened, and lately even life forms and genetic material have been
privatized for private profit. Government funding, paid by the taxes of
all, has been diverted from the needy to profitable corporations,either
to help them become "more competitive" or often as outright bribes to
induce them to locate facilities within or not to take facilities away
from a particular jurisdiction. As Time magazine recently showed, they
often take the (public) money and run. Therefore government revenues
must be included in the modern definition of "land", as must the
ability of the earth, air and waterier to absorb and neutralize
pollutants.
I have sent for the full report to see what the author's prescription
is. I believe that Henry George's solution is still the best that I
have seen, but whether I am right or not, it is clear that the
Neo-Liberal "trickle down" theory results only in the sucking up and
retention of wealth by those at the top.
Casper Davis
