Mongolia is an East Asian country located between the two giant powers of the world: China in the South, and Russia in the north. As a classic example of a mineral-rich developing country, Mongolia has an export-driven economy in which 90% of the exports come from its minerals[1].
The country’s quick and vigorous action on preventing the spread of COVID-19 resulted in a notable success in fighting the pandemic so far. The country has relatively few cases with 310 confirmed cases and still no deaths in the middle of September 2020. But this success has come at a price.
According to the UN, in the first quarter of 2020, Mongolia’s economy contracted by 10.7 per cent, and government revenue fell by 8.6 per cent year on year, whilst expenditure went up 19.3 per cent[2]. On the other hand, the country struggles to boost its export-driven economy that is tightly tied to China. Asian Development Bank (ADB) estimates show that Mongolia will suffer significant investment and consumption shocks in addition to negative global demand spillovers in 2020. In addition to that, there is mounting international debt[3].
However, Mongolia is an interesting country that the world can learn some lessons from regarding the role of states in the ongoing health crisis of COVID-19. The country perhaps was the first developing country that introduced a resources-to-cash scheme[4], and with the COVID crisis this scheme is back on the agenda.
With the outbreak of COVID-19 during the winter of 2019-2020, Mongolian citizens were promised a cheque of up to 96,480 tugrugs (USD 34), but this promise was not a usual handout like in other countries. Mongolians who were born before April 11th 2014 are shareholders of a company called Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi (ETT) that manages a massive coal deposit on the state’s behalf; do these cash payments are dividends distributed by the company to its shareholders[5].
In 2019, the company made USD 1 billion and 30 million from its sales. For this reason, the dividend per share was calculated to be MNT 90, which results in MNT 96 thousand being given to each individual’s 1,072 shares. Minister D.Sumiyabazar said that the amount of the dividend will be raised further if the company’s revenue goes up[6].
As mentioned above, this resource-to-cash payment was not a new experience for Mongolians. In 2004, the government started to experiment with universal resource-financed payments for children. In 2010, the child-oriented payments were replaced with the new Human Development Fund (HDF) that was financed from mining dividends to provide a universal basic income that was paid monthly to every citizen. Mongolians monthly received MNT 21 thousand between 2010 and 2012 through the HDF. This experience provided a unique perspective on public ownership and revenue sharing in the mineral sector as citizens got a direct and equal share of their country’s wealth as co-owners of their country[7].
However, these payments were based on election promises and resulted in a vast deficit in the HDF as the expenditures were exceeding the actual mineral revenues[8]. In 2012, HDF was stopped and child-oriented payments were brought back.
On the other hand, in 2011, through a new scheme, every citizen received 1,072 shares in the ETT. Mongolians could use these shares for different purposes including tuition fees for students, health insurance coverage, or cash through a stock repurchase program by the government. Around 1.08 million Mongolians have kept all their shares and are entitled to a full dividend payout of MNT 96,480 (USD 34)[9].
Although these cash transfers have reduced poverty and inequality, and increased the transparency of the company’s actions and performance, the experience has taught the important lesson that it is not enough just to give cash payouts if the scheme is poorly designed and implemented[10]. As mentioned above, these cash payments have been used as tools to win elections, and this has resulted in an increased debt and an increase in inflation. In this regard, in 2019 the country passed an Election Law that prohibited the political parties from using the promise of cash transfers for elections.
Although the cash payments that were promised a few months ago are different from the previous cash transfers, as “The board (of ETT) has approved for the first time to distribute dividends to shareholders according to the Company Law. In the past, the state used its preferential rights to buy stakes from some people in cash. This time, it’s not a cash payout but a legal dividend distribution”, Minister D.Sumiyabazar said[11], we can still see something of the old tendency: a connection between elections and cash transfers.
On May 1, it was announced by the Minister of Mining and Heavy Industry that 100 thousand MNT was going to be distributed, but one month later there was still no payment. Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi company had already transferred 60 billion MNT to Mongolian Central Securities Depository but it is obvious that the government was holding it up due to the parliamentary election[12].
As we can see, the Mongolia experiment contains very important lessons in regard to the resource-to-cash payments. This experience underlines the importance of independent institutions from governments being tasked with the distribution of basic income type payments. If we understand these experiences and learn from them, it could provide a new perspective for governments in their fight with COVID-19.
Despite all kind of criticism regarding the government’s approach on resource-to-cash payments; people are losing their jobs, hopes, and voices all over the world, and this kind of resource-to-cash scheme gives a sense of certainty and security to people (without the burden of stigmatization), especially in such uncertain and volatile times.
COVID-19 doesn’t distinguish between rich or poor, and neither can we. More than ever we need schemes that don’t differentiate between people, because in these unprecedented times no-one knows if they will be the next one who is going to be affected by this crisis one way or another.
