Why the joke should not be impeached

The biggest problem now facing Americans is the emotional fears of those of them who elected the joke currently occupying the oval office.  Getting rid of Donald Trump by impeachment or otherwise will solve nothing and may be even worse.

We have to give Trump credit for having the brains to get himself elected.  He identified some of the emotional issues which are giving Americans nightmares and promised to deal with those issues. Emotional fears are  difficult to deal with and it is probable that his proposed solutions will not solve anything.  But at least he is trying and people appreciate that.

This blogger thinks the fears are legitimate.  I believe the current economic turmoil is because we have used up the most easily accessible energy and mineral resources.  We are going to have to adapt to life without the abundance to which we have grown accustomed.  Most of us realize something not good is happening but we do not know what.  Many people are afraid.

One of the ways to deal with fear is to blame other people, especially people who are different.  Lots of people around the world, including Americans and Canadians, are doing this.  It is unfair and morally wrong but it is also natural to blame others for our problems. It is not only right-wing people who are afraid.  Bernie Saunders in the United States and Jeremy Corbyn in Britain have also attracted a lot of support with emotional appeals.

The best way to deal with these fears is to deal with the source problem.  However the problem is so serious and so difficult there is probably no solution.  We might be able to relieve things a little by changing our values, the way we create money and introducing a basic income plan.  These things would have to all be done at once and that is expecting a lot of human beings.

Another alternative might be to attack emotions with emotions and try to point out how people will themselves be hurt by blaming others.  Fighting fear with more fear could be dangerous.

Americans have very clear rules for replacing a president whose term is incomplete.  Whoever replaces him will be looking for support from the same people with the same emotions.  It might be better to have a joke in the Whitehouse rather than a serious far-right conservative.

The best way to deal with Donald Trump is to ignore him.


Guaranteed work or guaranteed income?

As an alternative to a basic income scheme a commentator on Medium is proposing universal guaranteed work.  This writer has put a lot of thought into his proposal and deserves to have it given some consideration.  I have a strong commitment to a guaranteed income scheme and I have some heavy-duty concerns about his work plan.

My first concern is a belief that we do not have enough energy and mineral resources to provide employment for all the people who inhabit this planet.  There are still lots of resources but we have cherry picked the most accessible and those which are left will require lots of inexpensive energy to extract.  Even if the cost of solar energy continues to drop there may not be enough other resources to maintain the economic growth required to provide work for everyone. Topsoil is a major resource which may deteriorate and restrict growth.

The proposal for guaranteed work is probably based on a belief in economic growth and a long tradition that people must “do their share” and work to support themselves.  It may be that some people see a basic income scheme as a way of distributing goods and services rather than as an economic necessity.

Technology has been changing our economy at least since an ancient farmer discovered he could increase his production by using a horse with a collar instead of an ox with harnesses.  This development and all those that  followed allowed fewer people to work the land and more people to do other things such as fight and prey.  (In medieval times there were three classes of people – those who prayed, those who fought and those who worked to support the first two.)  My professor of European economic history spent a lot of time talking about agricultural developments which increased productivity.

Modern technology is an extension of this trend releasing more people to do things other than work to provide food and shelter.  A major question is what is this free time going to be used for.  There are many choices beyond preying and fighting including making more electronic gadgets and performing or listening to music.  Another question is who is going to make the decision about what to do with this time.  I believe individuals should be able to make the decisions for themselves.

My third concern is that a guaranteed work scheme is a continuation of the work ethic which allows a few people to tell the rest of us what to do.  We should consider the agricultural surplus and the benefits of technology an inheritance for all of us rather than a right which can be expropriated by a few.  We should be able to decide for ourselves what we want to do with the free time we have inherited from our ancestors.  That could be drinking beer or creating great works of art.  Who is to say one activity is better than another? We need a leisure ethic rather than a work ethic.

Sadly there are some people who feel they should be able to tell others how to live their lives.  A universal guaranteed work scheme is an open invitation to these people to practice this dark business.

Our civilization has to deal with some serious economic problems.  I fear the work program as proposed would make a lot of those problems even worse.  A guaranteed income program would not be enough to solve all the problems but it would be a start and needs a lot more thought.



Answering concerns about an income scheme

A discussion forum on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website brought out a number of concerns about proposals for a basic income scheme. There were more than 2,000 comments.  Here are answers to some of the concerns.

How do we pay for a basic income scheme?

There are two answers to this question.  The first is that it would replace a range of existing social welfare payments and would make these payments with more efficiency.  Employing fewer people this would increase the need.  Also I believe subsidies should be given to consumers rather than producers so this would release a lot more money for an income scheme.

For the second answer we have to focus on the agricultural surplus, the excess production by each agricultural worker which allows food for people to do other things. Without the agricultural surplus we would not have civilization as we know it.

Until now the agricultural surplus has been distributed via employment but the current level of technology is making this more difficult.  Thus the interest in a universal basic income scheme.  We should note that the agricultural surplus is based largely on petroleum and could be somewhat precarious.

As most of the technology that has gone into the agricultural surplus has been developed over the last 2,000 years and most if not all of us have ancestors who worked on that, we should consider it a part of our inheritance. We are all entitled to a share.  We should have a collective responsibility to ensure everyone has the opportunity for the same standard of living as most other people.  The amount of payments should depend upon the population and the quantity of goods and services we are able to produce.  If this ratio goes up then the payments should go up and if this ratio goes down then the payments will have to go down.

I believe there are some serious problems with the way in which our economy creates money.  As an income scheme involves money this would be a good time to deal with that problem.

How do we stop people from smoking dope all day?

The simple answer to this question is that we do not. We do not need everyone to work all the time to maintain the agricultural surplus.    We no longer need a work ethic.

A basic income scheme would be a tremendous transfer of decision-making power to individuals (from governments and from bankers who create money via the fractional reserve banking system) and we have to allow people to make their own decisions and to take or benefit from the consequences.  The agricultural surplus should give us all the right to decide what to do with our time.

An income scheme would be communist.

This blogger dislikes the isms because they tend to be mostly meaningless.  As I understand communism it involves treating people humanely and government control of the economy.  It seems to appeal to people who wants to tell others how to live their lives.    I believe we should try to treat people humanely and I do not want others telling me how to live my life. As decision making power goes with money an income scheme would be a transfer of power to individuals.  It is difficult to think many communists would want that.

A guaranteed basic income scheme would help with a lot of social and economic problems but such major changes would go against a lot of vested interests.  Even people who would benefit the most are likely to fear the unknown.  Therefore concerns need to be taken seriously.

This blogger has just published an eBook Funny Money: Adapting to a Down Economy which discusses a lot of these issues. The price is only 99 cents.  I encourage you to have a look at it. Until April 19, 2016 you can get a free copy from Smashwords.  Use the link and code at the top of this weblog.

%d bloggers like this: