Category Archives: Basic Income Guarantee

Achieving full gender equality is still centuries away, warns the UN in new report

Multiple global crises and backlash against womens sexual and reproductive health and rights worsen gender disparities

[New York] At the current rate of progress, it may take close to 300 years to achieve full gender equality, the Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG): The Gender Snapshot 2022 shows. Global challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath, violent conflict, climate change, and the backlash against womens sexual and reproductive health and rights are further exacerbating gender disparities. The new report, launched today by UN Women and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), highlights that, at the current pace of progress, SDG 5 achieving gender equality - will not be met by 2030.

Sima Bahous, UN Women Executive Director, said: This is a tipping point for womens rights and gender equality as we approach the half-way mark to 2030. It is critical that we rally now to invest in women and girls to reclaim and accelerate progress. The data show undeniable regressions in their lives made worse by the global crises in incomes, safety, education and health. The longer we take to reverse this trend, the more it will cost us all.

"Cascading global crises are putting the achievement of the SDGs in jeopardy, with the worlds most vulnerable population groups disproportionately impacted, in particular women and girls. Gender equality is a foundation for achieving all SDGs and it should be at the heart of building back better, said Maria-Francesca Spatolisano, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of UN DESA.

Without swift action, legal systems that do not ban violence against women, do not protect womens rights in marriage and family, for instance denying women their right to pass on their nationality to their children, or to inherit, do not provide them with equal pay and benefits at work, do not guarantee their equal rights to own and control land, may continue to exist for generations to come.

At the current rate of progress, the report estimates that it will take up to 286 years to close gaps in legal protection and remove discriminatory laws, 140 years for women to be represented equally in positions of power and leadership in the workplace, and at least 40 years to achieve equal representation in national parliaments. To eradicate child marriage by 2030, progress must be 17 times faster than progress of the last decade, with girls from the poorest rural households and in conflict-affected areas expected to suffer the most.

The report also points to a worrisome reversal on the reduction of poverty, and rising prices are likely to exacerbate this trend. By the end of 2022, around 383 million women and girls will live in extreme poverty (on less than 1.90 a day) compared to 368 million men and boys. Many more will have insufficient income to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and adequate shelter in most parts of the world. If current trends continue, in sub-Saharan Africa, more women and girls will live in extreme poverty by 2030 than today.

The invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing war there is further worsening food insecurity and hunger, especially among women and children, limiting supplies of wheat, fertilizer and fuel, and propelling inflation. In 2021, about 38 per cent of female-headed households in war-affected areas experienced moderate or severe food insecurity, compared to 20 per cent of male-headed households.

Further facts and figures highlighted in the report include:

Ahead of the Transforming Education Summit taking place on the margins of the UN General Assembly, the report points out that achieving universal girls education, while not enough by itself, would improve such an outlook significantly. Each additional year of schooling can boost a girls earnings as an adult by up to 20 per cent with further impacts on poverty reduction, better maternal health, lower child mortality, greater HIV prevention and reduced violence against women.

The report showcases that cooperation, partnerships and investments in the gender equality agenda, including through increased global and national funding are essential to correct the course and place gender equality back on track.

Follow the report launch at the UN daily noon briefing on September 7: https://media.un.org/en/asset/k17/k17hethnco

For more information on the report: https://data.unwomen.org/publications/progress-sustainable-development-goals-gender-snapshot-2022

For more information about SGD 5 on achieving gender equality:https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/in-focus/2022/08/in-focus-sustainable-development-goal-5

Media contacts:Maria Sanchez (UN Women) media.team@unwomen.orgFrancyne Harrigan (UN Department of Global Communications) harriganf@un.orgMasayoshi Suga (UN Department of Global Communications) sugam@un.orgHelen Rosengren ( UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs) rosengrenh@un.org

Go here to see the original:

Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2022 - World - ReliefWeb

VALDOSTA When Stacey Abrams spent a couple of days in Valdosta this past week, the Valdosta Daily Times had a chance to catch up with the Georgia gubernatorial candidate.

After stops at Valdosta State University and John W. Saunders Memorial Park, Abrams visited The Times office and elaborated on her plans for Medicaid expansion, investment in financial aid for college students and redistributing state funds as part of her tax break plan. She also revealed her plans to address workers rights and racial disparities in the states criminal justice system.

VDT Reporter Malia Thomas: Youre passionate about several different pressing issues: affordable college tuition, the expansion of Medicaid and reproductive rights. ... What will be your top priority? What is the first thing that youre going to do?

Abrams: Medicaid expansion, definitely. Medicaid expansion has the effect of becoming the single largest economic development investment in Georgia history. Its $3.5 billion every year. It provides insurance for half a million people. It creates 64,000 jobs. And, whats so important is those jobs are created near the populations that didnt have insurance. And, so these arent going to be jobs concentrated in the wealthiest areas of Georgia.

They are necessarily going to be jobs created, where communities have been left out and left behind. When you do Medicaid expansion, you also tackle the issues of mental health which is a huge issue for our students and for our young people.

You help people who are working hard right now. Theyre making minimum wage, up to $9 an hour, and will suddenly be able to get access to health insurance. Theyre currently making too much for Medicaid and too little for the Affordable Care Act. This (plan) gives them the coverage they need.

It will reduce the pressure on law enforcement. Because right now law enforcement is spending its money on mental health care, because we wont ... expand Medicaid and it will also create the opportunity in the state of Georgia to save hospitals. We have now seen six hospitals either shut down or be prepared to shutdown under this governor and we cant afford it.

Were a fast growing state. Why are we losing access to health insurance? It is solely the responsibility of the current governor. and that is why its so critical that Medicaid expansion move first.

VDT: As we all know, this isnt your first rodeo. I do recall you saying last night (at John W. Saunders Park) that the last governors race was decided by about 54,000 votes and your latest memo said that you and (Brian) Kemp are statistically tied up. Considering the margins here are razor thin and considering your voter turnout efforts in places like South Georgia, how do you think youll be able to turn it around for this upcoming election?

Abrams: We know that since 2018, 1.4 million new voters have been added to the rolls. The majority of those voters actually skewed Democratic. The issue is engagement. and that is why we are going everywhere and talking to everyone. These are voters who dont traditionally show up in polling.

My mission is to find voters where they are. Its what Ive done, not just for the last four years; its what Ive done during my entire career as Democratic leader. We were able to stave off a Republican takeover of the House in a supermajority by going to find voters in places where they werent expected. Its never going to show up in the traditional ways.

But I try not to show up in traditional ways. Thats one of our methods for actually growing the electorate. Instead of trying to change a persons ideology, my goal is to change behavior and get those who do not vote (to) show up.

VDT: At the John W. Saunders rally, you mentioned the death of Brianna Grier (a Georgia woman who died this summer after falling from a moving patrol car after her arrest); instead of having medical care, she ended up getting entangled with law enforcement. So lets clarify your position (on addressing mental health care). When it comes to your budget priorities, do you plan on using some of that funding to give the community more access to mental health resources, things of that nature?

Abrams: Absolutely. The bill that was passed this year by a bipartisan legislature creates mental health insurance parity. What it says is that if you have insurance, you can spend it equally; you essentially get equal coverage for fiscal health care and mental health care.

The challenge is that we have 1.4 million Georgians without insurance. Medicaid expansion will add half a million people to that pool and that community are the people who are the most likely to have the police called when they have a mental health crisis, instead of being able to get preventative or ongoing care.

My mission is to cover those community members with health insurance so they can get the mental health support they need, the substance abuse treatment that they need.

Without that investment, the new laws in Georgia are basically window dressing. They do not solve the problem. In fact, they dont address the challenges because the very communities that are being denied access to health care, access to housing, access to services will continue to be left out and left behind unless we expand Medicaid in Georgia.

VDT: You mentioned underserved communities. What are your other budget priorities as far as positively impacting lower income families?

Abrams: One of those foundational ways to move the community forward is education. We know that Georgia has for 20 years underfunded education. Weve had these moments of equal funding, but that equal funding is based on a formula from 1985.

My first responsibility is to actually update the funding formula so that we recognize that 21st century education cannot be based on 20th century knowledge.

That also means that we have to invest in our educators by increasing their salaries. We are losing teachers at an alarming rate. and one of the issues is their pay and it is insufficient, that the starting salary in Georgia is less than the starting salary in Mississippi. The current governor has actually refused and he disagrees with my intention of raising starting salaries to $50,000 for our teachers, and then raising salaries across the board by $11,000 over four years, but I also want to make certain we help local school boards raise the salaries of paraprofessionals, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, those very workers are the low income members of our community.

But in addition to increasing their pay by adding Medicaid expansion, they get access to benefits. So now youve raised their wages and youve raised their access to health care. Those two pieces are the most likely to guarantee their opportunities.

But the third piece is housing. Affordable housing is a critical issue in Valdosta and across South Georgia. Its across the country, across the state.

By improving access to affordable housing, youve now tackled the three major issues wages, health care and housing. Thats how we move people from being in the lower middle class or the working class into the middle class by giving them the ability and the freedom to actually thrive.

VDT: Speaking of education, and you kind of touched a bit on this. But ... what is your plan as far as getting students access to funding to need-based financial aid?

Abrams: Georgia has a law that allows for need-based financial aid. Unfortunately, the current governor refuses to put money into this process. Georgia has $1 billion sitting in a reserved, unrestricted fund for the purpose of education.

My intention is simply to do with that money what we promised and that is to invest in our students. So the first stage will be to use $300 million from that fund to actually invest in need-based aid and restoration of free technical college.

I am also going to push for the expansion of gaming in Georgia to include casinos and sports betting because that can generate up to $350 million every year, which means that we will create a permanent source of revenue that will fund financial aid, will reduce the reliance on debt and will increase the likelihood that students who may lose HOPE (scholarship) because their GPA falls dont actually lose access to education.

VDT: To go back to Medicaid and health care in general. Can you describe your personal feelings when you found out that the Atlanta Medical Center after over 100 years of service was closing down? I know youve mentioned that it would put our communities in jeopardy and have negative ramifications for the state as a whole?

Abrams: I used to drive past the Atlanta Medical Center every single day on my commute to the Capitol. and what this means for the community is devastating. The day after the announcement happened, we helped hold a press conference.

On one corner, you saw people coming to work in their scrubs, but instead of going to work knowing that they had a life that they were building, they knew that their jobs will be ending in a matter of weeks.

On the corner, there were people being wheeled into the hospital, people whose lives depended on access to that service ... We know 50,000 people who were indigent or charity cases in 2020. If those patients had had access to Medicaid expansion, then the hospital would have been reimbursed for their care.

And while Medicaid expansion may not be the only issue, it is a salient and it is a major issue. and we know it works because it has worked in 38 states.

Georgia is losing hospitals at a rate that is not happening in states that have expanded Medicaid. When we lose AMC, were not only losing a hospital that is an anchor for the community, were also losing one of our five level one trauma centers.

Grady Hospital does not have the capacity to fully absorb what has been coming to AMC. AMC has saved law enforcement, it has saved legislators and it has saved lives of just regular community members. and that will no longer be possible.

And what should be concerning to everyone is that from Dade County near the Tennessee line down to Athens, if we lose AMC, the very next hospital they can get to, if they get turned away from Grady, is down in Macon. Yes, yes, theres only one, there are only two level one trauma centers in metro Atlanta, which is half the population of Georgia.

So if youre in Dade County, and Grady cant accept you, the closest hospital with level one trauma is in Macon.

And this is because Brian Kemp has refused to expand Medicaid. ... Think about it as a single moment in time. This has been for years of refusing $3.5 billion every year, on top of four previous years of refusing that same money.

If that infusion of capital had happened longitudinally, we would still have the Atlanta Medical Center.

VDT: and whats your strategy for rectifying this?

Abrams: First expanding Medicaid, which means that were pouring an infusion of capital, but Georgia also has a $5 to $6 billion surplus that is unrestricted and accessible for any of the states needs.

I liken it to a house that had a roof leak and the basement floods. Under previous governors, for the last 20 years, weve been told to patch the roof and just bail out the basement. We actually have the resources to replace the roof and fix the plumbing. If we do that then we create opportunity for millions of Georgians whove been told that they arent entitled to support, or that we cant afford it.

We can do all of the things Im suggesting raise wages for our teachers and law enforcement. We can expand Medicaid. We can provide need-based financial aid for our students. We can fully invest in our schools, all without raising a dime in taxes. Because we have the money.

Its just the current governor refuses to write the check. Instead, he wants to give the money to his friends and give money to the wealthiest Georgians. I want to invest in Georgia. and the question is, what do we want: someone whos willing to give grift to his friends or give a gift to Georgia, of really fixing the problems that we have?

VDT: Speaking of investing in Georgia, I remember you being critical of Kemps planned tax break at the VSU rally. What is the issue you find with his approach, and what are your plans for aiding Georgians?

Abrams: On average, 20% of Georgians at the bottom will get $27. The middle income Georgians, towards about 40%, will get $193. At the top, if you make more than $600,000, theyll get about $10,000 or more because we have a 5% flat tax.

So if you are wealthy, you are going to get an extraordinary sum of money. and basically, from that point of about $600,000 and up, youll get an average of $10,000, and most Georgians will only see between $27 and $193 in tax relief. Only 50,000 people will get that money a total of $500 million between them.

The tax break has been written into law, but what Brian Kemp is proposing is extending it. He wants to take the surplus and instead of investing that money in solving problems, he wants to give the very same wealthy people even more, so theyll get $20 or $30,000.

My point is that instead of shifting the tax burden, and shifting the tax responsibility to the lowest and middle income, Georgians ... instead we should be investing in the very needs of our middle class and working class families and they will tell you its education, its health care, its housing: the tenants of financial freedom.

VDT: This is unrelated to what you were talking about last night, but I was looking through your social media. and one thing did stick out to me is that you had some statements showing support of labor unions. Being the daughter of a shipyard worker and a librarian, labor-related issues are important to you, of course. However, I do notice that, though it is not as bad as it used to be, there is still an anti-union predisposition that is kind of prominent in the South. How do you plan on advancing these organizations and making them more prevalent in the states workforce?

Abrams: I believe in workers rights, and I know that labor unions have been essential in guaranteeing rights, even those who are not members of unions. The reason we have the ability to have a two-day weekend, the reason that we have paid leave whenever it happens, is that so much of our wage structure is based on the work of labor unions.

I stand with labor, because I know that labor helps move communities forward. I will work to expand access to workers rights. I will expand access through apprenticeship programs to increase the number of young people or anyone who wants to go into the building trades or into construction or into nursing, so they can guarantee their wages.

But lets talk about domestic workers. The National Domestic Workers union was founded right here in Georgia, and it gave women, especially working women, Black women, for the first time equity in how they were treated. That was created by Dorothy Bolden in the 1950s. and what that led to is Black women and domestic workers at large finally being included in Social Security.

There are basic rights like gender equity, that can only be secured when we are working with labor unions. and my mission is to ensure that anybody who wants to join a union can do so in the state of Georgia.

VDT: Piggy backing off of that, I do notice that ... you were passionate about social justice, social reform ... So how would you plan on taking care of disparities when it comes to treatment that certain communities face in regards to law enforcement, medical care and things of that nature?

Abrams: What has been so disingenuous about the current governors administration and his propaganda is that he ignores the very real issue of racial disparity.

We saw that with Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County. We have seen it with others across the state. Racial violence is real. Racial discrimination is real. Weve seen it happen with the spa shootings.

