DIVIDE AND CONQUER------Shhhhhhhh----IT'S A SECRET society!
Think that is what has our international labor union leaders having supported Clinton global Wall Street candidates at all levels since 1990 even as they were throwing US labor under the bus losing every labor gain through last century? YOU BETCHA!
We know now Bernie is on team global 1% and is that Jacobin pretending to be SOCIALIST while promoting the interests of global Wall Street. We will look this week at health care knowing national media is using his image to make a far-right, profit-driven, global health system look left social Democratic helping labor and justice-----EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL is the left social Democratic policy as a health savings plan covering everyone tied to PAYROLL TAX DEDUCTIONS equally ----becomes the right wing Republican health plan SINGLE-PAYER where the 99% pay even higher and higher and higher rates under so called MANDATED INSURANCE-----but the American health care standards fall to developing nation standards and WE THE PEOPLE see our life expectancy drop by 20-30 years very quickly from lack of access to ordinary health procedures and PHARMA.
'The 75-year-old senator suggested replacing the Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed in 2010, with a single-payer health insurance plan supervised by the government, similar to Medicare'.
Yes, left social Democrats DID oppose Affordable Care Act because we knew its goal of ending all public health structures including MEDICARE, MEDICAID, VETERAN'S HEALTH CARE, DISABILITY-----it was always a far-right wing health policy designed to do to public health what Clinton did to Wall Street banking. Republicans hated it because of the MANDATE---A REPUBLICAN THINK TANK POLICY and the fact it creates that minimum of care------single payer also a Republican think tank policy. The right wing did not want any public funding of health care.
Will Obamacare Be Replaced?
Many Bernie Sanders Supporters Opposed Affordable Care Act, Obama Says
By Mary Pascaline @PadawanRadjou On 01/07/17 AT 1:06 AM
President Barack Obama said Friday staunch opposition from Republicans, coupled with criticism from the Democratic Party’s left wing, made his signature healthcare bill, the Affordable Care Act, unpopular. The outgoing president has spent recent weeks urging lawmakers to oppose the GOP’s plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Speaking at a town hall event with Vox media, Obama added that liberals like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also opposed his healthcare reform while on the campaign trail during the 2016 election race. The 75-year-old senator suggested replacing the Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed in 2010, with a single-payer health insurance plan supervised by the government, similar to Medicare.
“In the ‘dissatisfied’ column are a whole bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters who wanted a single-payer plan,” Obama reportedly said. “The problem is not that they think Obamacare is a failure. The problem is that they don't think it went far enough and that it left too many people still uncovered.”
Spokesman for Sanders Michael Briggs said several Americans would prefer a government-run health insurance scheme taking on “the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies.”
“There are many millions of Americans, including many of Bernie's supporters, who don’t understand why we are the only major country on earth that does not provide healthcare as a right and they don’t understand why we pay more but get less for what we spend on healthcare,” Briggs said, according to Reuters.
The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as "Obamacare," outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Mississippi, Oct. 4, 2013. Photo: REUTERS/JONATHAN BACHMAN While Republicans are rallying together to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Democrats — including Sanders — are fighting to keep it. The Vermont senator warned the incoming Donald Trump administration against abandoning Obamacare. He even quoted the president-elect’s May 2015 tweet in which Trump said he was the “the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid.”
“This is what he asked millions of elderly people and working class people to vote for him on — these are the principles that Donald Trump ran and won the presidency on,” Sanders said Wednesday.
The 75-year-old former presidential candidate also urged his colleagues in Congress to join him, along with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, to take to the streets in January to protest any cuts to healthcare plans or subsidies that the GOP-dominated Congress could impose.
'“Beginning in January, it is likely that Republican leaders in Congress will follow through in their threats to ram through a budget bill that will severely undermine the health care needs of the American people,” the leaders wrote in a letter.
They wrote: “On Sunday, January 15th, ahead of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, there will be a day of action — ‘Our First Stand: Save Health Care.’ Rallies will be held around the country to vigorously oppose the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it and throw our health care system into chaos.”
Trump, who once called Obamacare a “disaster,” seemed to have softened his stance after his election victory saying he liked some of its provisions.
“Either Obamacare will be amended, or repealed and replaced,” the 70-year-old New Yorker told CBS’ “60 Minutes” in a post-election interview. “I told him [Obama] I will look at his suggestions and out of respect, I will do that."
Both Bernie Sanders and Global Green Corporation Party used the term EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL as a single-payer for a year or two before the election. Hillary from Clinton era was in charge of HEALTH CARE REFORM and was back then trying to end public health and Medicare and Medicaid replacing it with the same structure as Bill's Wall Street banking reform------same thing ROMNEYCARE AND OBAMACARE does. Hillary was NEVER supporting EXPANDED AND IMPROVED MEDICARE FOR ALL.
'The health insurance lobby and other opponents of single-payer care make it sound scary. It’s not. In fact, a large-scale single-payer system already exists in the United States. It’s called Medicare'.
DURING THE CAMPAIGN
BOTH JILL STEIN AND GREEN PARTY AND BERNIE SANDERS START SAYING-----'LIKE MEDICARE'. I had a Green Party candidate tell me MEDICARE IS DEAD.
'The 75-year-old senator suggested replacing the Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed in 2010, with a single-payer health insurance plan supervised by the government, similar to Medicare'.
The difference between a ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE United Nations single payer preventative care and our US MEDICARE benefits ARE MASSIVE. We have pre-paid through payroll taxes for all the health care we need----they are bringing the American people down to a developing nation level of access for over 90% of people----soon to be only that global 1% and their 2%. Bernie knew what he was doing when he became wishy washy over those terms-----he pretended to support left health care reform while always intending to promote the global Wall Street private health systems.
A single-payer system makes economic sense
By: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Wednesday, September 11, 2013Americans spend about twice as much per capita on healthcare as almost any other developed nation, but our outcomes are not as good as others that spend much less. We can do better. We must do better.
Today, some 50 million Americans lack health insurance. Many others delay going to the doctor because of high deductibles and unaffordable copayments. While the number of uninsured Americans will go down with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, widely known as ObamaCare, tens of millions of Americans will remain uninsured.
The goal of an effective healthcare system is to do everything possible to enable people to live long and healthy lives. Sadly, the American system fails to do that and falls behind many other countries. While we devote 18 percent of our gross domestic product to healthcare, we rank 33rd in life expectancy and 34th in infant mortality, and trail in many other health outcomes. A Harvard University study indicated that, incredibly, some 45,000 Americans die needlessly each year because they do not get to a doctor in time.
I start my approach to healthcare from a very basic premise: healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Unfortunately, uniquely among major nations, that statement is not true for the United States, where access to healthcare depends on how much money you have and what your employer is willing to provide.
It is simply unconscionable that the most advanced nation in the world has so many people who lack health insurance. It makes no sense that millions more are one diagnosis or car accident away from financial disaster. And, despite the trillions of dollars we spend on healthcare, the disparity in the quality of care between the rich and everyone else grows wider.
Our system doesn’t make economic sense, and it certainly doesn’t make moral sense. In a civilized, democratic society, every man, woman and child must be able to get the medical care they need regardless of income.
It is incomprehensible that drug companies still get away with charging Americans twice as much — or more — than citizens of Canada or Europe for the exact same drugs manufactured by the exact same companies. It is an outrage that insurers still want to hike premiums by as much as 60 percent a year on individual policyholders.
It boggles the mind that approximately 30 percent of every healthcare dollar spent in the United States goes to administrative costs rather than to delivering care. Taiwan, for example, spends only a little over 6 percent of its GDP on healthcare, while achieving better health outcomes on some key indicators than we do. The reason, of course, is that they spend a fraction of what we do on administrative costs.
If our goal is to provide high-quality healthcare in a cost-effective way, what should we be doing?
Clearly, we must move toward a single-payer system.
The health insurance lobby and other opponents of single-payer care make it sound scary. It’s not. In fact, a large-scale single-payer system already exists in the United States. It’s called Medicare. People enrolled in the system give it high marks. More importantly, it has succeeded in providing near-universal coverage to Americans over the age of 65.
Establishing a single-payer system will mean peace of mind for all Americans. When health insurance is no longer tied to employment, people will not fear losing both their job and their family’s access to healthcare. Millions of Americans won’t have to stay in jobs they don’t like because their family needs healthcare. Entrepreneurs and small businesses will be free to develop their business plans without worrying about the cost and complexity of providing healthcare for themselves and their employees.
For these reasons and more, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and I have introduced the American Health Security Act, which would guarantee healthcare as a human right and provide every U.S. citizen and permanent resident with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program.
I am very proud that my home state of Vermont is now taking big steps to lead the nation in healthcare by moving forward on a plan to establish a single-payer healthcare system that puts the interests of patients over corporate profits. The American Health Security Act would make sure every state does the same.
The goal of real healthcare reform must be high-quality, universal coverage in a cost-effective way. We must ensure, to as great a degree as possible, that the money we put into health coverage goes to the delivery of healthcare, not to paper-pushing, astronomical profits and lining CEOs’ pockets.
To understand the goals of the global 1% for whom all global Wall Street players work----Bernie, Hillary, Jill Stein-------just go to the WORLD BANK/WORLD HEALTH and see their plan for single-payer universal care for all FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES GLOBALLY----ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE ONE HEALTH CARE STANDARD.
This is why the 99% never has any leaders----the global 1% always has that 2% and they have their 5% working hard to keep the 99% of people down. No matter what that posing CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN that is really a global Wall Street Bush neo-conservative says----no matter what that posing left social Democrat that is really a global Wall Street Clinton/Obama neo-liberal says------THIS IS FOR WHAT THE PLAYERS ARE WORKING TOWARD.
WHO/World Bank convene ministerial meeting to discuss best practices for moving forward on universal health coverage
Joint WHO / World Bank statement
19 February 2013
Geneva - Top officials from health and finance ministries from 27 countries joined other high-level health and development stakeholders at a two-day meeting this week in Geneva to discuss ways that countries are progressing towards universal health coverage. The meeting was convened jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank and took place just weeks after the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting universal health coverage.
Delegates at the Geneva meeting expressed strong support for the ideas underlying universal health coverage: that everyone, irrespective of their ability to pay, should have access to the health services they need, without putting their families at financial risk.
Many speakers stressed the importance of getting political commitment to universal health coverage at the highest level. Some countries described how they are focusing their limited resources initially on providing coverage to the poor and vulnerable, while others have taken a more universal approach from the start. The use of general revenues to provide such coverage was a recurrent theme; but there was also some discussion about using earmarked revenues such as "sin taxes."
Participants agreed that human resource shortages posed a challenge, but also pointed to the need for more focus on the distribution of health workers —between rural and urban areas, and between poor and more affluent areas. Some speakers indicated that more could be achieved using existing resources. The meeting also discussed strategies to ensure an adequate supply of good quality and affordable essential medicines and technologies, noting the value of using financial incentives to promote efficiency and quality of health services.
The participants agreed on the importance of improving information systems and holding governments and health care providers more accountable for delivering results. Several speakers raised the challenge many faced of how to balance ensuring people receive the care they need at a cost the government can afford.
The importance of monitoring progress towards universal health coverage was also a recurrent theme, as was the important role played by of researchers, civil society, and international agencies. Several delegates expressed the hope that universal health coverage would feature in the post-2015 development goals.
WHO and the World Bank are working together at global, regional and country levels, and stand by ready to help countries confront the numerous challenges that the meeting highlighted in accelerating progress toward universal health coverage.
In response to country demand, WHO and the World Bank are already developing a monitoring framework that will help countries track their countries’ progress toward universal health coverage in a way that explicitly captures the potential importance of universal health coverage in achieving better health and higher living standards for everyone. The framework will be available for consultation with countries and other partners later this year.
The UN General Assembly resolution urges Member States to develop health systems that avoid significant direct payments at the point of care. It further encourages them to establish mechanisms for pooling risks to avoid catastrophic health expenditures that drive households into poverty.
If we remember these several years of OBAMA and Clinton neo-liberals in Congress regarding health care reforms installed into an Affordable Care Act----you will see all the elements below-----and none of it has anything to do with citizens accessing the ordinary hospital care-----accessing the new developments in disease vector management---it talks about MATERNITY AND BIRTH RATE-----MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT-----COMMUNICABLE DISEASES----TRAFFIC DEATHS----VACCINES---WHILE PROMOTING THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
Every one of these elements was pushed by Obama and funded by Congress---down to the TRAFFIC SAFETY. Meanwhile all of what was a global PUBLIC HEALTH STRUCTURE has been dismantled-----all of what was open access to hospitals for those injured or sick was dismantled-----with a growing tiering of health access----
The World Health dictates of protecting INTELLECTUAL PATENTS----always comes with the promotion that these intellectual patents are PUBLIC HEALTH----when ever more they are designer and directed at a global 1% and their 2%-----having nothing to do with 99% of global population public health.
PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH DIDN'T NEED PATENTS AND THIS IS WHY ALL CITIZENS WERE ABLE TO ACCESS ALL NEW RESEARCH-----
No matter how much Congressional Republicans and Democrats PRETEND to be working for their voters=====these are the policies they will install-----Bernie, Hillary, or Trump as well.
Sustainable Development Goal 3: Health
SDG 3 “Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages”
The goals within a goal: Health targets for SDG 3
3.1 By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100 000 live births.
3.2 By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1000 live births.
3.3 By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.
3.4 By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
3.5 Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol.
3.6 By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents.
3.7 By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.
3.8 Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.
3.9 By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
3.a Strengthen the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate.
3.b Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all.
3.c Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States.
3.d Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks
Here is SDG -------in COTE D'IVOIRE------let's say this------if we think all these world citizens in Foreign Economic Zones around the globe---including US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones will have the level of access to clean air and workplace-----good food-----well-being for families and children FORGET ABOUT IT! The global 1% and their 2% just dismantled the most successful public health structures in world history with CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and these same global Wall Street players are not going to turn around and rebuild that same structure.
Below we look further into WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH to see the progressive posing issues global Wall Street pols promote as good for WE THE PEOPLE. All these policies will be found on the Global Green Corporation Party platform----we hear it from CLINTON/OBAMA global Wall Street neo-liberals and it is brought to us from the same global 1% and their 2% giving us these several decades of Foreign Economic Zone, global human capital distribution, devastating environmental and natural resource degradation, wide-spread public health crises from toxic exposures, extreme wealth inequity and impoverishment, AND CONTINUOUS FOOD DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH MONOPOLY.
Goal 1: No Poverty
Goal 2: Zero Hunger
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Goal 4: Quality education
Goal 5: Gender equality
Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Goal 13: Climate Action
Goal 14: Life Below Water
Goal 15: Life on Land
Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
As these global 1% expand the Foreign Economic Zone model inside existing Asian and Latin American nations---they are expanding those models into Africa, Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US with no intention of changing that Foreign Economic Zone model from these several decades---
THEY THINK THIS IS THE BEST ECONOMIC MODEL SINCE ICE CREAM AND SODA.
These public relations media are filling African nations because they are next in filling with Foreign Economic Zones which do the opposite from what these WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH bulletins say-----MOVING FORWARD AS WELL TO US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES......
AGRISMART INC----would be that GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION that is not green ------it is not public interest----and it is not left public health----it is global corporate sustainability in growing profits.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
Written by agriadmin
Published: 20 Jun 2016
AgriSmart is promoting good health and well-being in Côte d'Ivoire with:
- plans in development to provide free medical care, including essential medicines and vaccines, for 500,000+ Ivorians and Côte d'Ivoire residents, once fully operational, with the use of medical vans
- together with free training in good health, communicable disease prevention, sexual and reproductive, plus personal hygiene and safe sanitary habits provided by physicians completing their medical internship
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Data provided by Health - United Nations Sustainable Development (more)
Ensuring healthy lives and promoting the well-being for all at all ages is essential to sustainable development. Significant strides have been made in increasing life expectancy and reducing some of the common killers associated with child and maternal mortality. Major progress has been made on increasing access to clean water and sanitation, reducing malaria, tuberculosis, polio and the spread of HIV/AIDS. However, many more efforts are needed to fully eradicate a wide range of diseases and address many different persistent and emerging health issues. Facts and Figures: Child health
- 17,000 fewer children die each day than in 1990, but more than six million children still die before their fifth birthday each year
- Since 2000, measles vaccines have averted nearly 15.6 million deaths
- Despite determined global progress, an increasing proportion of child deaths are in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. Four out of every five deaths of children under age five occur in these regions.
- Children born into poverty are almost twice as likely to die before the age of five as those from wealthier families.
- Children of educated mothers—even mothers with only primary schooling—are more likely to survive than children of mothers with no education.
- Maternal mortality has fallen by almost 50 per cent since 1990
- In Eastern Asia, Northern Africa and Southern Asia, maternal mortality has declined by around two-thirds
- But maternal mortality ratio – the proportion of mothers that do not survive childbirth compared to those who do – in developing regions is still 14 times higher than in the developed regions
- More women are receiving antenatal care. In developing regions, antenatal care increased from 65 per cent in 1990 to 83 per cent in 2012
- Only half of women in developing regions receive the recommended amount of health care they need
- Fewer teens are having children in most developing regions, but progress has slowed. The large increase in contraceptive use in the 1990s was not matched in the 2000s
- The need for family planning is slowly being met for more women, but demand is increasing at a rapid pace
- At the end of 2014, there were 13.6 million people accessing antiretroviral therapy
- New HIV infections in 2013 were estimated at 2.1 million, which was 38 per cent lower than in 2001
- At the end of 2013, there were an estimated 35 million people living with HIV
- At the end of 2013, 240 000 children were newly infected with HIV
- New HIV infections among children have declined by 58 per cent since 2001
- Globally, adolescent girls and young women face gender-based inequalities, exclusion, discrimination and violence, which put them at increased risk of acquiring HIV
- HIV is the leading cause of death for women of reproductive age worldwide
- TB-related deaths in people living with HIV have fallen by 36% since 2004
- There were 250 000 new HIV infections among adolescents in 2013, two thirds of which were among adolescent girls
- AIDS is now the leading cause of death among adolescents (aged 10–19) in Africa and the second most common cause of death among adolescents globally
- In many settings, adolescent girls’ right to privacy and bodily autonomy is not respected, as many report that their first sexual experience was forced
- As of 2013, 2.1 million adolescents were living with HIV
- Over 6.2 million malaria deaths have been averted between 2000 and 2015, primarily of children under five years of age in sub-Saharan Africa. The global malaria incidence rate has fallen by an estimated 37 per cent and the morality rates by 58 per cent
- Between 2000 and 2013, tuberculosis prevention, diagnosis and treatment interventions saved an estimated 37 million lives. The tuberculosis mortality rate fell by 45 per cent and the prevalence rate by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2013
- By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
- By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births
- By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases
- By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being
- Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol
- By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
- By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
- Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
- By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination
- Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate
- Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and noncommunicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all
- Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States
- Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks
World Health Organization (more) UN Children’s Fund (more) UN Development Programme (more) UNAIDS (more) Roll Back Malaria (more) UN Population Fund (more) UN Women (more)UN Water (more) End Open Defecation (more) Stop Tuberculosis Partnership (more) UNFPA HIV & AIDS (more) UNFPA Sexual & reproductive health (more) UNFPA Obstetric fistula (more) UNFPA Midwifery (more)
SDGs .:. 17 Goals to Transform Our WorldGoal 1: No Poverty
End poverty in all its forms everywhere
+ Read how AgriSmart is helping end poverty in Côte d'Ivoire ➜ SDG 1
Goal 2: Zero Hunger
End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
+ Read how AgriSmart is helping end hunger in Côte d'Ivoire ➜ SDG 2
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
+ Read how AgriSmart is promoting health and well-being in Côte d'Ivoire ➜ SDG 3
Goal 4: Quality education
Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning
+ Read how AgriSmart is partnering to make education available to all in Côte d'Ivoire ➜ SDG 4
Goal 5: Gender equality
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
+ Read how AgriSmart is contributing to equal employment opportunities and pay for women and girls in Côte d'Ivoire ➜ SDG 5
Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation
Ensure access to water and sanitation for all
+ Read how AgriSmart is developing in-home clean water access in employee housing micro-grids ➜ SDG 6
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
+ Read how AgriSmart is developing free smart utilities in Côte d'Ivoire employee housing micro-grids ➜ SDG 7
Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment and decent work for all
+ Read how AgriSmart is elevating the quality of life in Côte d'Ivoire by paying higher than average wages, and helping raise the national economy through export of surplus food generated to neighbor African countries ➜ SDG 8
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
+ Read how AgriSmart is building resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation in Côte d'Ivoire through the use of modern farm technology in intensive farming, and with sustainable investments into business to raise productive capacity ➜ SDG 9
Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities
Reduce inequality within and among countries
+ Read how AgriSmart is helping reduce inequality in Côte d'Ivoire by providing free employee housing with smart, eco-friendly utilities, clean water, and climate control, plus closing the gap by paying higher than average wages ➜ SDG 10
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
+ Read how AgriSmart is creating community by building Côte d'Ivoire employee housing micro-grids ➜ SDG 11
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
+ Read how AgriSmart is sustainably using agriculture waste in the production of other products, also further boosting the Côte d'Ivoire economy ➜ SDG 12
Goal 13: Climate Action
Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
+ Read how AgriSmart is utilizing smart, renewable energy sources, such as solar powered electricity, and ozone friendly refrigerant free cooling systems in Côte d'Ivoire employee housing ➜ SDG 13
Goal 14: Life Below Water
Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources
+ Read how AgriSmart is contributing to the protection of oceans through responsible utilization of organic pesticides ➜ SDG 14
Goal 15: Life on Land
Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss
+ Read how AgriSmart is nurturing life on land through reforestation using a system, called taungya, in intercropping between trees for optimized yields ➜ SDG 15
Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies
+ Read how AgriSmart is helping further the Côte d’Ivoire democratically elected president’s campaign for tribe and religion inclusivity, together with providing employment opportunites specifically for veterans of war through partnerships with organizations such as the Agency for Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration ➜ SDG 16
Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals
Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development
We already know the WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH will not deliver on all these goals it pretends to support. Any version of Trans Pacific Trade Pact TPP comes with this basic agreement----TPP will allow global corporations to ignore any sovereign laws that impede its profit-making and that always includes LABOR AND JUSTICE---ESPECIALLY ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH----while Asian Foreign Economic Zones have already experienced this and it is now growing across China----the new zones coming to AFrica have citizens being sold ALL IS OK----just as Asian citizens were several decades ago.
What the WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH have as a goal of listing objectives we all know won't be met is this-----is drives the Federal funding towards these objectives that then simply is misappropriated and used any way global Wall Street and global corporations want to expand their profits and power.
WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW GLOBAL WALL STREET IS GOING TO LITERALLY STRIP OUR NATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANY WAY IT CAN----AS WITH ANY THIRD WORLD COLONIAL ENTITY
The SDG says protect public health with good food, quality of life, environmental protections------Trans Pacific Trade Pact written by the same WORLD BANK/IMF-----SAYS---FORGET ABOUT ALL THIS.
Critics say leaked draft of the free trade agreement falls short in protections.
By Brian Clark Howard, National Geographic
PUBLISHED January 18, 2014
Men work at a plywood mill in Borneo, Malaysia; many endangered trees are cut down around the world.
Photograph by Mattias Klum, National Geographic
A leaked draft of a major free trade agreement among the United States, Canada, Mexico, and nations on the Pacific Rim raises alarming questions about environmental protections, several leading green groups say.
"If the environment chapter is finalized as written in this leaked document, President Obama's environmental trade record would be worse than George W. Bush's," Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement after a draft of the agreement was published Wednesday on WikiLeaks.
"This draft chapter falls flat on every single one of our issues—oceans, fish, wildlife, and forest protections—and in fact, rolls back on the progress made in past free trade pacts," he said.
The proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is a huge pact that would govern about 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product and one-third of world trade, said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The agreement involves a sprawling cast of countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.
The NRDC joined with the Sierra Club and WWF in criticizing the leaked draft of the environment chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange said proved the chapter was "a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."
The White House has pushed back against such criticisms. In a blog post responding to the leak this week, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) wrote that "stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) or we will not come to agreement."
Here are four grievances voiced by environmental groups over the leaked chapter:
1. They say the pact lacks basic environmental provisions.
This is all about what's not in the proposed pact.
The NRDC's Schmidt says that environmental groups are asking for "some pretty basic environmental provisions.
"We're saying don't subsidize unsustainable fisheries and don't do illegal things," he said.
Environmentalists say that the Obama White House has hinted that it will not support an agreement without enforceable environmental provisions, in recent remarks by some of the administration's key environmental players.
But the "overarching" problem with the leaked draft, Schmidt says, is that "there's no enforcement."
The leaked document mentions that trade partners should take steps to protect the environment, but Schmidt says that "there are many caveats that effectively allow countries to not make these enforceable.
"References to the word 'shall' are very rarely used," he says, "and are often paired with 'seek to' or 'attempt,' which are not legally enforceable."
2. Green groups say the draft agreement does not discourage overfishing.
The nations considering the Trans-Pacific Partnership have a "responsibility" to provide adequate protection against overfishing, but the draft agreement fails to provide that, said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of WWF.
The countries negotiating the agreement account for about a third of global fisheries production, Roberts notes, so the stakes are high.
Those countries have a range of direct and indirect subsidies for their fishing fleets, including payments, discounted loans, reduced prices on fuel, and so on.
Shark fins, which are overharvested for soup, dry on the roof of a factory in Hong Kong.
PHOTOGRAPH BY ANTONY DICKSON, AFP/GETTY
"What we have been pushing for is for countries to phase out harmful subsidies ... that lead to greater harvest of fishing stocks than can be sustained," said Schmidt. "We're not saying end all fishing programs and support, but you need to make sure that any support is targeted at programs that don't lead to overconsumption of fish stocks."