Below is the a copyedited version of the speech I delivered at the Basic Income March, New York, October 26, 2019 in the Bronx, New York, October 26, 2019. Pierre Madden ranscribed and copyedited it, in Montreal, Quebec, September 2020. Then I copyedited it again, at St. Elizabeth’s, Napoleon Avenue, New Orleans, September 11-13, 2020
I march for UBI because it’s wrong to come between anybody and the resources they need to survive and that is exactly what we do in just about every country in the world today. Poverty doesn’t just happen. People don’t get themselves into poverty. Poverty is a lack of access to resources. The world is full of resources. The only reason you can lack access to the resources you need to survive is because somebody else controls them whether it’s an owner, whether it’s a politburo or whether it’s a bureaucracy. It doesn’t matter who controls them. If it’s not you and they say you can’t use them unless you do what we say, you are not free.
A video of the actual speech, October 26, 2019
Freedom is independence. Freedom is the power to say no to anybody who wants to give you orders. But we’ve set up the world so it seems so natural that some people should just own the earth. And the rest of us, the 90%, the 99%, we all have to go to them to get our job or we have no resources to keep us alive. And we call that “work.” We act like there’s no other kind. As if the only thing work could possibly mean is going and taking orders from somebody who has more privileges than you do. Working for yourself has become impossible. It’s been impossible since we kicked the peasants off the land and enclosed the commons. Working for yourself has been impossible since we killed the buffalo. Working for yourself has been impossible since we abducted the slaves. And the freed slaves knew this at the end of the Civil War. That’s why they asked for 40 acres and a mule. Unfortunately, their masters knew it too: that’s why they didn’t get it.
Marching from Harlem to the South Bronx October 26, 2019
There’s nothing wrong with a job. Jobs don’t make you unfree. What makes you unfree is when instead of saying I want you to work for me so I am going to pay you enough that you’ll want to work for me, they say I’m going to take everything starve you into submission. A small group of owners took all the resources. They didn’t invent these resources. These resources were here before all of us. And this group of people, this tiny little privileged group of people are going to take all the resources and they are not going to share with anybody until the people who have nothing provide services for the people who already own everything. That’s why when you control resources, you don’t get just the resources; you get to control other people.
The obligation should go in the other direction. Instead of the poor being obliged to work for the rich, the rich should be obliged to work for the poor. The only thing you could possibly do to justify owning resources, to own more resources than other people do, to have more access to resources, to have more control over resources, to use and use up more resources than other people do, is to provide some sort of service for them.
The New York Basic Income March, October 16, 2019
That’s why we need to tax the owners of property. All property is made out of resources. Every single piece of property, even on the internet. You need a place to stand when you make the internet. You need energy to make that internet work. All property is made out of resources.
They’ll tell you they’ve paid for those resources. No, they paid the last guy who owned them. They didn’t pay all of us who don’t own any resources. If you want to take a part of the earth that was here before you, you’ve got to pay back, provide a service for those who own nothing. That’s why you have to pay a tax on resources and the distribution of the revenue from that tax has to be unconditional.
But they’ll say, that’s something for nothing. No, that’s exactly backwards. The system we have now is something for nothing, where people who own the Earth don’t pay anything to those of us who therefore must do without. That’s something for nothing.
The South Bronx, October 26, 2019
We pretend we’re free because we have a choice of which one of these property owners we can work for. A choice of masters is not freedom. Freedom is independence. Freedom is the power to say no to anyone who would want to be your master. When you establish that, everybody gets some of the value of the resources of this earth, enough to live in dignity, enough to survive, enough that you don’t have to work unless somebody makes it worth your while. Oh, but they will say: All those lazy workers won’t work if you do that.
Notice how it’s always lazy workers and never cheap employers. No, that’s never said. So what we’re really doing when we say this, is we’re taking sides in a dispute. When somebody offers a job and somebody else doesn’t want it, that’s a dispute about wages and working conditions. Everyone has their price, right? So, if there’s a good price, people will take it: Good wages, good working conditions. Someone will take that job. But if we say whatever the wage is, if you don’t take that job you’re a lazy worker. Never a cheap employer. It’s like we’re looking at a dispute and pretending it’s not even a dispute. We’re pretending that only this side counts. We’re taking sides in a dispute, and we’re siding with the most privileged person. We’re morally judging the weakest, the least powerful person, the most vulnerable person, and leaving the privileged people beyond reproach, as if they’re not even a party to a dispute.
A video documentary of the Basic Income March, Harlem to the South Bronx, Ching Juhl, October 26, 2019
That’s the way the system works today.
