Dear Tom:
Thanks for joining in, your scope of information always blows me away,
either in supporting some of my thoughts or in poking holes in them. Either
way, I feel the winner.
>Ed Weick wrote,
>
>>Generally, what that research revealed is not really
>>surprising: that the world's richest and most democratic countries have
the
>>most equitable distribution of income while the poorest countries have the
>>least equitable. What this suggests is that economic development and
rising
>>national prosperity may indeed be the key to greater distributional
>>equality.
>
Tom said:
>Actually it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Lars Osberg, from
>Dalhousie University, argues persuasively that the causal link runs the
>other way, from equality to prosperity. There was an article by Osberg on
>this in Canadian Business Economics sometime around 1995. I could look up
>the exact reference if anyone wants it (or maybe someone else has it on
hand).
Thomas:
I agree that these ideas seem counter intuitive to the philosophies we have
all accept from the business community and especially the neo-con
philosophy. Frankly, I think that if a Basic Income was introduced, it
would make such a fundamental change in society that it would start a newly
labeled age. A Basic Income is, perhaps, the greatest step towards equality
since the concept of citizen from the thinking of the Age of Enlightment.
That change, I believe would, as Lars Osberg suggested, create a greater
prosperity than we have known to date.
>
>Not quite on the other hand, James Galbraith has recently wrote of an
>"ethical rate of unemployment", the idea that unemployment above a certain
>level leads to an increase in inequality.
Thomas:
The unemployed are not equal in our society. They have no access to credit.
They cannot avail themselves of expensive services such as lawyers,
counsellors, accountants to protect their interests. There children are
stigmatized, their time is considered valueless and they are looked upon as
negative citizens, using the resources of productive citizens. If you don't
believe me, become unemployed for awhile and try it.
>
>The neo-liberal fix runs counter to both of these observations. It
maintains
>that high unemployment is the unfortunate but sometimes necessary price to
>pay for price stability and the inequality is the unfortunate but sometimes
>necessary price to pay for economic efficiency. Both assertions are
>theoretically weak and empirically unsubstantiated. They do however suit
the
>fancy of the coupon clipping classes who would like to believe that
>maximizing their privilege serves a worthwhile social purpose and elevating
>their gain is in the best interests of all.
Thomas:
It's a fine price to pay, as long as someone else is doing the paying.
>
>Thus the two economic dead losses of inequality and unemployment form the
>real ideological core of the neo-liberal dream. "Free markets" and
>"democracy" are the fine sounding words used to peddle this elitist dreck
to
>the peasantry, just like Stalin used the word "socialism" to doll up an
>earlier regime of bureaucratic totalitarianism.
Thomas
I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Tom Walker
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>#408 1035 Pacific St.
>Vancouver, B.C.
>V6E 4G7
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(604) 669-3286
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
>