For its part, the U.S. Trade Representative's office responded that the U.S. is "proposing that the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] include, for the first time in any trade or environment agreement, groundbreaking prohibitions on fish subsidies that set a new and higher baseline for fisheries protections."
3. The pact does not take a strong enough stance against illegal wildlife products, activists say.
Green groups would like to see stronger enforcement of international laws on products made from endangered species, such as elephant ivory or tiger pelts, as part of a new trade agreement.
"The lack of fully-enforceable environmental safeguards means negotiators are allowing a unique opportunity to protect wildlife and support legal sustainable trade of renewable resources to slip through their fingers," WWF's Roberts said in a statement.
The negotiating countries are already party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which prohibits overseas trade of endangered species, "but we know that enforcement is not 100 percent," Schmidt said.
4. Green groups say the agreement doesn't go far enough in preventing illegal logging.
Many endangered trees are cut down around the world, often through logging in restricted areas such as parks, sometimes under the cover of darkness. The U.S. has a law, known as the amended Lacey Act, that prohibits import of illegally logged timber products. Australia has a similar law, and Japan is considering one.
The NRDC and allied groups want each country that signs onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership to enact an equivalent law.
We will spend this week discussing health public policy relating to these goals below-----discussing the REAL situation in our US cities and communities deemed Foreign Economic Zones. Remember, developed nations like Europe, US are being fleeced and brought down to third world level----there is no expectation of lifting these developing nations to what was a US quality of life. WE THE PEOPLE are fighting to return to first world quality of life -----global Wall Street pols are pretending to fight for the same while MOVING FORWARD to bringing the US down to overseas Foreign Economic Zone level.
This is why we hear global Wall Street pols pretending they are even thinking about $15 an hour----any minimum wage as Foreign Economic Zones under Trans Pacific Trade Pact will HAVE NO WAGE LAWS ---EVEN MINIMUM WAGE. They are indeed heading for the $3-6 a day global factory workers----$20-30 a day for white collar sweat shop workers. Now, they will call this WEALTH EQUITY FOR THE GLOBAL 99%-----as with China they will say that $3 a day is better than being unemployed. Working 15-18 hours for $3-6 with 3 meals a day and a bed will be called lifting people out of poverty. It will be called ZERO HUNGER.
We know this because that is what global NGO organizations have been saying these several decades of Foreign Econonomic Zones overseas-----
Goal 1: No Poverty
Goal 2: Zero Hunger
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Goal 4: Quality education
Goal 5: Gender equality
Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation
Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities
Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
Goal 13: Climate Action
Goal 14: Life Below Water
Goal 15: Life on Land
Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
The same global 1% and their 2% writing the sustainable health policies above are creating these stats below. In Baltimore while waiting for a bus an 80 year homeless lady complete with shelter bag was begging on the street. We are now seeing these in growing numbers and homeless senior women come in black, brown, and white citizens. What does the WORLD BANK plan to do about this? First it will be very rare that a 99% of citizens will reach an age of infirmity. The idea is to die as one becomes unable to work. In global corporate campus SOCIALISM-----those workers dormatories come with aging citizens as child care workers----as health care caretakers-----know what? It is a good thing to have our seniors integrated into a societal structure of care-taking------the problem is this------it eliminates all societal structures of retiring and pursuing personal interests-------of retiring and traveling---of retiring and spending time with family because this communal worker's dormatory care-taking is of ALL PEOPLE'S CHILDREN. This of course eliminates the developed societal structure of free will, choice, independent decisions.
This coming economic crash will see hunger, homelessness soar as Trump was staged to end Food Stamps---to end Federal social services-----to end public housing----BECAUSE OF OBAMA'S $20 TRILLION IN US TREASURY AND STATE MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT----not because Trump is worse than Obama----neither care how many people die or suffer.
THEY ARE THE SAME TAG TEAM ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US CITIES AS FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Hunger, homelessness on the rise in major US cities, study findsOfficials in surveyed cities attribute rising number living on street to low wages and lack of affordable housingDecember 22, 2015 12:00PM ET
by Ned Resnikoff @resnikoff Many of America’s largest cities continue to grapple with rising food insecurity and homelessness, according to a report released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors on Tuesday. The latest iteration of the non-partisan group’s annual Hunger and Homelessness Survey found that homeless shelters and food pantries across 22 U.S. cities are struggling to keep up with rising demand for their services.
It is in Washington, D.C., Seattle, and Los Angeles where homelessness was found to have increased the most sharply over the past year. The largest increase came in Washington, D.C., where the number of people experiencing homelessness rose by 28 percent and the number of homeless families went up by 60 percent. Meanwhile, requests for emergency food assistance in the city rose by 27 percent during the same period.
Overall, across the 22 cities included in the survey, homelessness increased by 1.6 percent over the past year, the survey found. The amount of emergency food assistance distributed by those cities increased by three percent. The cities surveyed included Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
As in prior years, officials from those cities identified low wages and a shortage of affordable housing as major factors contributing to hunger and homelessness. A growing number of cities over the past three years have sought to address poverty by raising wages, spurred in part by a series of nationwide strikes and protests from fast-food employees and other low-wage workers. Over the course of 2015, 14 U.S. cities and states — including Los Angeles, the state of New York, and Massachusetts — have approved $15 minimum wage rules for some or all workers, according to a Monday press release from the National Employment Law Project.
The estimated number of homeless people nationwide has declined steadily since 2007, according to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, the number of people in shelters has remained roughly consistent, and many urban areas have seen homelessness rise.
Hunger, meanwhile, has remained consistently elevated nationwide since the Great Recession. The budget for food stamps has nonetheless been significantly tapered over the last few years, including by a $5 billion across-the-board benefits cut that took place in November 2013.
Some cities did see a marked decrease in homelessness, including San Francisco, which saw a 15 percent drop in the number of homeless people within city limits. The Conference of Mayors did not elaborate on the reasons for the decline, but applauded an “exemplary” city initiative called the Navigation Center, which offers temporary housing to homeless individuals and has them work with case managers to find a more permanent solution.
I mentioned earlier that Baltimore had moved as many as 1,800 homeless off the downtown streets these few years---calling this ENDING HOMELESSNESS. What Foreign Economic Zones like San Francisco and Baltimore are doing is simply moving people out of city limits and calling it a decline in homelessness. Often these folks have housing vouchers that place them out in rural areas where they are still jobless moving around in different social services, often in areas more hostile to displaced people than in our US cities. Obviously this is not a developed nation solution to homelessness, poverty, or hunger. What WE THE PEOPLE should care about because it will come to ALL ----we are heading into what will be pushing US citizens into the global slave labor market and these are the earliest citizens to very likely end being sent to overseas Foreign Economic Zones as in China, Bahrain, Malaysia, Panama. All this will be called GOOD AND SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC HEALTH---because that homeless in San Fran or Baltimore is now working in a global sweat shop factory in Malayia given 3 meals and a bed with plenty of work.
I have no doubt there are race and class citizens especially on the right who are feeling this is great---get rid of them. Thinking it's one race or the other race---what it will be is that same culling of citizens from back in old world VENETIAN EMPIRE days where citizens living in trade cities were pushed into slave trade systems to other zones while slaves from other zones came to Venice. Who will fall into poverty with this coming economic crash and GREAT DEPRESSION--collapsing bond market, stock market, collapsing US DOLLAR? Just about everyone.
'The Conference of Mayors did not elaborate on the reasons for the decline, but applauded an “exemplary” city initiative called the Navigation Center, which offers temporary housing to homeless individuals and has them work with case managers to find a more permanent solution'.
Here we see the same thing happening in developed nation Canada-----the goal is the same---bring developed nation citizens----99% of them to third world poverty and force them into global labor pool structures -----calling this ADDRESSING HOUSING, HUNGER, AND POVERTY.
Food bank use on the rise in Canada, with 'drastic' surges in Nova Scotia, territoriesFood Banks Canada calls for national basic income to combat growing hunger problemCBC News Posted: Nov 15, 2016 12:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 15, 2016 6:05 PM ET
Except in Ontario and Manitoba, food bank use has increased across the country. (Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty)
Food bank use in Canada is on the rise, and some provinces and territories have seen "drastic" surges in use since last year, a new report says.
In March 2016, 863,492 people received food from a food bank in Canada, up 1.3 per cent from the same time last year, and 28 per cent from March 2008, according to the Hunger Count 2016 report from Food Banks Canada.
Every province had an increase except Ontario and Manitoba, and some saw double-digit spikes.
A forklift backs up with crates of food for Feed Nova Scotia, the organization that distributes to 147 food banks across the province. (CBC)
The territories had the biggest spike, with a 24.9 per cent rise in food bank use. The increases for the provinces were as follows:
- Nova Scotia, 20.9 per cent.
- Alberta, 17.6 per cent.
- Saskatchewan, 17.5 per cent.
- P.E.I., 6.9 per cent.
- Quebec, 5.3 per cent.
- Newfoundland and Labrador, 5.3 per cent
- New Brunswick, 4.1 per cent.
As the number of hungry Canadians rises, refugees are adding to the count, Jennery said.
"They are a big challenge for at least three food banks that we support," he said. "Those food banks have seen almost double the number of clients."
Spike in rural useStill, he cautions that's just one small piece of the puzzle regarding hunger across the country.
Rural areas, where there are far fewer refugees, have seen a 2.3 per cent increase in food bank use from last year — much of it from Indigenous and elderly people.
Canadians living on pensions accounted for eight per cent of food bank use nationally, but that number rises to 10 per cent in rural areas.
First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people accounted for 14 per cent of people receiving food nationally in March 2016, but made up 29 per cent in rural areas and more than 70 per cent in Northern Canada.
Food prices are a major factor in the North. In Nunavut, food costs are up to three times the national average.
- Counterclockwise from top left, the price of a two-litre carton of milk in Cambridge Bay and Pond Inlet compared to a downtown Toronto supermarket. Food prices in Nunavut are among the highest in Canada, a part of life largely attributed to the cost of transportation to High North communities. (Evan Mitsui/CBC)
1 of 10Hungry childrenChildren account for 35 per cent of users across the country.
Single people make up half the food bank use, and lone-parent households account for 22 per cent, even though they only make up 10 per cent of Canadian households.
"It is well-documented that people prefer not to access food banks — they exhaust other avenues of support before taking that step," the report reads, noting that people often go into debt, sell their belongings, skip their bills or even go hungry rather than ask for help.
'How did you get to this point?'Many food bank clients feel stigma about accepting the help — so much so that a man who volunteers at Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre in Toronto but also uses the food bank there asked CBC News not to use his name. He fears being identified could jeopardize his hopes of returning to work in the non-profit sector.
The pantry for the food bank at Toronto's Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre serves about 200 people a week, staff estimate. One of the volunteers at the centre, who also uses the food bank, says many clients feel stigma about using the service. (Nicole Ireland/CBC)
The man, who worked in community development and social justice before becoming ill more than 10 years ago, is currently on Ontario disability support and remembers the first time he went to a food bank.
"It was very, very emotional," he told CBC News. "It was very humiliating, in many ways for my sense of who I was."
"You sort of question who you are, how did you get to this point?"
Calls for basic incomeFood Bank Canada recommends creating a national basic income to curb the "unacceptably high" reliance on food banks.
Also known as a guaranteed minimum income, basic income is a social policy that would supplant various welfare programs by providing a baseline amount of money to all citizens, regardless of whether they work or meet a means test.
The report calls it "an alternative to Canada's existing last-resort income system (variously known as welfare, social assistance, income assistance, etc.), in which people facing hard times are forced to open every corner of their lives to an invasive government bureaucracy just to access a grossly inadequate monthly income."
- Basic income: New life for an old idea
- 'Free money for everyone' could be just what the economy needs
- Is basic income a better way to deal with poverty?
Jennery wants governments, non-governmental organizations and businesses to have an engaged conversation about economic issues and the price of food.
"It means looking at those numbers, frankly, with expertise that we don't have and understanding how we get people to a better place," he said.
It's important for people to realize that being forced to turn to food banks for help can happen to anyone, said the volunteer and client at the community centre in Toronto.
"It's not exclusive to someone in a particular situation, or someone that lives in a particular postal code, or someone who has a particular level of education," he said. "This is impacting many, many people across the spectrum."
We have talked BASIC INCOME before----it is the far-right wing LIBERTARIAN wage policy that pretends to be left social benefit. It is exactly that JACOBIN MEETS FREEMASON concept of taking workers to the lowest point and calling it social equity. As if those workers in China will feel better if all workers in US, Canada, and Europe were enslaved to the same wage scale as they.
This is with what WORLD BANK ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNNANCE wants to replace a US SOCIAL SECURITY, SOCIAL SERVICES, AND UNEMPLOYMENT. Supposedly all citizens are going to be paid this whether they are working or not. Now if you believe they are going to allow any human capital to remain inactive and receive money -----we need to WAKE UP ----to what happens when human capital can no longer work.
