by Karl Widerquist | Mar 21, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in August 2009.
If I use the phrase “lesson of 1938,” most people will probably think about Britain’s unsuccessful attempt to avoid war with Nazi Germany by giving away a piece of Czechoslovakia. There are important lessons in that event, but that’s not what I want to talk about.
1938 was also an important year in American economic history, and the economic lesson of that year is relevant to our handling of the global recession today. By 1937, the Great Depression had been going on for eight years. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs had been stimulating the economy for five years, and they began to show significant signs of working. Industrial production and national income were coming back up. Employment was going back down. The economy appeared to be just about out of the depression—
—and then—
Roosevelt and Congress decided to balance the budget. They raised taxes. They reduced government spending. They contracted the money supply and helped send the economy back into depression by 1938, and it remained in recession for three more years. Unemployment was still 10 percent when the United States entered World War II at the end of 1941. At that point, the government started spending massive amounts of money. They worried less about the budget deficit and more about spending what it takes to do the job. The depression disappeared almost overnight.
The economic lesson of 1938 is that the government cannot balance the budget during a major recession—even in the early stages of recovery. A depressed economy needs a stimulus. Although politicians usually won’t say it out loud, a stimulus often requires not only spending but deficit spending. One of the things that turn a financial crisis into a recession is that people and businesses stop spending in a reinforcing cycle. They can’t afford to spend because they’re not making money. They’re not making money because no one else is spending. Only the government has the size and budget flexibility to break the cycle. In a financial recession, concern for the government’s budget deficit can wait.
The government can get away with deficit spending because the government budget doesn’t work like an individual’s budget or even a corporation’s budget. Government creates the money supply; its spending is not limited to what it takes in or what it can borrow. If you or I spend more than we can get, we will go broke. The government doesn’t have to “get” money. It creates money. If the government creates too much money at any given time, it will overstimulate the economy and create inflation. If inflation becomes a problem, we can take action, by say, taxing some of that money back, but for now it is not a major concern. At a time like this, when resources are going unused because no one’s buying, the government as a lot of leeway to create and spend money without worry of inflation.
We should be more concerned with making sure that the direct beneficiaries of government stimulus are the people most in need. Too often the government stimulates the economy by helping corporations (such as investment banks, automobile manufacturers, and defense contractors), telling us that the stimulus will indirectly make its way to help those who actually need help.
A more effective way to stimulate the economy and help people is with universal programs. Universal healthcare or a universal basic income guarantee would be excellent ways to do so.
-Karl Widerquist, Doha, Qatar August 9, 2009
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 14, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in May 2009.
The global recession has been spreading and deepening for nearly a year. It could become the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and it has captured nearly all of the attention we, our media, and our leaders pay to economic issues. Perhaps we’re paying too much attention to it. I want to convince you in this editorial that a recession—even a major depression—is not an economic problem of the first magnitude. Our most pressing economic problems are distribution, and they exist whether we are in recession or not. Recessions appear to be a major problem primarily because we allow existing distributional problems to get worse during recessions.
To see my argument, imagine that you lived through the entire Twentieth Century. You were born on January 1st, 1900 and died exactly 100 years later on January 1st, 2000. During all of that time, you were a member of a representative American family of three with an income equal to the average U.S. income for a family of that size.
I have included figures below of average income per person and per family of three for the entire Twentieth Century. The appendix includes a table with the background data for these figures as well as some information about the percentage changes you’re looking it. Don’t fear all these numbers. I’ll just ask you to glance at it and take a closer look at a few important ones. These figures are “adjusted for inflation” meaning that they are reported in 2008 prices. It is notoriously difficult to adjust for inflation in a world in which the prices of different goods are changing at different rates, new products are being introduced, and old products are being discontinued. Adjusting for inflation is much more subjective than most economists let on, but these figures represent our best guess about how to do it.
Financially, your imaginary family did awfully well during the Twentieth Century. A simple glance at the graph shows that your family’s income goes up and down, but mostly up. Your family’s income started at about $20,000 in 1900. It rose sporadically to reach $136,000 in 1999. That an increase of more than 577 percent—almost six times what your family made the day you were born. In the early years you could not have afford a computer, television, and many things we now take for granted, but your family’s $20,000 income would have been more than enough to pay for a home, for food, and for clothing for the whole family. At no time in that 100 year period would your family have had any difficulty securing its basic needs, and you were able to consume many luxuries as well.
