h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

" ...Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett's remarkable new book The Spirit Level. Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/15/equality-economy-will-hutton

So what should we do?

Become Commies, obviously

And all become equally poor Here's a better idea - http://www.juryteam.org/about.php

Reminds me of something Edward the Bonobo is always saying. Even as a matter of practical selfishness, equality is better. We don't want to live in gated communities in fear of the plebs.

Ed says it better.

TRiG.

Eek! Not only am I being quoted - which is scary enough in itself - but I'm now expected to remember what it was I said.

Well done, pedro. I've been meaning to post on this book myself.

Sharon:
>>And all become equally poor

What? You mean like the Swedes?

Oh sorry. I hadn't realised Sweden was Communist. My apologies.

But your name's Sharon Sharealike. The second part sounds a bit communist.

...to each according to his need, from each according to his ability...

Feeling a bit blurry just now, but listened yesterday to some uk government bod who was defending Quantitative Easing In the end she said that money really meant nothing. It was 'assets' that were the business. ( rush off and buy gold folks)


Also, I find a great affinity to the Culture novels of Iain M Banks whereby money has lost significance, you'd have to read him yourself to understand, just now I'm too but I sincerely believe there *is* a valid point to be made here. I'm just not in the right frame of mind to argue it tonight

'pologies to Sharon for having given the wrong impression in my last comment.

As for the Jury Team link...I'm not convinced that the problem can be summed up so simplistically as 'Politicians'. Note that the less unequal poverties with better indices for crime, health, etc. etc. also have politicians - and I don't think it could be convincingly argued that they are any better than those we have here.

I'm also unconvinced that a non-party system is the answer. The book 'The Spirit Level' that pedro refers to argues for shift in focus from growth to equality. This is an ideological shift. It would take coordinated action to deliver it. To my mind, this suggests that it would need a party to push it, rather than a disparate group of unaffiliated individuals.

Assuming a party *did* get behind it...I wonder what mechanisms would be needed to bring the change about? A redistributive fiscal policy sounds like the obvious place to start. The argument against this, though, is it would reduce our competitiveness as a nation.

Perhaps it's useful to look at how the other, more equal nations managed it (The Scandiwegians; Japan; to a lesser extent, various European nations). Perhaps it's significant that they started earlier than us, during the post-WWII 'economic golden age'.

I've a hunch that the answer may lie somewhere in European integration. One feature of the European project has been the desire, from Germany and France in particular, to level competition within the EU so that they can maintain their welfare states. Britain, meantime, has latterly been moving towards a flexible, competitive (read 'low wage/ reduced job security') economy. The question is to what extent the European model is viable in the face of global competition.

maybe we are behind europe because of this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7942086.stm

Mr. Non got his own back on us

Ah Edward. Ideologies, ideologies, ideas bigger than a man, ologies - like theology? An idea that becomes a religion perhaps? What better way to ensure mass appeal for the unpalatable than to make objecting a sin and sins are moveable feasts are they not? Where have I heard this before? Rousseau? Robespierre? Replace religion with an idea and the people will follow. Supplant the Holy Trinity with egalitie, fraternite et libertie, bish-bash-bosh it's a New Opiate For The Masses. To Marx, the Karl with the snarl who spoke for the working man despite never doing a day's work himself. Who beseeched the redistribution of wealth from those that earned it to those that yearned it. Funny chap, our myopic sage. He thought necessity and need were all that drove mankind, conveniently omitting jealousy and greed. A fatal flaw. And with European Unity a New Socialism perhaps? Not internationalist per se (tried and failed, bled out on the cobbles of Sarajevo) but A Third Way? Turn our backs on International Socialism for what? National Socialism? Sell the idea but backed with a stick, or a bundle of sticks as dear old Benito would say? And a Benito's the boy for this game. Because those that have will fight to keep what they desire. Redistribution has more than an element of "take". Do you imagine that the Lords of the Entitled will dance to the fiddler's tune and smile in the act? Shut the wardrobe door dear Edward, Narnia's cold at this time of year.
Men with big ideas are so un-erotic, don't you find? I prefer the men with an eye for the details, to be seduced by a thousand soft kisses rather than the wham-bam emptiness of le grand jig-a-jig. So yes, an end to the Parties with their three line whips and chains of bondage and hello big boy to the accountable politicians who answer directly to those most affected by them.

Well...fair enough.

So your practical programme for moving towards a more equal society begins...where?

not with a jig-a-jig, anyway...


How about make acts of greed unlawful?

No, seriously...

Discussing it endlessly in internet fora, obviously!

Socialism? Come, you must have read Hayek?

Well...unfortunately I'm unconvinced by his argument that the market will automatically organise itself in the right way. A major feature of the unbridled market is that it moves welth in one direction and broadens inequality. Wilkinson and Pickett provide a case that this doesn't leave anyone happy.

My suggestion is that markets have to me manipulated (somehow) to serve society as a whole. You can call that socialism if you wish. I'd be equally happy to call it social marketeering, social democracy...whatever. Basically, the sort of thing that the less-unequal, healthier, happier societies have managed to pull off.

Another book along similar lines, which I must get around to, is Oliver James's 'Affluenza'. He talks a lot about 'The Scandinavian Exception'...ie, when looking at all the statistics on wealth, health, education, welfare, productivity, etc. etc. in the developed world, one always has to say 'Except in Scandinavia...'

"How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden"

http://www.perbylund.com/the_library_howthewelfarestatecorrupted.htm

There's a heckuva lot in there that resonates here in the UK.