a perfect case in point for #UBI (Universal Basic income)
@tshepang
I would need to give this idea some more thought.
You see, if a service does not cost anything at all, there tends to be waste and abuse.
If everyone is given a basic income to cover their (basic) needs, this would solve that problem too, don't you think?
In any event, public goods should be held by a (non-corrupt) state and not by private citizens or corporations (e.g. water rights).
Interesting thoughts.
Apart from health care (where I tend to disagree, as the inflation rate, including innovation had been 12-15%, depending on the country, even before the Pandemic . The #NHS is in a huge crisis and even in non-Oil countries, maintaining it open for all is gigantic and access must be limited for the system not to break. - Limited regarding the scope of the services, not regarding nationals and residents.)
...which universal basic services do you see?
@tshepang
In order for a state to take care of its citizens and (legal) residents who have to foot the bill, NO system can ever be open to all comers, as there are always limited resources.
Just have a look at the millions of war #refugees that had to be accommodated in the #EU.
Many low-income citizens and residents are already crowded out of an extremely tight housing market. Right-wing governments are already in place or might be soon. Asking for freedom...
...of movement for any human being a desirable as this may be, would simply lead to a breakdown of virtually all services provided by the state.
A case in point: the Lebanon, virtually a failed state.
No, a somewhat just solution would be that the old industrialized nations pay #ClimateReparations to the former #colonial countries, as the University of #Leeds recently suggested.
I strongly disagree with the "wealth" statement. Several G7 countries are greatly in debt and live on bortowed time. Many cannot even finance all that would be necessary to achieve the 1.5°C target.
Yes, of course immigrants bring new skillsets to a country. The problem arises when they become too many; just ask any surviving indigenous people of the Americas. 😉
I completely agree with the uneven wealth-distribution problem, however. In particular, the earth...
...cannot afford billionaires.
Capital markets
Here is an overview of the G20's and several NICa' state debts, customarily in % of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP, BIP in German.)
It shows, for how many years a country would have to use the complete monetary value of all of its goods and services generated in a year to repay their debts.
(Alas, it is in German, but most country names should be known from the Olympics.)
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/684061/umfrage/staatsverschuldung-in-den-g20-staaten/
@HistoPol @tshepang You're not answering the question though, and answering it is critical. Who are they in debt *to*?
The answer is: their own private sector. And, further, these debts actually provide value to their host economies through stable government bonds.
Government debt is not the demon it's been made out to be and doesn't really have much bearing on the ability of an economy to support people.
@jsbarretto @tshepang
My knowledge as to the specific creditors is limited.
However, if you have read the Panama Papers, I seem to remember that e.g. Africa's wealth seems to be controlled chiefly by 3 families. (Don't quote me on that, it's been some years.)
But looking, selectively, at Russia, the US, Latin America, and many Arab countries, for instance, I'd hazard a guess: international #oligarchs.
(1/2)
Interesting thought, but alas, no, not quite IMO.
You can only cancel out things within one mathematical term.
The oligarchs and the corporatists that control these debts are "extra-national," often holding several passports, and are NOT under the control of national governments (maybe with the partial exception of #Russia--different story.)
They, in turn, control Western democracies through their lobbyists and the...
(2/2)
...politicians on their payroll. The US have become a clear plutocracy since #CitizensUnitedVsFEC (see thread.)
A pars pro toto, #Elon: he controls 50% of global satellite 🛰 internet communications, and hardly any government can risk to alienate.
So, no, they do not factor out. Different groups/entities.
Here are some links regarding lobbyists, if needed:
https://mstdn.social/@corporateeurope/110513996813840660
https://newsie.social/@nbcnews/110433183224846421
https://mastodon.social/@HistoPol/110663430156794308
https://mstdn.social/@corporateeurope/110514000647075242
//
🚨 BREAKING: 🚨 new research from @corporateeurope & @stopcorpabuse exposes how the Big 5 oil & gas majors have brought 400+ lobbyists to the U.N. climate talks since the signing of the Paris Agreement. #KickBigPollutersOut 🧵👇 https://kickbigpollutersout.org/articles/new-figures-show-big-oil-gas-flooding-un-climate-talks-paris-agreement
Fantastic. Not saying it can't work for smaller groups.