Figure 1: GDP per family of three for the Twentieth Century
THIS FIGURE FAILED TO UPLOAD.
Figure 2: GDP per capita for the Twentieth Century
THIS FIGURE FAILED TO UPLOAD.
Your income didn’t rise every year; it fluctuated with the business cycle. Glance down the third column of the appendix table. That shows the percentage change in your income from year to year. The years when your income dropped (shown in bold) are the recession years. In the first half of the Twentieth Century, the business cycle was volatile. Your income could go down 9 percent one year and up 10 percent the next. But if you look at the graph, you see that the only downturn that looks terribly significant was the period of 1930-1933, when over four years your family’s income declined from by nearly 25% from $34,093 to $23,607.
You might be tempted to think that 1945-1947 was worse because your income declined by a greater percentage in a shorter time. To see that this isn’t so, you have to realize that there is a lot this table doesn’t show. I doesn’t show how hard you are working, how much you want to work, and what you’re working for. You had a great increase in your income during the years 1940-1945, but that was largely because you were working extra hard for the goal of winning the Second World War. The decline from 1945 to 1947 mostly reflects that you no longer needed to work so hard because the war was won. Your income in 1947 (after 3-years of decline) was still more than 25% percent higher than 1940 and 85% higher than in 1933. You were actually doing just fine in that year.
The depression was different. You didn’t want to work any less in those years, but as a representative American, you were unemployed 25% of the time in 1933. This would have been difficult for your family. You might have had to sell some of your luxuries or move into a smaller home. But your inflation-adjusted income was still more than 16 percent higher than when you were born. If you could feed, cloth, and house your family in 1900, you could do so in 1933 and you could have spent all of your additional income on luxuries that you couldn’t afford in 1900. As a representative American family, you were not in financial distress even in the depths of the Great Depression. There would have been no reason for a member of your family to stand in a bread line or head to California in search of work as a migrant farm laborer.
After 1950, the business cycle became even less of a problem for you and your family. You experienced the occasional 1 or 2 percent decline, but such a small decline would have been barely noticeable, especially with your income being 300% or 400% higher than a few decades earlier. The worst recessions such as in the mid 70s and early 80s caused less than a 3 percent drop in your income. That might have slowed your accumulation of savings or caused you to put off buying a new luxury for a year or two, but no more than that.
The current recession might well cause national income to drop by 6 percent this year. Suppose it goes on, and we experience a decline similar to the Great Depression, say lowering national income to 20 percent less than it was in 1999. That would bring the income of our representative American family down to $109,509—higher than in the boom year of 1987. That means, even if we suffer the worst depression since the 1930s, we will still have a greater technical capacity to feed, clothe, house, and provide luxuries our people than we did in the boom year of 1987. If we dealt with such a crisis sensibly, it would affect only our consumption of luxuries, not necessities.
These facts illustrate the point that I’m trying to make: if we keep in mind the truly important economic issues, recessions are something we can easily handle. The most important thing about your income is not whether it rises or falls by a few percentage points in a given year, but that’s all a recession is. The most important thing is not even that your income grows over time, although a growing income is always nice. Actually, the most important thing about your income is that it meets your needs.
Our main concern about the national economy should be same the same as each individual’s main concern about his or her own income. Before worrying about the bankers, or about the rise or fall of an abstract figure like GDP, we should ask ourselves: how can we secure food, housing, clothing, medical care, and education for everyone? Whether we are in a recession or not has little to do with our answer to that question. Going back to 1776, there has never been a time when America lacked the economic capacity to secure every citizen’s needs. Nor was there a time when it was even close. This fact is not unique to America. Economist Amartya Sen has found evidence that there has not been a famine in modern history in which any nation actually lacked the economic capacity to feed its citizens. Modern famines have all been caused by mal-distribution of plentiful resources.
Sen’s observation is true only for modern history, not for all of human history. The Norse in Greenland, the Mayan Empire, the Easter Islanders and other societies all apparently experienced episodes in which they simply could not feed their people. But these were environmental disasters, not financial depressions. Once we solve the important economic problems of how to secure our needs without screwing up our environment, even a severe depression means no more than a fluctuation in our accumulation of luxuries. Distribution of necessities is what is important, not a 10 percent fluctuation in our ability to produce luxuries. A recession is a trivial issue for the nation as a whole; it is a minor fluctuation in output. This could and should cause no more than a pause in our accumulation of luxuries.