We must have a governor who acknowledges that racial diversity is both an opportunity, but some see it as a threat, and our leadership has to acknowledge and protect those communities. I will and I do, and the first step of protection is acknowledgement, being able to speak aloud the challenges we face.

I point out that I have two brothers, one who has been in and out of the carceral system. I want law enforcement to protect others from his bad behavior, but he shouldnt lose his humanity just because he loses his freedom.

And that is why I want to invest in making sure that we take care of our correctional workers ... correctional workers make less than a living wage in the state of Georgia, which means they cant take care of your families, let alone take care of the prisoners who are in their care.

We also need to make certain that when you are released that you have the ability to actually be on a path to redemption and reform as opposed to recidivism. and that means we need to pay our community supervision officers or probation parole officers a living wage. Im the only candidate proposing to do that across the board.

We have to have a governor who actually believes that when you go to prison, you dont lose, you shouldnt lose, your humanity. But for others, we have to also address the fact that, yes, we want law enforcement that does its job and we want to support them. But when they do something wrong, when theres racial bias, there has to be accountability.

And unfortunately, the current governor has lied about my position. and my position is we dont have the luxury of being disingenuous about the reality of racial violence from police. I believe that, hopefully, we hold law enforcement accountable. ... Protect them and support them when theyre doing right. When they make mistakes, it erodes community trust if we dont (hold them accountable).

More than anything, my mission is to make certain that equity is achieved in Georgia. People of color are 48% of the population. Right now, were 12% of the business revenue, which means the economic inequities are not only persistent, but they have an effect on every other facet of our lives.

So going back to the conversation about financial freedom, social justice and financial security, often move hand in hand. The more you are able to take care of yourself and your family, the better your communities do, that the stronger our communities are. and so my mission is to help our communities achieve financial freedom and financial equity that they deserve so that we can take care of ourselves, take care of our communities and uplift all of Georgia.

The Valdosta Daily Times has extended an invitation to the office of Gov. Brian Kemp to visit the offices of the newspaper for a one-on-one interview with a reporter.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

More:

Stating Her Mission: One-on-one with Stacey Abrams - Valdosta Daily Times

Weston, Florida, 10th September 2022, ZEXPRWIRE, Erin Smith and Thomas Smith of Weston, Florida continue their efforts helping local veterans, as they lead Project We Care, a family-based non-profit organization that works with the Veterans Administration Subsidized Housing program to connect with veterans of the armed services who are in need of household goods, food, clothing, and other necessities. The couple, who are also the parents of four children, founded Project We Care after recognizing a need in their community for assistance to veterans. When we see a veteran in need, its our duty to help, says Thomas Smith. These men and women have given so much for our country, the least we can do is make sure they have what they need to get by.

Project We Care provides veterans with access to necessary resources like food, clothing, and household goods, as well as offering assistance with basic necessities. Our goal is to make sure that no veteran falls through the cracks, says Erin Smith. We want to help as many veterans as possible, and we wont stop until every veteran in need has been connected with the resources they need to thrive. Founded by Erin Smith and Thomas Smith, the main goal of Project We Care is to provide veterans with the best care upon returning home as they work to reassimilate into civilian society. One of the most effective ways to assist veterans in reacclimating has been to help them make their homes into peaceful places to recover physically and psychologically.

The Weston, Florida based non-profit has partnered with multiple organizations in order to make the most impact for veterans, including the Veterans Administration Subsidized Housing program. The VA Subsidized Housing program provides housing assistance to low-income veterans and their families. In addition to partnering with local organizations, Project We Care also relies on donations from individuals and businesses in order to continue their work assisting veterans. Many local businesses, such as All Year Cooling Weston, have joined in by providing monetary contributions as well as offering volunteer time and increasing awareness about Project We Care by wearing its logo and offering information inside their offices. We are so grateful for the support weve received from our community, says Thomas Smith. Its because of the generosity of others that we are able to do the work that we do.