So, indeed this concept of taking a DEVELOPED NATION TIED TO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICAN RIGHTS AS CITIZENS----to what will be a global corporate socialism as seen in CHINA-----was a concept developed by those pesky HUMANIST MERCHANTS OF VENICE-----
This policy has already been MOVED FORWARD in overseas FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Asia and today global Wall Street pols are pushing it in US, Europe, Canada, Australia----so the global 99% can all earn $3-6 a day and $20-30 a day---especially all those FAMILY OF FORMER 5% TO THE 1% THROWN UNDER THE BUS.
We aren't going into detail again about what BASIC INCOME PUBLIC POLICY IS----what we want to understand this week as we look at WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH ONE WORLD health policy that our US global Wall Street pols are installing right now in Congress, our statehouses, and especially US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones----is what WORLD HEALTH calls ending hunger, ending poverty, ending homelessness.
'Grassroots activism for Basic Income has increased greatly since 2010'.
Indeed---all those global Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations are out there selling to low-income THIS IS GREAT!
About basic incomeA basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.That is, a basic income has the five following characteristics:
- Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant.
- Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use.
- Individual: it is paid on an individual basis—and not, for instance, to households.
- Universal: it is paid to all, without means test.
- Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work.
Although BIEN has not endorsed any particular proposal, and it is open to people who favor very different proposals, BIEN’s 2016 General Assembly endorsed a very broad description of a proposal in the following resolution:
A majority of members attending BIEN’s General Assembly meeting in Seoul on July 9, 2016, agreed to support Basic Income that is stable in size and frequency and high enough to be, in combination with other social services, part of a policy strategy to eliminate material poverty and enable the social and cultural participation of every individual. We oppose the replacement of social services or entitlements, if that replacement worsens the situation of relatively disadvantaged, vulnerable, or lower-income people
In keeping with BIEN’s charter (as an organization to “serve as a link between individuals and groups committed to, or interested in, basic income”), this motion is not binding on BIEN’s members or affiliates. But it does reflect a widely-shared aspiration among BIEN members, affiliates and supporters.
A Basic Income at this level is often called a “full Basic Income,” and a lower one is often called a “partial Basic Income.” However, the definitions of “full” and “partial” are highly controversial, and BIEN has not attempted to define them officially.
Some short-term proposals currently focus on the so-called “partial Basic Income.” Such a scheme would not be full substitute for other redistributive measures, but would provide a low – and slowly increasing – basis to which other incomes, including the remaining social security benefits and means-tested guaranteed income supplements, could be added. Some members see this as a path toward a full Basic Income; others prefer the strategy of pushing for a full Basic Income from the start; and perhaps some favor only a partial Basic Income.
A full Basic Income could replace at least some existing social policies, but there is controversy among Basic Income supporters about how many and which programs it could replace. The issue of how high is high enough to eliminate material poverty is also controversial among Basic Income supporters.
Many reasons have all been invoked in Basic Income’s favour, including liberty and equality, efficiency and community, common ownership of the Earth and equal sharing in the benefits of technical progress, the flexibility of the labour market and the dignity of the poor, the fight against inhumane working conditions, against the desertification of the countryside and against interregional inequalities, the viability of cooperatives and the promotion of adult education, autonomy from bosses, husbands and bureaucrats.
The inability to tackle unemployment with conventional means has, in the last decade or so, become a major reason for the idea being taken seriously throughout Europe by a growing number of scholars and organizations. Social policy and economic policy can no longer be conceived separately, and Basic Income is increasingly viewed as the only viable way of reconciling two of their respective central objectives: poverty relief and full employment.
Grassroots activism for Basic Income has increased greatly since 2010. In addition, many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favour of it – among them several Nobel laureates in economics. In a few countries some major politicians, including from parties in government, are also beginning to stick their necks out in support of it. At the same time, the relevant literature – on the economic, ethical, political and legal aspects – is gradually expanding and those promoting the idea, or just interested in it, in various European countries and across the world have started organizing into an active network.
Here is the cast of characters from last week's discussion on those pesky declining MERCHANTS OF VENICE----those pesky KINGS AND QUEENS and their humanists being very FAR-RIGHT, AUTHORITARIAN, EXTREME WEALTH EXTREME POVERTY PRAGMATIC NILISTS------in those 1500-1700s................
It was sold then as a SOCIAL BENEFIT-----
We see them setting the early wage above $2000 a month----today many of our poor are receiving $750----1400 a month so global Wall Street will sell this as better. It will be no time at all that a $2000 a month level disappears because ---Foreign Economic Zones have no minimum wage.
As with today's right wing policies regarding housing, hunger, the old------Baltimore's NGOs require that those being deliberately kept long-term unemployed must HAND OVER THAT SOCIAL SECURITY OR DISABILITY CHECK to get that bed and meal----know what? That is what global corporate campus SOCIALISM WILL BECOME. Basic Income becomes that bed and a meal.
PLEASE GLANCE THROUGH FOR A HISTORY OF THIS DISCUSSION----REMEMBER DAYS OF EMPIRE WHERE THE GOALS WERE NOT PRO-LABOR---AS IS THE CASE TODAY----SOME PEOPLE BELOW WERE INTERESTED IN LIFTING CITIZENS ----
History of basic income
The idea of an unconditional basic income has three historical roots. The idea of a minimum income first appeared at the beginning of the 16th century. The idea of an unconditional one-off grant first appeared at the end of the 18th century. And the two were combined for the first time to form the idea of an unconditional basic income near the middle of the 19th century.
1. Minimum income: the humanists More (1516) and Vives (1526)
Raphael’s cure for theft – The idea of a minimum income guaranteed by the government to all the members of a particular community is far older than the more specific and radical idea of an unconditional basic income. With the advent of the Renaissance, the task of looking after the welfare of poor people ceased to be regarded as the exclusive preserve of the Church and of charitable individuals. Some of the so-called humanists started playing with the idea of a minimum income in the form of public assistance. In Thomas More’s (1478-1535) Utopia, published in Louvain in 1516, the Portuguese traveller Raphael Nonsenso, walking on the central square of the City of Antwerp, narrates a conversation he says he had with John Morton, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a scheme, he argued, would be a more astute way of fighting theft than sentencing thieves to death, which had the unpleasant side effect of increasing the murder rate.
“I once happened to be dining with the Cardinal when a certain English lawyer was there. I forgot how the subject came up, but he was speaking with great enthusiasm about the stern measures that were then being taken against thieves. ‘We’re hanging them all over the place’, he said. ‘I’ve seen as many as twenty on a single gallows. And that’s what I find so odd. Considering how few of them get away with it, how come we are still plagued with so many robbers?’ ‘What’s odd about it?’, I asked – for I never hesitated to speak freely in front of the Cardinal. ‘This method of dealing with thieves is both unjust and undesirable. As a punishment, it’s too severe, and as a deterrent, it’s quite ineffective. Petty larceny isn’t bad enough to deserve the death penalty. And no penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it’s their only way of getting food. In this respect, you English, like most other nations, remind me of these incompetent schoolmasters, who prefer caning their pupils to teaching them. Instead of inflicting these horrible punishments, it would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood, so that nobody’s under the frightful necessity of becoming, first a thief, and then a corpse.” [Note 1]
A pragmatic theological plea for public assistance
It is, however, Thomas More’s close friend and fellow humanist, Johannes Ludovicus Vives (1492-1540), who should be regarded as the true father of the idea of a guaranteed minimum income, as he was the first to work out a detailed scheme and develop a comprehensive argument for it, based both on theological and pragmatic considerations. Juan Luis Vives was born in Valencia in a family of converted Jews. He left Spain in 1509 to escape the Inquisition, studied at the Sorbonne but soon got fed up by the conservative scholastic philosophy that was prevailing in Paris at the time and moved on to Bruges in 1512, and in 1517 to Louvain, one of the main centres of the humanist movement, where he was appointed professor in 1520. He taught more briefly at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, but spent most of his adult life in the city of Bruges, where his statue can still be seen on the bank of one of the main canals. In a memoir addressed to the Mayor of Bruges in 1526 under the title De Subventione Pauperum (On the Assistance to the Poor), he proposed that the municipal government should be given the responsibility of securing a subsistence minimum to all its residents, not on grounds of justice but for the sake of a more effective exercise of morally required charity. The assistance scheme would be closely targeted to the poor. Indeed it is because of their ability to target them more efficiently that public officials should be put in charge of poor relief. To be entitled to the latter, a poor person’s poverty must not be undeserved, but he must deserve the help he gets by proving his willingness to work.
“Even those who have dissipated their fortunes in dissolute living – through gaming, harlots, excessive luxury, gluttony and gambling – should be given food, for no one should die of hunger. However, smaller rations and more irksome tasks should be assigned to them so that they may be an example to others. […] They must not die of hunger, but they must feel itspangs.” Whatever the source of poverty, the poor are expected to work. “Even to the old and the stupid, it should be possible to give a job they can learn in a few days, such as digging holes, getting water or carrying something on their shoulders.” The point of requiring such toil from the beneficiaries of the scheme is in part to make them contribute to the funding of the latter. But it is also to make sure that “being busy and engrossed in their work, they will abstain from those wicked thoughts and actions in which they would engage if they were idle”. Indeed, this concern should consistently extend to those born rich: Emperor Justinian was right, according to Vives, “in imposing a law that forbade everyone to spend his life in idleness”. If the poor cannot be parasites, why could the rich? [Note 2]
At two junctures, Vives anticipates some insights that will drive later thinkers in the direction of a basic income. “All these things God created, He put them in our large home, the world, without surrounding them with walls and gates, so that they would be common to all His children.” Hence, unless he helps those in need, whoever has appropriated some of the gifts of nature” is only a thief condemned by natural law, because he occupies and keeps what nature has not created exclusively for himself”. Further, Vives insists that relief should come “before need induces some mad or wicked action, before the face of the needy blushes from shame… The benefaction that precedes the hard and thankless necessity of asking is more pleasant and more worthy of thanks”. But he explicitly discards the more radical conclusion that it would be even better if “the gift were made before the need arose”, which is exactly what an adequate basic income would achieve.
From Vives to the Poor Laws
Vives’s plea explicitly inspired a scheme put into place a few years later by the Flemish municipality of Ypres. It also contributed to inspiring incipient thinking and action about forms of poor relief, from the School of Salamanca of Francisco de Vitoria and Domingo de Soto (from 1536 onwards) to England’s Poor Laws (from 1576 onwards). Less well remembered than his friends and protectors Erasmus and More, Vives’s pioneering thinking on the welfare state has been recently rediscovered. [Note 3]
He is also still remembered in his Alma Mater, the University of Louvain: A stone from his house has been incorporated in the wall of the “Universitaire Halle”, which houses the rectorate in the old town of Leuven. And the meeting room of the Chaire Hoover in the new town of Louvain-la-Neuve, where the Collectif Charles Fourier met in 1984-86 to discuss basic income and organise the founding meeting of the Basic Income European Network, has been named “Salle Vives”.
Vives’ s tract is the first systematic expression of a long tradition of social thinking and institutional reform focused on the public exercise of compassion through government-organised means-tested schemes directed at the poor. Despite the difficulties and doubts aroused by the operation of the poor laws, the thinkers of the nouveau régime made public assistance an essential function of the government. Thus, Montesquieu (L’Esprit des Lois (1748), section XXIII/29, Paris: Flammarion, Vol.2, p. 134): “The State owes all its citizens a secure subsistence, food, suitable clothes and a way of life that does not damage their health”. This line of thought eventually led to the setting up of comprehensive, nationally-funded guaranteed minimum income schemes in a growing number of countries, most recently, France’s RMI (1988) and Portugal’s RMG (1997).
2. Basic endowment: the republicans Condorcet (1794) and Paine (1796)
Condorcet on social insuranceHowever, towards the end of the 18th century, a different idea emerged that was to play an even greater role in the alleviation of poverty throughout Europe. The first known person to have sketched the idea is the first-rate mathematician and political activist, Antoine Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794). After having played a prominent role in the French revolution, both as a journalist and as a member of the Convention, Condorcet was imprisoned and sentenced to death. While in prison, he wrote his most systematic work, the Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain (published posthumously by his widow in 1795), whose last chapter contains a brief sketch of what a social insurance might look like and how it could reduce inequality, insecurity and poverty.
The Marquis de Condorcet
“There is therefore a necessary cause of inequality, of dependency and even of misery, which constantly threatens the most numerous and most active class of our societies. We shall show that we can to a large extent removing it, by opposing luck to itself, by securing to those who reach old age a relief that is the product of what he saved, but increased by the savings of those individuals who made the same sacrifice but died before the time came for them to need to collect its fruit; by using a similar compensation to provide women and children, at the moment they lose their husbands or fathers, with resources at the same level and acquired at the same price, whether the family concerned was afflicted by a premature death or could keep its head for longer; and finally by giving to those children who become old enough to work by themselves and found a new family the advantage of a capital required by the development of their activity and increased as the result of some dying too early to be able to enjoy it. It is to the application of calculus to the probabilities of life and to the investment of money that one owes the idea of this method. The latter has already been successfully used, but never on the scale and with the variety of forms that would make it really useful, not merely to a handful of individuals, but to the entire mass of society. It would free the latter from the periodic bankruptcy of a large number of families, that inexhaustible source of corruption and misery.” [Note 4]
This distinct idea, which will end up inspiring, one century later, the birth and development of Europe’s massive social insurance systems, starting with Otto von Bismarck’s old age pension and health insurance schemes for the labour force of unified Germany (from 1883 onwards). Though not targeted to the poor and involving massive transfers to the non-poor, these systems soon started having a huge impact on poverty as their development quickly dwarfed public assistance schemes and relegated them to a subsidiary role. In one way, social insurance brought us closer to basic income than public assistance, as the social benefits it distributed were not prompted by compassion, but by an entitlement, based in this case on the premiums paid into the insurance system. But in another way, it took us away from basic income, precisely because entitlement to the benefits is now based on having paid (or having had one’s employer paying) enough contributions in the past, typically in the form of some percentage of one’s wage. For this reason, unlike the most comprehensive versions of public assistance, even the most comprehensive forms of social insurance cannot provide a guaranteed minimum income.
Condorcet and Paine on basic endowmentHowever, it is the very same Marquis de Condorcet who was the first to briefly mention, in the context of his discussion of social insurance, the idea of a benefit restricted neither to the poor (deserving of our compassion) nor to the insured (entitled to compensation if the risk materialises), namely the idea of “giving to those children who become old enough to work by themselves and found a new family the advantage of a capital required by the development of their activity.” Condorcet himself is not known to have said or written anything else on the subject, but his close friend and fellow member of the Convention Thomas Paine (1737-1809) developed the idea in far greater detail, two years after Condorcet’s death, in a memoir addressed to the Directoire, the five-member executive that ruled France during most of the period separating the beheading of Robespierre and the rise of Napoleon.
“It is a position not to be controverted, he writes, that the earth, in its natural, uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race.” As the land gets cultivated, “it is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is in individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue.” Out of this fund, “there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age”. Payments, Paine insists, should be made “to every person, rich or poor”, “because it is in lieu of the natural inheritance, which, as a right, belongs to every man, over and above the property he may have created, or inherited from those who did” [Note 5]
From Paine to the Stakeholder Society
This idea of an equal basic endowment given to all as they reach adulthood, has reappeared now and then, for example in the writings of the French political philosopher François Huet. In his attempt to combine liberalism and socialism, he proposed that young people should all be given an endowment financed out of the taxation of the whole of that part of land and other property which the bequeather has himself received (see esp. Le Règne social du christianisme, Paris: Firmin Didot & Bruxelles: Decq,1853, pp. 262, 271-3).
The same endowment idea, combined as it was by Paine with a basic pension, has been more recently revived and developed in great detail by two Yale Law School Professors, Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott (The Stakeholder Society, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). The justification for this $80.000 unconditional grant, however, is no longer common ownership of the earth, but more comprehensive conception of justice as equality of opportunities. [Note 6]
3. Basic income: the utopian socialists Charlier (1848) and Mill (1849)
Charles Fourier’s right to subsistenceWhat equal ownership of the earth justifies, in Paine’s view, is an unconditional endowment for all, not a guaranteed income. A number of 19th century reformers, such as William Cobbett (1827), Samuel Read (1829) and Poulet Scrope (1833) in England (see Horne, Thomas A. “Welfare rights as property rights”, in Responsibility, Rights and Welfare. The theory of the welfare state, Boulder & London: Westview Press, 1988, 107-132, for a useful survey), have rather interpreted it so as to give guaranteed income schemes a firmer basis than public charity. Most famous among them is the eccentric and prolific French writer Charles Fourier (1836: 490-2), one of the radical visionaries Marx contemptuously labelled “utopian socialists”. In La Fausse Industrie (1836), Fourier argues that the violation of each person’s fundamental natural right to hunt, fish, pick fruit and let her/his cattle graze on the commons implies that “civilization” owes subsistence to everyone unable to meet her/his needs, in the form of a sixth class hotel room and three modest meals a day.
“Le premier droit, celui de récolte naturelle, usage des dons de la nature, liberté de chasse, cueillette, pâture, constitue le droit de se nourrir, de manger quand on a faim. Ce droit est dénéié en civilisation par les philosophes et concédé par Jésus-Christ en ces mots: (…). Jésus, par ces paroles, consacre le droit de prendre quand on a faim, son nécessaire où on le trouve, et ce droit impose au corps social le devoir d’assurer au peuple un minimum d’entretien: puisque la civilisation le dépouille du premier droit naturel, celui de chasse, pêche, cueillette, pâture, elle lui doit une indemnité. (…) Si l’ordre civilisé enlève à l’homme les quatre branches de subsistance naturelle, chasse, pêche, cueillette, pâture, composant le premier droit, la classe qui a enlevé les terres doit à la classe frustrée un minimum de subsistance abondante, en vertu du neuvième droit (subsistance abondante). Mais voici de nombreux obstacles à la concession de ce droit: D’abord, il faudrait chercher et découvrir le mécanisme sociétaire d’industrie combinée qui, donnant quadruple produit, fournirait de quoi satisfaire en minimum. D’autre part, comme la multitude assurée d’un minimum abondant ne voudrait que peu ou point travailler, il faudrait découvrir et organiser un régime d’industrie attrayante qui garantirait la persistance du peuple au travail, malgré son bien-être.” [Note 7]
Fourier, however, is as clear about the non-universality of the delivery of this income in kind (only a minority would be accommodated in those sixth class hotels) as he is about the absence of a work test: it is an unconditional entitlement for the poor by way of compensation for the loss of direct access to natural resources. His disciple and leader of the Fourierist school, Victor Considérant (Exposition abrégée du système Phalanstérien de Fourier, Paris, 1845) makes a step in the direction of a genuine basic income when emphasizing that, when work will have been made attractive thanks to the Phalansterian system, “one will be able to forward a minimum income to the poor members of the community with the certainty that they will have earned more than the expenditure by the end of the year”. But despite the nature of the underlying justification, poor relief is still not being turned into a universal income.
Joseph Charlier’s territorial dividend
In 1848, however, while Karl Marx was finishing off the Communist Manifesto in another neighbourhood of Brussels, the Fourierist author Joseph Charlier (1816-1896) published in Brussels his Solution du problème social ou constitution humanitaire (Bruxelles, “Chez tous les libraires du Royaume”, 1848, 106p.), which can be regarded as containing the first formulation of a genuine basic income. Undoubtedly inspired by the Fourierist tradition, he saw the equal right to the ownership of land as the foundation of an unconditional right to some income. But he rejected both the right to means-tested assistance advocated by Charles Fourier himself and the right to paid work advocated by his most prominent disciple Victor Considerant. The former, he reckoned, only dealt with the effects, and the latter involved too much mingling by the state. Under the labels “minimum” or “revenu garanti” (and later “dividende territorial”), he proposed giving every citizen with an unconditional right to a quarterly (later, monthly) payment of an amount fixed annually by a representative national council, on the basis of the rental value of all real estate. In a later book, in which he further develops his proposal, he relabels it “dividende teritorial” (La Question sociale résolue, précédée du testament philosophique d’un penseur, Bruxelles, Weissenbruch, 1894, 252p.). Such a scheme, he argues, would end “the domination of capital over labour”. Would it not encourage idleness? “Hard luck for the lazy: they will be put on short allowance. Society’s duty does not reach beyond securing each a fair share of the enjoyment of what nature puts at his disposal, without usurping anyone’s rights.” Anything above the minimum will have to be earned. [Note 9]
Mill’s most skillfully combined form of socialism
Charlier’s obstinate plea was hardly heard, and he was himself quickly forgotten. This is not quite what happened to another admirer of Fourierism: John Stuart Mill. The relevant passage is the sympathetic discussion of Fourierism which he added to the second edition of his Principles of Political Economy, published the year after Charlier’s first book.
This discussion unambiguously ascribes to the Fourierists the proposal of a non-means-tested basic income:
“The most skilfully combined, and with the greatest foresight of objections, of all the forms of Socialism, is that commonly known as Fourierism. This System does not contemplate the abolition of private property, nor even of inheritance; on the contrary, it avowedly takes into consideration, as elements in the distribution of the produce, capital as well as labour. […] In the distribution, a certain minimum is first assigned for the subsistence of every member of the community, whether capable or not of labour. The remainder of the produce is shared in certain proportions, to be determined beforehand, among the three elements, Labour, Capital, and Talent.”
The idea is clearly there, and under the pen of one of the most influential political thinkers of the century. But it will take another six decades before something like a real discussion arose for the first time. [Note 10]
History of Basic Income in the 20th century
The 20th century saw three periods when discussion about basic income was particularly intense. Firstly, under names like “social dividend”, “state bonus” and “national dividend” proposals for a genuinely unconditional and universal basic income were developed in inter-war debates in England. Secondly, after some years of silence this type of ideas was rediscovered and gained considerable popularity in debates about “demogrants” and “negative income tax” schemes during the 1960s and 70s in the United States. Thirdly, a new period of debate and exploration emerged as basic income proposals were actively discussed in several countries in North-Western Europe from the late 70s and early 80s. Quite independently, this century also saw the introduction of the world’s first, full-blown basic income scheme through the birth of the Alaska Permanent Fund, providing annual dividends to all the inhabitants of Alaska.
1. From militancy to respectability: England between the wars
Russell’s combination of anarchism and socialism
Things start waking up in Britain in 1918, towards the end of the First World War. In Roads to Freedom, a short and incisive book first published in 1918, the mathematician, philosopher, non-conformist political thinker, militant pacifist and Nobel laureate in literature Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) argues for a social model that combines the advantages of socialism and anarchism. One central component of it is a UBI “sufficient for necessaries”.
“Anarchism has the advantage as regards liberty, Socialism as regards the inducement to work. Can we not find a method of combining these two advantages? It seems to me that we can. […] Stated in more familiar terms, the plan we are advocating amounts essentially to this: that a certain small income, sufficient for necessaries, should be secured to all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income – as much larger as might be warranted by the total amount of commodities produced – should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful…When education is finished, no one should be compelled to work, and those who choose not to work should receive a bare livelihood and be left completely free.” [Note 11]
Milner’s State Bonus
In the same year, the young engineer, Quaker and Labour Party member, Dennis Milner (1892-1956), published jointly with his wife Mabel a short pamphlet entitled “Scheme for a State Bonus” (1918). What they argued for, using an eclectic series of arguments, was the introduction of an income paid unconditionally on a weekly basis to all citizens of the United Kingdom. Pitched at 20% of GDP per capita, the “State bonus” should make it possible to solve the problem of poverty, particularly acute in the aftermath of the war. As everyone has a moral right to means of subsistence, any obligation to work enforced through the threat of a withdrawal of these means is ruled out. Milner subsequently elaborated the proposal in a book published by a respectable publisher under the title Higher Production by a Bonus on National Output. Many of the arguments that played a central role in later discussions can be found in this book — from the unemployment trap to labour market flexibility, from low rates of take up to the ideal complement of profit sharing, but the emphasis is on the “productivist” case: the state bonus can even be vindicated on grounds of efficiency alone. Milner’s proposal was enthusiastically backed by fellow Quaker Bertram Pickard, supported by the short-lived State Bonus League — under whose banner Milner took part in a national election —, discussed at the 1920 British Labour Party conference and definitively rejected the following year [Note 12].
Major Douglas and the Social Credit movement
It did not take long, however, for another English engineer, Clifford H (“Major”) Douglas (1879-1952), to take up the idea again with significantly greater impact. Douglas was struck by how productive British industry had become after World War I and began to wonder about the risks of overproduction. How could a population impoverished by four years of war consume the goods available in abundance, when banks were reticent to give them credit and their purchasing power was rising only very slowly? To solve this problem, Douglas (1924) proposed in a series of lectures and writings, often quite confused, the introduction of “social credit” mechanisms, one of which consisted in paying all households a monthly “national dividend”. The social credit movement enjoyed varying fortunes. It failed to establish itself in the United Kingdom but attracted many supporters in Canada, where a Social Credit Party governed the province of Alberta from 1935 to 1971, although it rapidly dropped the idea of introducing a national dividend.
Cole and Meade on social dividend
While the popularity of the Social Credit movement was first swelling and next shrinking in broad layers of the British population, the idea of the UBI was gaining ground in a small circle of intellectuals close to the British Labour Party. Prominent among them was the economist George D.H. Cole (1889-1959), the first holder of Oxford’s Chichele Chair of Social and Political Theory (later held by Isaiah Berlin, Charles Taylor and G.A. Cohen). In several books, he resolutely defended what he was the first to call a “social dividend” (Cole, 1935). “Current productive power is, in effect, a joint result of current effort and of the social heritage of inventiveness and skill incorporated in the stage of advancement and education reached in the arts of production; and it has always appeared to me only right that all the citizens should share in the yield of this common heritage, and that only the balance of the product after this allocation should be distributed in the form of rewards for, and incentives to, current service in production.” (Cole 1944: 144) In his presentation of J.S. Mill in History of Socialist Thought (1953), Cole also seems to have been the first to refer to the idea of a UBI by using the English expression “basic income”, which quickly spread as the discussion became international in the 1980s [Note 3].
Politically less active, but with a far wider international reputation than Cole, another Oxford economist, the Nobel Laureate James Meade (1907-1995), defended the “social dividend” with even greater tenacity. The idea of a social dividend is present in his Outline of an Economic Policy for a Labor Government (1935) and in several other early writings (Meade 1937, 1938) as a central ingredient of a just and efficient economy. And it was to become a crucial component of the Agathatopia project, to which he devoted his last writings (1989, 1993, 1995): partnerships between capital and labor and a social dividend funded by public assets are there offered together as a solution to the problems of unemployment and poverty. Around the same time and place as the notion of “social dividend” appeared in the writings of James Meade, it also surfaced in a famous discussion on market socialism by two professors at the London School of Economics Oskar Lange (1904-1965) and Abba Lerner (1903-1982): in reply to a remark by Lerner (1936), Lange (1937) made clear the expression “social dividend”, which he used to refer to the return on collectively owned capital, had to be understood as contribution-independent.
It is on the background of this inter-war discussion that the liberal peer Juliet Rhys-Williams (1943) proposed a “new social contract”, whose central element consisted in a basic income. Universal, but not quite unconditional, as it made availability for work a necessary counterpart for the uniform grant. Payment of the grant is suspended during strikes, for example. However, it was the alternative proposal for a national minimum income (tied to a broader program of unified national child benefit and social insurance) made in 1942 by another liberal peer, William Beveridge, director of the London School of Economics, that prevailed in Britain — and soon started spreading elsewhere in Europe —, thus relegating UBI-type proposals to the fringe of the UK’s policy-relevant debate.
2. Short-lived effervescence: the United States in the 1960s
Three American approaches to the guaranteed minimum – It is in the turbulent America of the 1960s, at the peak of the civic rights movement, that a real debate on universal basic income resurfaced, with three main sources of inspiration. Firstly, Robert Theobald (1929-1999) and his Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution (1964) defended in various publications a vaguely specified guaranteed minimum income on grounds reminiscent of Douglas, such as the belief that “automation is rendering work for pay obsolete, and that government handouts are the only way to give the public the means to buy the immense bounty produced by automatons”. Secondly, in his popular Capitalism and Freedom (1962), the American economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman (1912-2006) proposed a radical simplification of the American Welfare State through the introduction of what he there called a “negative income tax”. Friedman’s proposal of a linear negative income tax would fully integrate the income tax and transfer systems. It was offered as a simple and radical alternative to the patchwork of existing social welfare schemes. And it was itself meant as a transitional stage on the way to an ideal, transfer-free capitalist society (For Friedman’s own account of where he got the idea from and relevant references, see the Suplicy-Friedman exchange in BIEN NewsFlash 3, May 2000). Finally, and most importantly, James Tobin (1918-2002), John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006) and other liberal economists started defending in a series of articles the idea of a guaranteed minimum income more general, more generous and less dependency-creating than the existing assistance programs.
Tobin’s demogrant – Tobin, Pechman and Miezkowski published the first technical analysis of negative income tax schemes in 1967, where they came out in favor of a variant involving an automatic payment to all citizens – a genuine UBI which Joseph Pechman proposed calling a demogrant. In contrast with Friedman’s proposal, Tobin’s demogrant scheme was not meant to replace the whole system of social assistance and insurance schemes — let alone to help extinguish the welfare state altogether —, but only to reconfigure its lower component so as to make it a more efficient and work-friendlier instrument for raising the incomes of the poor.Under Tobin’s proposal, more generous than Friedman’s and more precise than Theobald’s, each household was to be granted a basic credit at a level varying with family composition, which each family could supplement with earnings and other income taxed at a uniform rate. (For relevant references and Tobin’s own account of how his demogrant proposal evolved, see the Suplicy-Tobin exchange in BIEN NewsFlash 11, September 2001)
Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan and McGovern’s support for the demograntIn this lively and promising context, a petition was organized in the Spring of 1968 calling for the US Congress “to adopt this year a system of income guarantees and supplements”. It was supported by James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith, Robert Lampman, Harold Watts and over one thousand more economists, though not by Milton Friedman. In a context in which dependence on the existing means-tested welfare system was increasing dramatically, this petition contributed to creating a climate in which the administration felt it had to move ahead. This led to the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), an ambitious social welfare program prepared by the democrat senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003) on behalf of Republican President Richard Nixon’s administration. The FAP provided for the abolition of the aid program targeting poor families (AFDC) and incorporated a guaranteed income with financial supplements for workers which came close to a negative income tax scheme. It was publicly presented by President Nixon in August 1969, adopted in April 1970 by a large majority in the US House of Representatives, rejected by the relevant Commission of the US Senate in November 1970, and definitively rejected in 1972, despite several amendments meant to assuage the opposition, owing to a coalition between those who found it too timid and those who found it too bold. A more ambitious “demogrant” plan was included on James Tobin’s advice in democrat George McGovern’s platform for the 1972 presidential election, but dropped in August 1972. Combined with McGovern’s defeat by Nixon in November 1972, the beginning of the Watergate affair in March 1973 and Nixon’s resignation in November 1974, the defeat of the FAP in the Senate marked the end of the short but strong appearance of UBI-type ideas in the US debate. The discussion continued however in a more academic vein, on the basis of five large-scale experiments with negative income tax schemes (four in the USA and one in Canada) and controversies over the results.
3. New departure: North-Western Europe in the 1980s
The first initiatives: Debates in Denmark and the NetherlandsTowards the end of the 1970s, while the demogrant debate was virtually forgotten in the United States, a debate on a UBI started up from scratch in a number of European countries, in near total ignorance of previous discussions, whether in Europe or in America. Thus, in Denmark, three academics defended a UBI proposal by the name of “citizen’s wage” in a national best-seller later translated into English under the title Revolt from the Center (Meyer et al, 1978). But it is above all in the Netherlands that the new European discussion on UBI took off. The first voice to be heard in this discussion was that of J.P. Kuiper, a professor of social medicine at the Free University of Amsterdam. Struck by how sick some people were able to make themselves by working too much while others were making themselves sick because they could not find work, he recommended uncoupling employment and income as a way of countering the de-humanizing nature of paid employment: only a decent “guaranteed income”, as a called it, would enable people to develop independently and autonomously (Kuiper, 1976). In 1977, the small radical party (Politieke Partij Radicalen), grown out of the left of the Dutch Christian-democratic party, became the first European political party with parliamentary representation to officially include a UBI (basisinkomen) in its electoral program. The movement grew quite rapidly, thanks to the involvement of the food sector trade union Voedingsbond, a component of the main Trade Union Confederation FNV. With its exceptionally high proportion of women and part-time workers among its members, the Voedingsbond played a major role in the Dutch debate throughout the 1980s. It initiated a series of publications and actions defending a UBI combined with a drastic reduction in working time and hosted the Dutch UBI association on its premises. In 1985, the Dutch discussion reached a first climax when the prestigious Scientific Council for Government Policy created a sensation by publishing a report in which it recommended unambiguously the introduction of a so-called “partial basic income”. Such a partial basic income is a genuine UBI, but at a level insufficient to cover the needs of a single person and hence not meant to replace the existing conditional minimum income system.
Developments in Britain and Germany
Around the same time, the debate began to take shape in other countries too, albeit more discretely. In 1984, a group of academics and activists gathered around Bill Jordan and Hermione Parker under the auspices of the National Council for Voluntary Organizations formed the Basic Income Research Group (BIRG) – which was to become in 1998 the Citizen’s Income Trust. Despite the consistent support of independent minds such as the assistant editor of the Financial Times Samuel Brittan and the sympathy shown for the idea by liberal-democrat party, the UBI did not manage to reach mainstream politics — except in the very attenuated form of a baby bond — in Blair’s New Labour era any more than under Thatcher’s neo-liberalism. In Germany, Thomas Schmid, an eco-libertarian from Berlin, got the discussion going with his Liberation from False Labor (Schmid ed. 1984). Several collective volumes emanating from the green movement pursued and developed this first initiative (Opielka & Vobruba 1986; Opielka & Ostner 1987). At the same time, Joachim Mitschke (1985), professor of public finance at the University of Frankfurt, began a long campaign in favor of a citizen’s income (Bürgergeld) administered in the form of a negative income tax. However, the fall of the Berlin wall (1989) and the consequent reunification of Germany (October 1990) stopped this incipient public discussion for many years, despite the support it enjoyed from reputed academics like Claus Offe (1992, 1996), close to the greens, and to a lesser extent Fritz Scharpf (1993), close to the social democrats. It is only around 2005, after reunification was more or less digested, that a surprising convergence generated a rich national debate.
The basic income debate in France
In France, the debate got off the ground more slowly. The influential left-wing sociologist and philosopher André Gorz (1923-2007) initially defended a life-long basic income coupled to a universal social service of 20,000 hours (Gorz 1985). However, his fear of social life getting entirely colonized by paid employment drove him towards the defence of an unconditional income (Gorz 1997). In a very different vein, Yoland Bresson (1984, 1994, 2000), self-described as a “left Gaullist” economist, offered a convoluted argument for a universal ”existence income” supposed to be pitched at a level objectively determined by the “value of time”. Alain Caillé (1987, 1994, 1996), leader of the “Movement against Utilitarianism in the Social Sciences” (or MAUSS) advocated an unconditional income as the expression of society’s fundamental trust in those excluded from the labor market and in their ability and willingness to invest in activities of collective interest. And Jean-Marc Ferry (1995, 2000), a political philosopher in the Habermas tradition, developed a plea for a UBI as a right of citizenship at the level of the European Union, in a context in which he reckons full employment, conventionally understood, is forever out of reach and in which a “quaternary” sector of socially useful activities needs to be developed.
The founding meeting of BIEN in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), 1986. From left to right on stage: Riccardo Petrella, Greetje Lubbi, Anne Miller, Nic Douben, Philippe Van Parijs, Claus Offe, Bill Jordan.
The birth and expansion of BIEN
These modest national debates emerged independently from one another and the intellectual contributions that fed them were unaware of most of the history of the idea, if not the whole of it. However, they gradually came into contact with one another thanks to the creation of BIEN. In March 1984, a group of researchers and trade unionists close to the University of Louvain (Belgium) published a provocative UBI scenario under the collective pseudonym “Collectif Charles Fourier”. The scenario was entered in a competition on the future of work earning the Collectif a prize with which it organized in Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) in September 1986 the very first meeting gathering UBI supporters from several countries. Pleasantly surprised to discover how many people were interested in an idea they thought they were almost alone in defending, the participants decided to set up the Basic Income European Network (BIEN), which published a regular newsletter and organized conferences every two years. The birth of similar networks in the United States, South America and South Africa, the intensification of contacts with pre-existing networks in Australia and New Zealand, and the presence of an increasing number of non-Europeans at the BIEN conferences, led BIEN to re-interpret its acronym as the Basic Income Earth Network at its 10th congress, held in Barcelona in September 2004. The first congress outside Europe of the newly created worldwide network was held at the University of Cape Town (South Africa) in October 2006.
4. Modest but real: Alaska’s dividends
he introduction and development of the only genuine universal basic income system in existence to this day took place many leagues from these debates. In the mid 1970s, Jay Hammond, the Republican governor of the state of Alaska (United States) was concerned that the huge wealth generated by oil mining in Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in North America, would only benefit the current population of the state. He suggested setting up a fund to ensure that this wealth would be preserved, through investment of part of the revenue from oil. In 1976, the Alaska Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the State Constitution. In order to get the Alaskan population interested in its growth and continuity, Governor Hammond conceived of the annual payment of a dividend to all residents, in proportion to their number of years of residence. Brought before the United States Supreme Court on grounds of discrimination against immigrants from other states, the proposal was declared in contradiction with the “equal protection clause”, the fourteenth amendment of the Federal Constitution. The proposal was modified in order to overcome this objection, and transformed into a genuine universal basic income. Since implementation of the program in 1982, everyone who has been officially resident in Alaska for at least six months – currently around 650,000 people – has received a uniform dividend every year, whatever their age and number of years of residence in the State. This dividend corresponds to part of the average interest earned, over the previous five years, on the permanent fund set up using the revenue from oil mining. The fund was initially invested exclusively in the State economy, but later became an international portfolio, thus enabling the distribution of the dividend to cushion fluctuations in the local economic situation instead of amplifying them (Goldsmith, 2004). The dividend stood at around $300 per person per annum in the early years but was close to reaching $2000 in 2000, when the stock market plummeted and cut the dividend in half in the course of a few years. In 2008, however, the size of the annual dividends reached a new all-time high with payments of $2069 per person. Alaska’s oil dividend scheme has repeatedly been proposed for other parts of the world, but still remains unique — and helps make Alaska the most egalitarian among US states.