Of course, what actually happens during recessions is significant: more people are in poverty; more people are homeless; more people lack their necessities; more people have reason to fear economic security. All of this is true, but it is only true because we allow it to happen. We had the technical capacity to eliminate economic deprivation in the recession years of 1982 and 1992 just as we did in the boom years of 1987 and 1999. We did not do solve these problems in boom years and we let them get worse in recession years. A recession cannot hurt anyone in a significant way unless we let it. The tragedy is that we let it.
-Karl Widerquist, begun in Reykjavik, Iceland, completed in Oxford, UK, May 2009
Appendix: GDP per capita and per family of three in constant 2008 dollars for the Twentieth Century
by Tyler Prochazka | Mar 13, 2018 | News
The second annual Basic Income Asia Pacific conference will be held in Taipei, Taiwan on March 17 and 18. This year’s theme is “Asia Pacific’s Economic Future.”
Keynote speeches will be delivered by Enno Schmidt, the Swiss referendum leader, and Dr. Sarath Davala, the lead researcher for the UNICEF basic income trials in India.
“The focus on Asia is necessary to understand how we are going to interpret the idea regionally – given Asia’s own specificities and peculiarities. This conference is going to open this much needed conversation. This event is yet another milestone achieved by the UBI Taiwan, one of the most dynamic national groups,” Davala said.
Leading thinkers in academia, government and NGOs from Taiwan, mainland China, India, Bangladesh, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States will join the conference to discuss the challenges facing the Asia Pacific and potential solutions, such as basic income.
Dr. Hermann Aubie is a lecturer at Aston University in the United Kingdom. His research specializes on comparing basic income movements in East Asia and Europe.
“This conference offers a rare and precious opportunity in the Asia Pacific region to build upon the wave of renewed attention that Universal Basic Income gained in recent years to discuss actively how we can create a wider consensus and concrete initiatives that build upon existing basic income designs and pilot implementations across the world,” Aubie said.
The entire conference will be live-streamed on UBI Taiwan’s Facebook account, including both English and Chinese audio simultaneous translations.
Taiwan has recently lowered the threshold for referendums, which has opened the possibility for a UBI referendum in Taiwan. This will be a topic of particular focus for two of the presentations at the conference, including Schmidt who will present on how Taiwan can lead Asia with a UBI referendum.
“With the introduction of Direct Democracy this year in Taiwan, the UBI Taiwan proponents have the same chance and political tool to turn UBI into a nationwide discussion and to push it to a people’s vote like the Swiss have done,” Schmidt said.
The conference coincides with increased discussion of basic income in the Asia Pacific, with the UN Development Program holding roundtable discussions on basic income in Beijing, China last October and December, as well as Korea discussing designs for a a pilot program.
“With the second annual UBI Asia Pacific regional conference approaching, we have expanded into two days, allowing us to share our ideas of how to improve society through implementation of Universal Basic Income,” said Ping Xu, co-founder of UBI Taiwan and UBI Asia Pacific.
The conference will examine the economic and social challenges facing the Asia Pacifc region, and will assess what a basic income policy can do to address these issues, such as inequality, automation, globalization, demographics, and environmental issues.
Last year’s conference attracted 100 participants and thousands of online viewers. The conference helped bring attention to basic income in Taiwan, with the formation of a UBI summer fellowship program and discussions with the Taichung Social Affairs Bureau about a potential pilot program.
The event is organized by National Chengchi University’s (NCCU) College of Social Sciences, and NCCU’s International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies. It will be held at NCCU on March 17 and NTU on March 18. The event’s volunteers and coordinating team are part of UBI Taiwan.
“At this juncture of history where poverty and inequality are rising rapidly, I think we urgently need a “new universalism” of the kind UBI promises. There’s a long road and a lot of work ahead of us to make it a reality, but as more and more people place their hope in UBI’s emancipatory potential to protect their livelihood, human rights and dignity, we just can’t afford to disappoint such expectations,” Aubie said.
Writing Assistance from: James Grant
by Julen Bollain | Mar 10, 2018 | News
Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark have just published a new book titled “Against Charity”.
