Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes Universal Birthrights Chapter 7What can we learn from a board game?$Cha Ching$Comparing Health Care: USA vs. CanadaA few persuasive facts…Arguments and Counterarguments for Universal DividendsCont.Cont. (last one)Capitalism 3.0 by Peter Barnes Universal Birthrights Chapter 7Ross SaxtonWhat can we learnfrom a board game?•Initial equality dramaticallyincreases the average person’s chances of succeeding in life (Society starts out in a more equitable situation- Children’s Opportunity Trust. Individual Inheritance Accounts and Ind. Retirement Accounts)•Annual dividends distributed equally helps too (collect $200 and go- e.g. a Permanent Fund)•But I’m not so sure about “get out of jail free” cards…$Cha Ching$•American Permanent Fund Sources:-selling pollution permits, water consumption permits, etc.-charge corporations for using the public trading system (create “fancy doormen”)“Cushion of reliable income”Comparing Health Care: USA vs. CanadaCanada takes the cake…•Universal. All residents are covered.• Comprehensive. All medically necessary services are covered.•Not-for-profit. Each provincial plan is not-for-profit.• Accessible. Premiums are affordable or subsidized.• Portable. Coverage continues when a person travels.A few persuasive facts…•Per capita cost of health care for Canadians- 45% less than Americans. •Canada pays less than 10 cents on every health care dollar on administration. America? About 30 cents. But who’s healthier? Hint: they play hockeyU.S. CanadaEstimated per capita expenditures(2004; US$) $6,040 $3,326Percent spent on administration (1999) 26% 10%Monthly premium for a family of four $1,045 $88Male life expectancy (years) 75 77Female life expectancy (years) 81 84Infant mortality (per 1,000 births) 6.4 4.7Arguments and Counterargumentsfor Universal DividendsArgument: Paying dividends to everyone would undermine the work ethic.Counterargument: This might be true if the dividends were very high, but is unlikely to be true if they’re kept at a modest level. Such dividends would supplement, but not replace, labor income. At the same time, they’d give people a little more freedom to take time off or to engage in uncompensated work at home or in their communities. Actually, a case can be made for slightly reducing the work ethic.With ever more jobs moving overseas, it’s by no means certain we can keep all Americans employed. If some people choose to work less, that might be a good thing.Cont.Argument: Paying people “something for nothing” would hurt the economy.Counterargument: Our economy already pays many people for doing nothing, or for doing fairly useless things; it also overpays people who do useful things. None of this really hurts the economy as long as people spend or invest the money they’re paid. In fact, paying people for “nothing” could actually help our economy, once we recognize that there’s more to the economy than what shows up in gross domestic product. If people had a small cushion of nonlabor income, many would go back to school, start small businesses, spend more time with their kids, pursue artistic impulses, or participate in community life. All these activities would add to our nation’s well-being.Cont. (last one)Argument: Charging higher prices for nature’s products would lower our living standards.Counterargument: It’s true that prices of many things, including gasoline and electricity, would rise, and this would compel many people—especially poor people—to consume less of these things.However, these price rises would be offset by dividends; many people would come out ahead.There could also be hardship grants,and grants to help people insulate their homes. Eventually, new technologies friendly to nature would replace current technologies, and living standards would be preserved if not
View Full Document
Unlocking...