What we are seeing is the growth industry of the next international/national NGOS-------they will get all kinds of Federal funding on these issues replacing all the pay-to-play happening in our US cities seeing all that is public agency being privatized.
This is what WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH sees as funding recipients for what they know will be designed to move formally first world developed citizens into third world refugee status----and these groups will be
ADVOCATING HARD AS THEY CAN FOR BASIC INCOME.
Hunger and Homelessness
While many people group hunger and homelessness together, the two issues are not as closely related as one might think. A look at the facts about homelessness and food insecurity data show that both hunger and homelessness often have distinct causes, and can have very different impacts on segments of the population.
By the NumbersClick a state to get a snapshot of the hunger and homelessness statistics.
% Food Insecure
Less than 10% - 10 - 13.9% - 14 - 17%% - 18 - 21% - 22 - 25%Information sourced from: The Alliance To End Hunger National Alliance To End Homelessness
Though the homeless are often the public face of inequality and food insecurity in the US and across the world, hunger impacts many millions more people than homelessness and its effects are not as readily visible to the general public.
North America is often regarded as the land of plenty, and yet Hunger is still an issue that affects millions of Americans every year.
- 1 in 7 Americans live on incomes that put them at risk for hunger.
- Over 15 million American children rely on food banks for assistance.
- Food insecurity exists in every single county in the United States.
- A report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that only 11% of those requesting emergency food assistance were homeless.
- More than 31 million children live on incomes that qualified them for free or subsidized lunches.
- Most people tend to associate food drives with the holiday season. Food Banks, however, face their greatest need during the summer months, when classes end and children are no longer receiving free or reduced-cost meals at school. That's why we urge everyone to hold a summer food drive to make the most impact in your community.
- Income Inequality - Hunger in the United States is often caused by income inequality and poverty. A large majority of the clients at food banks have at least one employed person in the household. After the rent/mortgage, electricity, and other bills are paid, however, there is often not enough money remaining to provide meals for the household. As a result, families are forced to rely on food banks to make up the gap.
- Food Deserts - Food Deserts are areas or neighborhoods where residents do not have access to a grocery store that provides the wholesome and nutritious foods that are necessary for a healthy diet. These districts lack an assortment of whole foods, fruits, and vegetables. Instead, processed, sugar, and fat-laden options are often the only items available.
'#23 According to Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup, China will be the largest economy in the world by the year 2020, and India will surpass China by the year 2050'.
China and India are indeed building and expanding Foreign Economic Zones as fast as they can-----most will be filled with their billion of citizens but many US citizens will be heading into these global labor polls systems and these two nations from 2020 -2030 when the worst of US economic crash and Great Depression hits with unemployment soaring---HOW WILL WE KNOW WHEN OUR US HOMELESS AND AT-RISK CITIZENS SIMPLY DISAPPEAR INTO THESE SYSTEMS? We will not---there are no left justice organizations tracking any of this---no oversight and accountability in US cities just as in third world nations.
WHERE IN THE WORD WILL OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN BE SENT BY GLOBAL WALL STREET 5% TO THE 1%----SOON TO BE ONLY THAT GLOBAL 1%!
But getting those US citizens to those jobs in India with bed and a meal is what WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH says is sustainable health policy-----ending homelessness ending hunger.
23 Facts Which Prove That Globalism Is Pushing The Standard Of Living Of The Middle Class Down To Third World Levels
By Michael Snyder, on February 28th, 2011
From now on, whenever you hear the term “the global economy” you should immediately equate it with the destruction of the U.S. middle class. Over the past several decades, the American economy has been slowly but surely merged into the emerging one world economic system. Unfortunately for the middle class, much of the rest of the world does not have the same minimum wage laws and worker protections that we do. Therefore, the massive global corporations that now dominate our economy are able to pay workers in other countries slave labor wages and import the products that they make into the United States to compete with products made by “expensive” American workers. This has resulted in a mass exodus of manufacturing facilities and jobs from the United States.
But without good, high paying jobs the U.S. middle class cannot continue to be the U.S middle class. The only thing that the vast majority of Americans have to offer in the economic marketplace is their labor. Sadly, that labor has now been dramatically devalued. American workers now must directly compete for jobs with millions upon millions of workers on the other side of the world that toil away for 15 hours a day at slave labor wages. This is causing jobs to leave the United States at an almost unbelievable rate, and it is putting tremendous downward pressure on the wages of millions of jobs that are still in the United States.
So when you hear terms such as “globalization” and “the global economy”, it is important to keep in mind that those are code words for the emerging one world economic system that is systematically wiping out the U.S. middle class.
A one world labor pool means that the standard of living for the U.S. middle class will continue falling toward the standard of living in the third world.
We keep hearing about how the U.S. economy is being transformed from a “manufacturing economy” into a “service economy”. But “service jobs” are generally much lower paying than “manufacturing jobs”. The number of good paying “middle class jobs” in the United States is rapidly decreasing. So how can the U.S. middle class survive in such an environment?
What makes things even worse for manufacturers in the United States is that other nations often impose a “value-added tax” of 20 percent or more on U.S. goods entering their shores and yet most of the time we do not reciprocate with similar taxes.
But whenever someone mentions how incredibly unfair and unbalanced our trade agreements with other nations are, they are immediately labeled as a “protectionist”.
Well, someone should be looking out for U.S. interests when it comes to trade, because the current state of the global economy is ripping the U.S. middle class to shreds.
Right now, the United States consumes far more wealth than it produces. This nation buys much, much more from the rest of the world than they buy from us. This is called a “trade deficit”, and it is one of the most important economic statistics. The U.S. runs a massive trade deficit every single year, and it is wiping out our national wealth, it is destroying our surviving industries and it is absolutely shredding middle class America.
We cannot allow tens of thousands of factories to continue to leave the United States. We cannot allow millions of jobs to continue to be “outsourced” and “offshored”. We cannot allow tens of billions of dollars of our national wealth to continue to be transferred into foreign hands every single month.
The truth is that the global economy is bad for America. The following are 23 facts which prove that globalism is pushing the standard of living of the middle class down to third world levels….
#1 From December 2000 to December 2010, the U.S. ran a total trade deficit of 6.1 trillion dollars.
#2 The U.S. trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009.
#3 The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.
#4 The U.S. economy is rapidly trading high wage jobs for low wage jobs. According to a new report from the National Employment Law Project, higher wage industries accounted for 40 percent of the job losses over the past 12 months but only 14 percent of the job growth. Lower wage industries accounted for just 23 percent of the job losses over the past 12 months and a whopping 49 percent of the job growth.
#5 Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.
#6 In Germany, exports account for approximately 40 percent of GDP. In China, exports account for approximately 30 percent of GDP. In the United States, exports account for approximately 13 percent of GDP.
#7 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe? Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts of $110 billion.
#8 In 2010, South Korea exported 12 times as many automobiles, trucks and parts to us as we exported to them.
#9 The U.S. economy now has 10 percent fewer “middle class jobs” than it did just ten years ago.
#10 The United States currently has 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs than it did back in December 2007.
#11 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.
#12 In 2002, the United States had a trade deficit in “advanced technology products” of $16 billion with the rest of the world. In 2010, that number skyrocketed to $82 billion.
#13 The United States now spends more than 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
#14 In China, working conditions are so bad that large numbers of “employees” regularly try to commit suicide. One major employer, Foxconn, has even gone so far as to install “anti-suicide nets” in an attempt to keep their employees from jumping off of their buildings.
#15 Wages for workers in China are incredibly low. For example, one facility in the city of Longhua that makes iPods employs approximately 200,000 workers. These workers put in endless 15-hour days but they only make about $50 per month.
#16 In Bangladesh, manufacturing workers toil in absolutely horrific conditions and make an average of about $38 per month.
#17 In Vietnam, teenage workers often work seven days a week for as little as 6 cents an hour making promotional Disney toys for McDonald’s.
#18 Since 2001, over 42,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been closed.
#19 Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.
#20 In the United States today, 6.2 million Americans have been out of work for 6 months of longer.
#21 8.4 million Americans are currently working part-time jobs for “economic reasons”. These jobs are mostly very low paying service jobs.
#22 When you adjust wages for inflation, middle class workers in the United States make less money today than they did back in 1971.
#23 According to Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup, China will be the largest economy in the world by the year 2020, and India will surpass China by the year 2050.
Those that promote “free trade” can never explain how the U.S. middle class is going to continue to have plenty of jobs in the new global economy.
By merging our labor pool with the rest of the world, we have also merged our standard of living with the rest of the world. High unemployment is rapidly becoming “the new normal” in America, and wages are going to continue to decline in many, many industries.
Already, there are quite a few formerly great U.S. cities (such as Detroit) that are beginning to resemble third world hellholes. If something is not done about our massive trade imbalance, even more cities are going to follow Detroit into oblivion.
Unfortunately, most of our politicians continue to insist that globalism is good for our society. They continue to insist that we should not be worried that jobs formerly done by middle class American workers are now being done by slave laborers on the other side of the globe. They continue to insist that having 43 million Americans on food stamps is a temporary thing and that soon our economy will be better than ever.
Well, it is time to stop listening to the politicians that are promoting “the global economy”. They are lying to us.
Globalism is great for nations such as China and it is helping multinational corporations make huge profits, but for the U.S. middle class it is an economic death sentence.
If you want an America where there are less jobs, where more Americans are on food stamps and other anti-poverty programs and where our cities continue to be transformed into deindustrialized hellholes, then you should strongly support the emerging global economy.
But if you care about the standard of living of the U.S. middle class and you want for there to be some kind of viable economic future for your children and your grandchildren then you had better start caring about these issues and doing something about them.
Please wake up America.
There are two policies FAR-RIGHT LIBERTARIANS have supported these years of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---that is BASIC INCOME AND OPEN BORDERS. As hard as these far-right wing Libertarians are trying to POSE LEFT SOCIAL DEMOCRAT----pretending these policies are to help the poor----the goal has always been to create that global human capital distribution system and to set ONE GLOBAL WAGE FOR ALL FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Anyone following the WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH a few decades ago would have seen them promoting OPEN BORDERS as a solution to ending hunger ending homelessness ending unemployment so all WORLD BANK, national funding tied to these PUBLIC HEALTH GOALS INSIDE EACH NATION-----was paying to build those global slave trading routes as OPEN BORDERS.
It's all tied to creating that global labor pool movement so moving a citizen from India or China for a job in the US or Europe was touted by WORLD BANK WORLD HEALTH as addressing the ending of homelessness, ending hunger. Even our national media would repoort that Federal funding to end homelessness end hunger was working because those citizens from India and China were in the US being fed and housed with jobs.
Meanwhile of course European and US citizen unemployment is soaring because of this so-called solution to end homelessness---OPEN BORDERS. Talk about PRAGMATIC NILISM.
Remember, far-right Libertarianism is about making that global 1% richer anyway they can-----it is not civil liberties for all---just those global 1%.
Open Borders: The Case
"The Efficient, Egalitarian, Libertarian, Utilitarian Way to Double World GDP" — Bryan Caplan
Left social Democrats do not want to deport anyone---we simply want to stop this global labor pool system from bringing more and more immigrants leaving more and more of our US citizens unemployed, homeless, and hungery. Look at how the far-right is now framing this argument today-----Libertarians are calling Trump out for being against OPEN BORDERS----when Trump is about as raging US cities as Foreign Economic Zone as a CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----he does not intend to deport anyone but US citizens into the global labor pool----OPEN BORDERS.
Please watch how far-right Libertarians and the WORLD BANK use this idea of global labor pool OPEN BORDERS being about ending homelessness ending hunger creating jobs for developing nation citizens and calling it LIBERTARIAN AND EGALITARIAN. These policies are being written by the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and all it does is destabilize one region and then the other while making global labor citizens enslaved.
Far-right Libertarians love this because it drives wages lower and takes all power away from all global workers.
Deportation Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment
December 24, 2016 Joel Newman “As Justice Brandeis recognized long ago, deportation is akin to the loss of property or life, or ‘all that makes life worth living.’” (Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, 1997, 2(18), p. 737)
Donald Trump recently suggested that U.S. citizens who burn the American flag should be punished, perhaps by being stripped of their citizenship. This elicited a reminder that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that revoking someone’s citizenship in order to punish that person for a crime is unconstitutional, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” In that ruling, the court stated that revocation of citizenship
“… subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people.”
For undocumented immigrants and other immigrants vulnerable to deportation from the U.S., the court’s language describes their predicament, especially for those with deep roots in the U.S. They fear losing their work permits (those who have them), apprehension, and deportation, and if expulsion comes, it is devastating. (It is undoubtedly also devastating for those who have spent less time in the U.S., especially if they are sent back to a country where they are endangered, but here I am limiting my focus to those immigrants whose experience is very similar to that of a denationalized citizen.) The ruling thus suggests that the suffering caused by the U.S. deportation regime, which includes both deportation itself and the threat of it, constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” let alone being immoral from an open borders perspective. (The term “punishment” is used here because it connects to the Constitution. Punishment of any kind based on immigration status is, in my opinion, immoral.)