Both authors argue for an unconditional universal basic income above the poverty line and paid for by progressive taxation to both eradicate poverty and empower recipients—the result being the human right of material existence. The burning issue is not charity, but justice.
Raventós and Wark affirm that charity is not a gift. In their own words, “gift-giving implies reciprocity, an ongoing relationship. When requital is impossible, the act of giving remains outside mutual ties and charity becomes yet another manifestation of class structure, a sterile one-way act upholding the status quo”.
Vacuuming up all the profits thanks to a weak labor movement, lower taxes, and tax havens, the global elite then turns around and remakes the world in its own image, distributing charitable donations that can hardly be mistaken with generosity. In the book, postmodern versions of nineteenth-century charity are described as trying to keep wealth and power in a few hands, countering people’s desire for greater income equality.
Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark present a thorough analysis of charity from the perspectives of philosophy, history, religion, and anthropology. They conclude that charity is an unequal relationship, presupposing the persistence of poverty and serving as a prop for capitalism.
Book reference:
Daniel Raventós and Julie Wark, “Against Charity”, CounterPunch, 2018
by Karl Widerquist | Mar 7, 2018 | Opinion, The Indepentarian
This essay was originally published in the USBIG NewsFlash in February 2009.
Like millions of people around the world, I watched Obama’s inaugural last month and saw the panning shots of huge crowds against the backdrop of the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. This image made me think not only about Washington and Lincoln but also Martin Luther King, Jr. and the pictures of the crowds listening to his “I Have a Dream” Speech. The fact that that picture from the center of U.S. capital brings to mind those three names, shows how much the racial divide has affected U.S. history.
There is a line on the Washington Monument about a third of the way up to where the stone slightly changes colors. Tour guides say that this line is there because construction was halted during the Civil War, and builders couldn’t find a perfect match for the original stone when construction resumed. There is something fitting about that. Slavery disfigures Washington’s legacy. Washington made it clear that he knew slavery was wrong, as did Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and many other revolutionary leaders. But none of them found a way to put an end to it. Instead, they set us on a path that led to the Civil War, and to the racial divide that Lincoln and King dreamed of resolving.
With the election of Obama, the United States became the first majority-white nation to elect a black chief executive. I think most Americans of both parties are rightly proud of that. Ideally, there should be nothing special about electing a member of a minority group, but for more than two centuries, America chose all of its presidents because they were white men. This time we didn’t. Certainly, our willingness to put a black man in charge indicates that racism isn’t as strong as it was 50 years ago when few whites would accept a black in any position of authority over them. Maybe white racial identity will no never be a prerequisite for political success in the United States.
The election of a black president is probably the most significant in a long series of small victories in the struggle against racism in America, but it doesn’t mean racism is over. Familiar racist incidents are still happening. On election night three white supremacists set fire to a predominately African-American church in Massachusetts. On New Year’s Day, a police officer in California shot an unarmed black man who was being held down on the ground by another police officer. In three states, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, more than 85% of whites voted for the white candidate and more than 85% of blacks voted for the black candidate. Such racially polarized voting has to indicate a continuing problem with racism.
And, as Rev. Joseph Lowery reminded us in his benediction at Obama’s inaugural, oppression isn’t about any one group. It would not be a victory for equality if European-Americans lost all prejudice against African-Americans only to single out some other group such as Arab-Americans, women, gays, Muslims, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. But comparing the United States today to where it was 50 years ago, I think members of almost every group that has suffered from prejudice would say we have made significant progress.
How will we know when we have won? I’ll offer two thoughts. First, ask a member of the oppressed group. Ask many. Don’t tell anybody else when their problems are solved; let them tell you. Second, maybe oppression is over when we have no more ghettos. As long as children still grow up in large concentrations of poverty, despair, and danger, we still have oppressed people whatever their identity.
I think this is why Martin Luther King turned to the Poor People’s Campaign in the last year of his life. Nominal legal equality was largely achieved by the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-60s, and King recognized that economic and social barriers were now the main obstacle to real equality and freedom. King proposed a host of economic reforms, including a basic income guarantee, not to reduce—but to eliminate—poverty, because by then poverty was the greatest source of oppression in America. It remains so today.
I think we can celebrate an important achievement, but we should remember that we have lot more to do to build a society free from oppression.
-Karl Widerquist, Reading UK, January 2009