And that’s based on a ridiculous assumption that the privileged people of the world, whether they’re in government or whether they’re private resource owners, they get to judge everybody else. They get to judge the weak and the vulnerable. They say: you deserve to live; you don’t. You go be homeless, you go eat out of dumpsters or do whatever else you have to do to keep yourself alive. That is the ridiculous assumption that there is anyone who doesn’t deserve the basic resources that they need to survive. And they decide who’s deserving on the self-serving assumption that privileged people have the right to judge whether unprivileged people deserve to survive. Those assumptions are self-serving to begin with. And look how self-servingly they use that power! In practice, the number one thing that we ask of the poor is, “if you’re truly needy, are you willing to work for the rich?”
Are you willing to work for people who own property? That’s what you’ve got to do to prove that you’re worthy. That’s so self-serving on the part of the privileged. And for almost all of us, it’s self-defeating, because most of us don’t have enough property to work for ourselves. The vast majority of us have to work for someone who owns enough property to hire us. By creating the situation where the more privileged to get to block the less privileged from the resources they need to survive, we’ve created a situation where just about everybody has to work either directly or indirectly for the wealthiest of us.
Marching from Harlem to the Bronx, October 26, 2020
And that creates this terrible work incentive problem. When they talk about incentives, they only talk about the incentives for those lazy workers to work. What about the incentive for those cheap employers to pay good wages? That incentive problem doesn’t just affect the people at the low end. 41 years ago, real per capita income was half of what it is now. That means we could all be working half as much and consuming the same or we could be working the same and consuming twice as much as we did 41 years ago. But most people are working just as much as their parents were 41 years ago and consuming little if any more than their parents did 41 years ago. We’ve had all this economic growth all this automation in the past 41 years and the benefits have all gone to the top 1%. Basic Income is not just for those other people at the low end, it’s for everybody who has no other choice but to work for a living.
We have owed each other a Basic Income since we enclosed the common lands, since we abducted the slaves, since we killed the buffalo not because some long-dead person stole something from some other long-dead person but because they created a system that privileges some, impoverishes others, and corrupts us all. We all owe each other a Basic Income now. That’s why I’m marching today and thank you for joining me. –Karl Widerquist, the Bronx, New York, October 26, 2019, final edits St. Elizabeth’s, Napoleon Avenue, New Orleans, September 13, 2020
A video interview of Karl Widerquist, by Ching Juhl, June 22, 2020
>
All the images and videos above are by Ching Juhl of Juhl Media.
>
>
Pierre Madden, transcribed this text, did some of the copyedting.
I can’t claim to be a friend of David Graeber. I can say I am his fan and that his work has influenced the way I see the world. I met him twice though. I met him first two years ago for dinner at Barb Jacobson’s place where he arrived in a long coat accompanied by a mild fever. He just had some hot tea while we shamelessly gobbled our beers. He came to meet me because I was my friend Barb’s Indian basic income comrade hanging out with her in her London apartment in Charles Rowan House. David sat with us for a long time chatting and answering our questions. Julio Linares his student at LSE and my dearest friend was also with us.
The next day I went to the London School of Economics campus with Julio just to hang out with him in the Anthropology department. We had the Hare Rama Hare Krishna free lunch that they serve to students on the campus. Then we walked around and on an impulse barged into David’s office in the anthropology department. He was working in his sun-lit office. As we entered and greeted him, we accosted a box of his yet unpublished proof copies of Bullshit Jobs. Julio and I picked up one each and bullied him to sign our copies. He was such a comrade he didn’t mind our playful bullying and very affectionately signed the copies. When he signed his unique signature, I asked: ‘David, can you sign this again?’. He smiled and nodded. Being self-proclaimed anarchist, he said something that I will now leave to your imagination.. And we chatted for a while and left him to continue his work.
I cried when I got the news about his death. Megan Coxwell an American poet and Barb’s niece who was also with us that evening with David, sent me a message on FB messenger about his sudden death. I screamed when I saw the message. It was half past eleven at night in India. What made me sob more was just an hour ago I was talking to a group of international students, and I said: ‘ If you want to understand the poor, you need to understand ‘debt’ because they live in perennial debt. It has a curse. Please read David Graeber’s book ‘Debt – the first 5000 years’. He gives a perspective. Let’s talk about the book next time we meet.’
What more can I say?
Each time I think of him I have tears in my eyes. The meeting I am talking about was in 2018 Spring in London. Last year, I desperately called him and was keen to have him at the BIEN Congress in Hyderabad. But he was about to get married and legitimately preoccupied with it.
The last I met him was online when he invited me to speak at a Spectre TV inaugural discussion. It was one of the most enjoyable and deepgoing discussions I have ever had.
I miss you David. I was hoping to come and see you this winter. God bless your wife and the rest of your family. What more can I say?