Joseph Carens would likely agree that expelling immigrants who have long resided in the U.S. constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” In addition to arguing for open borders generally, Carens has emphasized the injustice of deporting immigrants who have established roots in a society:
“Living and working in a society makes immigrants members of that society over time, even if they arrived and settled without permission. This is clearest for those who arrived as young children. Everyone has heard stories about the Dreamers, young people who were raised in the United States and who are now stuck in limbo because they do not have legal status. They are Americans in every respect that should count, and they can’t be blamed for coming here because they were only children when they arrived. So it would be morally wrong to kick them out… when people have been here for a long time, living peacefully and contributing to the community in ordinary ways, the morally right thing to do is to let them stay, regardless of how they arrived.”
The election of Donald Trump has exacerbated immigrant suffering, heightening their anxiety and threatening greater numbers of deportations, although it is unclear what his policy will actually be. At times, he has pledged to deport all undocumented immigrants. More recently, he has suggested he would focus on immigrants with criminal records. It is also unclear whether he will overturn President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which has protected hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children from deportation and provided them work permits. (It should be remembered that, despite DACA, the deportation regime thrived under Obama.)
Immigrants who are protected under DACA are certainly distressed by the possibility that their protection will disappear under Trump. The New York Times, which has reported on some of these young immigrants, notes that if Trump terminated the program, at first they would lose their work permits, depriving them of sometimes middle class salaries: “…the Dreamers could see the accouterments of middle-class life — a studio apartment in Brooklyn, a driver’s license, a biweekly paycheck with deductions for retirement, a coveted desk in a financial firm — disappear.” A teacher at a middle school said of possibly losing her work permit, “‘I wouldn’t lie to say it won’t devastate me.’” Moreover, there is the fear of being deported: “Advocacy groups have been inundated with calls from people afraid or despondent,” reports The New York Times. A 27 year old financial consultant stated: “‘The first thought I had is that I have done everything right and it is all going to be taken away from me… It feels a little bit like a betrayal. I’ve been here since I was 4 years old. I’m an American.’” A legal assistant who has been in the U.S. for almost thirty years, said “‘It feels like a step backward, to be back in this insecure place where you don’t know what the next step might be,’ she said, her voice breaking with tears. She has tried not to cry in front of her children and to assure them that she is safe.”
Non-DACA undocumented immigrants who spent many years in the U.S. but who have been deported have suffered immensely, as The New York Times also has shown. Juventino Martin Gonzalez was deported to Mexico after working in the U.S. for 20 years and having three children here. A month after being deported, he came to the border fence separating California from Mexico “for a glimpse of the American side he still considers home. He said, ’I belong over there, not here… this is the closest I can get…’” Miguel Romero was also deported to Mexico:
“For 16 years, he had worked as a glazier in Brooklyn. He married and was raising five children. But earlier this year, immigration officials arrested him while he was installing glass in a storefront in lower Manhattan, Mr. Romero said… His wife, also in the United States illegally, decided not to join him, and he says he does not blame her, since wages here average about $10 a day… He does not dare cross the border illegally again, for fear of getting caught and serving time in jail. ‘My whole life I spent up there, and it’s hard for me to come back,’ he said in perfect English. ‘We have been up there so many years, and most of us don’t commit crimes. People that do nothing but work should get a break.’”
Many additional immigrants who lived in the U.S. for many years have been deported, not because they were undocumented but on account of a criminal record. My opinion is that immigrants (who have not become citizens, in which case they generally are immune from deportation based on their criminal records) who have been convicted of a crime in the U.S. should be punished through the justice system, as would a U.S. citizen, but that they should not face deportation because of the crime, regardless of the offense. Regardless of one’s position on this issue, it is clear that those deported (often for very minor offenses) after living rooted lives in America suffer. The Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School has noted that many Cambodian immigrants to the U.S. have been deported after committing crimes. The center observes that “The U.S. separated them from their homes and families and sent them to a country with which they had little or no connection.” While some individuals eventually accept their life in Cambodia, many struggle to adjust, with some committing suicide. Especially devastating is the separation from loved ones in America: “Deportation destroys these relationships. It forces non-citizens to leave their friends, parents, siblings, and spouses. Furthermore, many must abandon their U.S. citizen children. Of the forty-eight returnees interviewed for this report, twenty-five left behind sons or daughters in the United States. As U.S. law makes it all but impossible for returnees to obtain a tourist visa, most will never see their children again.” One man was deported after forging a $900 check to pay his bills and has never seen his baby girl, who was born while he was in immigration detention before being sent to Cambodia.
Those under the threat of deportation because of their criminal record also are distressed. Lundy Khoy was born in refugee camp in Thailand, arrived in the U.S. thirty five years ago when he was a one year old, and has legal permanent resident status. He is not an American citizen but states “there is no way I am not an American.” In 2000 he pleaded guilty for possessing seven tablets of Ecstasy with intent to sell. His conviction made him deportable, even though he later received a pardon from the governor of Virginia. He has not been deported but has spent almost nine months in immigration detention (he is now released) and is fearful: “If I was deported, I would be sent to Cambodia. But I had never been to Cambodia!”
Another immigrant who faced a similar situation is Qing Hong Wu, who immigrated legally from China when he was five years old. When he was fifteen he pleaded guilty to muggings he had committed. After serving three years at a reformatory for his crimes, Wu worked to become a vice president for Internet technology with a national company. However, almost twenty five years after coming to the U.S., Wu was detained by immigration agents and subject to deportation because of his criminal record. In a telephone interview from detention with The New York Times he said, “’Being permanently banned from the U.S., that’s the biggest stress I’m under… That’s the harshest penalty any person can ever receive.’” Fortunately, after Wu spent four months in detention, the governor of New York pardoned him, which erased the grounds for deportation, unlike in Khoy’s case.
I believe that deportations are immoral, except in extradition cases in which individuals face criminal trials in other countries. However, I am not a lawyer and am not arguing here that the deportation of immigrants with strong roots in the U.S. could be found unconstitutional by a court. Apparently, a legal claim that deportation violates the Eighth Amendment probably would be unsuccessful, since deportation is not legally considered a punishment. The New York Times notes that “under the 19th-century legal doctrine still at the heart of much of modern immigration law, however, neither detention nor deportation counts as punishment, just as administrative remedies for the failure to exclude an undesirable foreigner in the first place, experts say.” It is evident, though, that deportation and the threat of it cause immigrants to suffer the equivalent of what the Supreme Court has deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment, which is a damning indictment of both the status quo and a possibly even crueler future under Trump.
This is of course what a left leaning US government would have done during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. Global Wall Street kill US labor AND enslaved Chinese labor working for free-----those exports to US allowed China to keep Chinese citizens enslaved. Now that global corporations are leaving to build Foreign Economic Zones in US and Africa-----China can now raise wages for Chinese workers so they can be the CONSUMERS just as Americans were before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA killed our thriving economy and middle-class jobs. It is not good policy for anyone to encourage global labor pool-----it has always been slave trade---far-right---whenever global citizens are forced into these structures because unemployment is kept deliberately high---AS TODAY IN THE US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
Strong public health policy stands with wages and conditions INSIDE SOVEREIGN NATIONS FOR SOVEREIGN CITIZENS.
For China, a Shift From Exports to Consumption
By BETTINA WASSENERJAN. 20, 2014
HONG KONG — BoConcept, a Danish furniture company that has more than 260 stores around the world, opened an outlet in Hong Kong last week amid flashing cameras, the deafening noise of drums and cymbals and a pair of lion dancers performing a traditional ceremony aimed at bringing good fortune to the shop.
The store is the first in Hong Kong for BoConcept, but the company already operates 18 in mainland China and is planning another six to eight across the country as it bets that rising affluence will continue to lift demand for its sleek sofas and coffee tables.
“We see a lot of opportunities in China,” said Kim Moelholm, regional director for Asia-Pacific at BoConcept.
China is in the midst of a major overhaul aimed at weaning its economy off its decades-long reliance on often inefficient state-driven investment and a manufacturing sector that has been highly geared to exporting to the rest of the world.
Raising domestic consumption of things like cars, washing machines and furniture is a key element of this rebalancing effort. So whether Mr. Moelholm is right in his assessment is of great importance for the Chinese economy, as well as for the many other retailers, manufacturers and service providers — including Ford Motor, the clothing company Burberry and the hotel chain Marriott — that have been expanding in China.
“Consumption is a key element of China’s rebalancing act,” said Stephen Green, head of Standard Chartered’s Greater China research in Hong Kong.
Data released Monday underlined just how rapidly the overall economy has been cooling as Beijing has sought, over the past two years, to rein in often poorly allocated lending and close down inefficient or polluting industries.
After years of supercharged growth and annual expansion rates of 10 percent or more, the economy expanded at 7.7 percent last year, the national statistics bureau said Monday. That was above the government’s target of 7.5 percent and the same as in 2012, but many analysts expect the pace to cool further this year as Beijing’s “tough love” approach to overhauling the economy continues to crimp lending and industrial activity.
Similarly, factory output and investment in fixed assets, which have been losing steam over much of the past year, continued to do so in December, the data showed.
But retail sales, which give a sense of how spending among China’s 1.3 billion inhabitants is holding up, have remained relatively firm, and notched a gain of 13.6 percent in December. The data, said Yao Wei, China economist in the Hong Kong office of Société Générale, was a bright spot in the statistics released Monday.
“Consumption is not exactly booming, but it is likely to remain okay this year,” Mr. Green said.
Moreover, he said, official figures tend to underestimate the role that consumption plays in the overall economy, as unrecorded “gray income” supplements the actual wealth of many households.
Wages have risen as millions of Chinese have moved from the countryside into the cities. And because China is rapidly aging, this means it is gradually getting harder for employers to find and retain workers.
Official figures released by the statistics office on Monday put the increase in the disposable income of urban residents at 9.7 percent last year, or 7 percent when factoring in inflation. Rural residents’ net income rose 9.3 percent when adjusted for inflation.
That has made life harder for many exporters, who are finding it difficult to deliver goods inexpensively.
But it has also increased the spending power of people like Li Yang, 32, a financial officer of a ship-repairing company.
Mr. Li bought his first car, a BYD Qin worth 210,000 renminbi, or $34,700, last month.
“I feel confident about China’s economic outlook and optimistic about my career,” he said. “I don’t agree with the media’s exaggeration of short-term fluctuations. China is far from what they like to suggest being on the verge of collapse. There is still much room for growth.”
Mr. Moelholm, the BoConcept executive, likewise has witnessed big changes in the way many Chinese spend.
“When we first started in Shanghai, 15 years ago, modern, imported furniture was still very uncommon,” he said. “Now, we are still niche and premium, but it is not uncommon now for people to come into one of our stores and place orders for 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 renminbi.”
The key question now is whether China’s consumption resilience will continue.
For China to generate more domestic consumption, said Richard Ho, who recently founded Athenee, a boutique advisory firm in Shanghai, it needs to foster a more vibrant private sector.
“If you can unleash the power of private enterprise and create a level playing field for private and state-owned businesses,” he said, employment and wage growth can continue — supporting domestic consumption.
“It’s a circle — they need to get the private sector right in order to get consumption going,” Mr. Ho said. “But it won’t happen overnight. For the next three to five years at least, the authorities will have no choice but to pump more ‘cold medicine’ into the economy, in the form of investments into fixed assets like infrastructure and plants.”
The authorities have begun to clamp down on official bank lending and “shadow” banking activities outside the regulated sector over the past year in a bid to reduce the risk of potential defaults further down the line. But a surge in these activities and in debt accrued by local governments since the global financial crisis means it will be hard to avoid at least some defaults, many analysts say.
“Our concern is that problems in the shadow banking sector could spill over into the formal banking system,” said Tom Byrne, a senior vice president and manager for Moody’s Sovereign Risk Group.
Chinese state-owned banks are well capitalized, he said, and as long as the economy manages growth of about 7 percent without generating still more rapid credit growth, he said, the banking system is likely to be able to absorb any losses. If economic growth slows to 6 percent, he said, “maybe. At 5 percent, probably not.”
At the same time, however, the restrictions on lending also risk hurting economic activity, so Beijing will have to be careful not to roll back state investment and lending too rapidly, analysts caution.
All of this makes it all the more crucial that China’s structural overhauls — which were outlined in fairly broad terms at a party meeting in November — bear fruit quickly.
“This is a make-or-break year for China,” said Mr. Green, the Standard Chartered economist.
Mr. Green said he was a “cautious bull” on China.
“But if we’re here next year and can’t point to a few substantive reforms, then we can start to worry a bit more,” he said. “We need to see the rubber hitting the tarmac this year.”