Yes, but obviously not poverty stricken and much smaller than any Scandinavian country. 😉
And again: great.
@tshepang
(1/n)
Very interesting. You thought of corruption by administrators (and rightly so, see my posts, e.g., about Nestlé and water-rights abuses, e.g., in the US and elsewhere.)
I thought more of abuse by citizens. People tend to value services that are free of charge low.
Regarding the showcase of #Scandinavian countries, they cannot be the benchmark. I'm no #anthropologist but I'd suspect that the following factors influence this result:
1) relatively...
(2/n)
small, and until recently, a fairly
homogeneous population.
2) Rich and highly educated populations.
3) Centuries of common enterprise (e.g. #Viking raids.) Mist other countries lack such characteristics.
Very different: Native American tribes.
There might be other factors.
People, generally, tend to be ill-disciplined in huge crowds where individual stakeholdership and malfeasance don't lead to ostracism, as in ancient times. (My hypothesis)
Therefore,...
(3/3)
...even public goods must have a monetary, and not just an intrinsic value. This can be offset by #UBI.
It's a zero-sum game, really, but leads to significantly different results, IMHO.
//
@dlakelan
Thank you, my thinking.
I see it the same way, you put it more succinctly.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
You can't witness the degree of preference though. Suppose you have two beaches, one has better surfing. On any given day 1000 people go to both beaches. Both beaches are "equally good" right? What if I told you that the 1000 surfers would pay $40 to park there, but the 1000 other beach goers would only pay $5. It's not enough to see how many people go where to give you good information about how to allocate resources.
@tshepang
My impression would be that it generates more resources, as more money is generated.
@dlakelan @jsbarretto
I have to head out. Was great chatting with you all. 😀
I will check back to this convo. Have a nice eve.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
For example it might tell you to allocate resources to a special bus that goes to the surfing beach that can take surfboards, where you can board the bus a few miles away in some kind of parking structure, enabling more people to surf the beach without requiring us to build parking next to the beach. Just as an example.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
In general there are other ways you can gain information, but money transactions makes for a single comparable measuring stick between any goods and services, do you enhance the beach, or have more concerts in the park, or have more bus transport or plant more fish in lakes or provide more educational opportunities for kids or ... having a way to compare everything (price) is vastly superior to a hodgepodge of surveys and whatnot.
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
The problem is we have made money be a thing you only get for working for wages etc. Suppose we start charging reasonable prices for all sorts of public goods, the linux kernel, beach access, census data... whatever. But then on the other hand, everyone gets an equal UBI of maybe $40000/yr which is more or less say twice the average cost of consuming all the public goods we started charging for. So you can buy a typical quantity of the public goods, plus $20k
@tshepang @HistoPol @jsbarretto
The money charged for the public goods can go to public maintenance, and whatever isn't used there, can be paid out again by the govt as part of paying the UBI. you're recycling money, using it as an information-carrier. That's how it's supposed to work, to direct resources where they're needed. If you started charging for public goods you'd triple or quadruple the GDP, but to keep the consumption constant you'd need a lot more money circulation... ie the UBI
The 40k is, the way I understand it, an example.
Yes, of course, this would only be a basic (=minimal) income.
Also, the big issue is not only purchasing power (dis)parities b/w countries, but b/w regions, e.g. cities and rural areas.
The #UBI would need to be converted using PPP (Purchasing Power Parities) for the basic goods defined.
Price differences are particularly huge for housing, as we all know.
@dlakelan @jsbarretto
@tshepang
Apart from being administratively impossible to have an individual price deflator, it is also not the correct approach. Just b/c s.o. needs or wants more, doesn't mean the public has to foot the bill.
I can see this for people with proven disabilities but not for much else. This is exactly why UBI is a great concept: more efficiency through personal choice.
@HistoPol @jsbarretto give people a free service, take it away, and see the reaction... the fight that will ensue will show just how much they value such.
Abuse may exist, but that is no reason to have others suffer. UBI is kool, but may not be enough to cover essential things like medical (in the US, but also elsewhere, to a lesser extent) and housing costs.
Joshua Barretto
HistoPol (#HP) 🏴 🇺🇸 🏴
tshepang
Daniel Lakeland