Since I heard from a mutual friend at lunchtime today: ‘David is gone’, the shock I felt then seems to have reverberated around the world. One of the most curious of minds, finest of writers, kindest of hearts, most courageous and consistent callers of bull shit ever. Gone.
David and I met over a Twitter conversation about the appalling copy editing of the first edition of ‘Debt the 5000 years’. After swallowing the book whole when it came out in 2011, I complained on Twitter that it must not have had an editor, some of the sentences didn’t read as smoothly as most of the others, in fact were pretty confusing. David came back immediately that no, in fact it had too many, apparently nine before publication, but he was red-lining a copy for the paperback edition. I grumped in response that yes that’s it, no one had pulled a paper copy before, impossible to see all the faults on screen.
The last chapter of ‘Debt’ reintroduced me to the concept of basic income and sent me off round the internet to find out about it. UBI pulled together all the strands of my organising over the previous 30 years: housing, heath, welfare, work and women. Unlike monetary reform I could talk about it from my own experience, from the gut. I liked the fact that people either loved or hated the idea straight away, and it was fun to talk people round who immediately disliked the idea to at least consider it more seriously.
Later on in 2013 I invited David round for food with a friend, after feeling that if he had finally responded to Brad deLong’s obsessive trolling he must be lonely. He arrived in spatz, and was somehow nothing like the writer, or the Twitter warrior in his gentleness and kindness. I myself was at a low ebb: my job as a welfare rights advisor was getting ever bleaker with the reforms, and the propaganda campaign against claimants. His interest in the idea that shame about welfare is the flip-side of the shame about debt was encouraging, and he respected my experience even without a book to my name. We went on to be great buddies.
Since I’d lived in London and been politically active here since 1981, I knew the genealogies of most groups and people on the left. From David I got a better picture of what had been going on in the US in the aftermath of Occupy and in academia. We talked a lot about value, and care, politics of course – though we didn’t always agree – and personal travails, especially as Americans abroad.
By 2013 I was also trying to organise a movement for basic income here in the UK, but not making much of it. Over the next years David was consistently encouraging, getting me to speak about it at meetings, getting me a gig on the Keiser Report, doing an interview about it with me for Occupy London Youtube. I don’t know that I would have stuck with basic income without David. He helped me find my voice.
David refused to be pigeon-holed into writing about just one thing after he had a lot of pressure to carry on about debt after the success of ‘Debt’. He insisted that there was little point in being famous if he didn’t use it to write or talk about whatever interested him. We are all the richer for it, with considerations of bullying, democracy, bureaucracy, money, work, play, the future, care and many other subjects that defy expectation, challenge assumptions and expand our minds.
When David interviewed me about basic income for the final chapter of ‘Bullshit Jobs’ in 2018 I was worried about protecting the charity I worked for, so I didn’t want to be named. Also it seemed apt if everybody else was under a pseudonym that I should be too. He was sceptical, but respected it. And then made me two people for good measure.
David used the power he had as an academic, activist and a writer, and the money he earned by it, to pull many people and groups out of financial, academic, political holes. Others will talk in more detail about his role in saving the Syrian Kurds from Isis, but this is only the most famous of his interventions. He added his voice to defend Corbyn from the accusations of anti-semitism when Corbyn wasn’t defending himself. While a self-proclaimed anarchist, a practitioner and defender of direct action, an expert in consensus-building within groups, he was also a pragmatist about working with politicians, and did whatever he could to support working class demands.
David enjoyed what he had, and never forgot where he came from. He constantly acknowledged the fact that he got many of his ideas from conversations with other people, and insisted that the famous ‘We are the 99%’ was written by committee. He wrote and said publicly what so many of us thought or experienced silently, and in doing so changed our collective consciousness about it.
He always said, ‘The problem with privilege is that not everyone has it’. David lived his life working to spread what privilege he had as widely as he could, in whatever way came to hand. For that his life stands as an example of what to do with privilege, while owning one’s access to it.
That was the foundation of his support for basic income. For him it was a way to spread his privilege of having a secure, and sufficient income, while also having the freedom to pretty much do what he wanted. He wanted everyone to have that. ‘The imagination strikes back’, he said about it.
He was quite insistent that we start the negotiations high. ‘Oh I don’t know, about £30k? That’s good, isn’t it?’
I’m so grateful for what David wrote, and what he did, for our friendship and laughter over the years. But now there will always be that next other thing I won’t be able to discuss with him when it occurs.
Details of the unconditional local currency income experiment in Maricá can be found here; with a translation in Portuguese here.
The European Commission is advertising for a post-doctoral researcher to study the unconditional local currency experiment in Maricá in Brazil. Details of the opportunity can be found here.
