politics

Comment on Robert Reich’s HuffPo: “Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 While Everyone Else is Cutting Back”


Comment on Robert Reich’s HuffPo: “Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 While Everyone Else is Cutting Back”


Hey Bob — if you read these comments. Great stuff. Apropos, I had a thought today. My thoughts are generally denoted weird and worse.Feel free to ignore. If I lived in Berkeley I would feel free period.

Combine these two ideas.

1. Kiva-ize the world. Kiva does microcredit which recycles loans back to the lender and keeps building economies at the grass roots. Beats most philanthropy.

2. Institute a global guaranteed income floor administered by IMF or World Bank, keyed to cost of living.

Nations that are corrupt or genocidal would affect the floor. Their victims would get enough to escape their deleterious rule and enough to resettle somewhere else without necessitating huge refugee camps.

If you agree I will let you in on my third idea.

Rewrite the Geneva Convention to outlaw any form of war that inflicts more harm on an enemy than has been already inflicted, The Bush war would have had a limit of around 3000 lives.

What do you think?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Standard

3 thoughts on “Comment on Robert Reich’s HuffPo: “Why the Dow is Hitting 10,000 While Everyone Else is Cutting Back”

  1. Lu says:

    I am for free movement without restrictions as well. So, IMF or Worldbank pays for and monitors this, which means that I’m going to be taxed by them (either individually or through my government) I assume. Since you think it should be generalized and formulated on a country by country basis, I assume the formula for who would give what would also be generalized and formulated on a country by country basis.

    I don’t have a problem with paying taxes, but I do have a problem with morals being turned to ethics and dictated by institutions, and for good reason, but I’ll get to that in a moment. First, I already give significantly of my time and my money, and teach my children to do so as well, and even if a formula could be contrived in order to take into account my giving, that formula would not take into account the circumstances of my life or my needs, what I might be saving for or why–in essence, it takes away a bit of my free movement.

    Your idea is the ideal, of course, and if the world were a fair place no one would ever live in poverty (poverty here is nothing at all like it is in other places in the world, I know, which is why I am more apt to give money to educational programs in third world countries than I am to give to American charities that create dependency and promote the devaluation of self in a country where everyone has opportunity when so very many people in the world have no opportunity at all), no one would fall ill, everyone would be able to have exactly what they felt they needed and most of what they wanted in order to be happy. Unfortunately, I firmly believe that despite our best intentions, some people feast upon the goodness of you and me. You cannot regulate evil. No matter how rich or poor the nation, there will always be someone who is beating others down, abusing authority, power (the most dangerous of temptresses). There will always be those looking for any way at all to profit at the expense of others, and there will always be those of us with the best intentions wishing we could make the rest of the world a better place, doing our best one day at a time to make it better, not because we are told to, but because we know it is right.

    Trying to regulate moral good by handing people the ethical thing to do and insisting it be done is not the right approach, in my opinion, because it takes away the moral lesson, it takes away the opportunity to learn to be good and right. If the moral is taxed, what reason would anyone ever feel to look beyond the scope of that floor you suggest and see that grave need still exists everywhere? As far as most would be concerned, they would already be doing their part, so why should they do more?

  2. stephencrose says:

    I will answer here. Thanks.

    >What would the cost of living be, exactly? Enough for food, water and shelter?

    I am thinking of a floor, not what one might hope for. Enough not to be in permanent poverty, enough to make initiative feasable.

    > Or do we also include the desires? If we don’t include desires, upon whose needs do we base the floor for the basic necessities? Do we use your needs–your morning coffee you can’t live without, your three meals a day, your bottled water?

    I would key it to what constitutes an economic floor in a particular country. I think some incentive needs to be part of the idea.

    >Do we use my needs–my medical conditions (I don’t ask anyone to pay for them, by the way), my children’s extra-curricular activities, my dog’s food? If we include desire, upon whose desires to we base that floor? Yours? Mine? EAch person’s idea of want and need is different.

    Which is why I think it is futile to base it on anything but a simple formula. In the US it might relate to what sort of safety net we have.

    > Each person’s cost of living is different. Do we institute caps to insure that no one could exagerate their needs in order to take advantage of the system (there are seven billion of us in the world, that’s a whole lot of people to police)?

    Everyone gets policed now one way or another. If you look at all of my thoughts it is clear that I am trying to stimulate a discussion of reformulating the world away from its military-industrial modes to a more civilized way of living. Otherwise we are daunted or reduced to falling in love with theories of inadequate scope.

    > Where do those claiming amnesty settle? Do I have the right to denounce my citizenship and claim amnesty right here so that I get the benefits of those coming in, because often their benefits are better than mine? My nation is pretty corrupt, after all….

    Again, incentives are key. I am ultimately for free movement without restrictions.

  3. Lu says:

    I posted this over at Reich’s, but thought I’d leave it here as well, in case you don’t check back over there:

    What would the cost of living be, exactly? Enough for food, water and shelter? Or do we also include the desires? If we don’t include desires, upon whose needs do we base the floor for the basic necessities? Do we use your needs–your morning coffee you can’t live without, your three meals a day, your bottled water? Do we use my needs–my medical conditions (I don’t ask anyone to pay for them, by the way), my children’s extra-curricular activities, my dog’s food? If we include desire, upon whose desires to we base that floor? Yours? Mine? EAch person’s idea of want and need is different. Each person’s cost of living is different. Do we institute caps to insure that no one could exagerate their needs in order to take advantage of the system (there are seven billion of us in the world, that’s a whole lot of people to police)? Where do those claiming amnesty settle? Do I have the right to denounce my citizenship and claim amnesty right here so that I get the benefits of those coming in, because often their benefits are better than mine? My nation is pretty corrupt, after all….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s