Regarding plans to expand their services and the reach of their operations, Thomas Smith commented, We are always looking for ways to do more. We want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to help veterans, and we will continue to look for ways to expand our services. One of the first steps we plan to take is to increase our presence on social media so that we can reach more people and let them know about the work we are doing.

For more information about Project We Care, please visit https://projectwecare.org

About Erin Smith and Thomas Smith

Erin Smith, a philanthropist from Weston, Florida, is involved in a variety of humanitarian organizations and activities. She is most known for co-founding Project We Care, a family-based non-profit that works with the Veterans Administration Subsidized Housing program to give veterans with food, clothing, and the domestic essentials they need to live comfortably and restfully. Erin was born in Santa Monica, California, and moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, at a young age. She attended South Plantation High School before settling in Weston, Florida, with her husband of nearly two decades, Thomas Smith, and their four children.

Erin Smith is very active in her community of Weston, Florida, and has been a major contributor to local academic causes, including assistance to the JT Reading Room, which helps improve literacy and graduation rates among schoolchildren, as well as frequent donations to the Broward County School system and offering help with organizing and operating extracurricular activities. She enlisted her husband Thomas and his company, All Year Cooling Weston, to assist raise funds for Cancer.org in the fight against breast cancer.

Thomas Smith is a well-known businessman and entrepreneur who was born in Hollywood, Florida. Thomas lives in Weston, Florida, and is the President of All Year Cooling Weston, a family-owned air conditioning installation and servicing company in South Florida. Because of his extensive industry knowledge and decades of leadership experience, Thomas Smith understands how to set his company apart in a crowded market. Following his lead and his work, he has built a team of dedicated professionals who provide the highest quality service and always put the customer first.

From their offices in Coral Springs, All Year Cooling Weston serves customers from Homestead to Vero Beach. Thomas Smith understands the importance of air conditioning in the South Florida area and makes himself available to his customers at all times. All Year Cooling Weston offers same-day service so that customers are not compelled to stay indoors for more than a few hours in the scorching heat. To guarantee that their customers have clean air in their homes, they also offer free estimates and duct cleaning services.

For more information about All Year Cooling, please visit http://www.allyearcooling.com

Continue reading here:

Erin Smith and Thomas Smith of Weston, Florida, Support Veterans with Efforts of Project We Care - Digital Journal

How come people are still starving in the 21st century?

Peasant agriculture provides 70% of the worlds food production

This is the direct consequence of the agribusiness model that aims at garnering profits rather than at feeding the people. It is particularly obvious in countries of the global South where the IMFIMFInternational Monetary FundAlong with the World Bank, the IMF was founded on the day the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed. Its first mission was to support the new system of standard exchange rates.

When the Bretton Wood fixed rates system came to an end in 1971, the main function of the IMF became that of being both policeman and fireman for global capital: it acts as policeman when it enforces its Structural Adjustment Policies and as fireman when it steps in to help out governments in risk of defaulting on debt repayments.

As for the World Bank, a weighted voting system operates: depending on the amount paid as contribution by each member state. 85% of the votes is required to modify the IMF Charter (which means that the USA with 17,68%% of the votes has a de facto veto on any change).

The institution is dominated by five countries: the United States (16,74%), Japan (6,23%), Germany (5,81%), France (4,29%) and the UK (4,29%). The other 183 member countries are divided into groups led by one country. The most important one (6,57% of the votes) is led by Belgium. The least important group of countries (1,55% of the votes) is led by Gabon and brings together African countries.

http://imf.orgs and the World BankWorld BankWBThe World Bank was founded as part of the new international monetary system set up at Bretton Woods in 1944. Its capital is provided by member states contributions and loans on the international money markets. It financed public and private projects in Third World and East European countries.

It consists of several closely associated institutions, among which :

1. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, 189 members in 2017), which provides loans in productive sectors such as farming or energy ;

2. The International Development Association (IDA, 159 members in 1997), which provides less advanced countries with long-term loans (35-40 years) at very low interest (1%) ;

3. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), which provides both loan and equity finance for business ventures in developing countries.

As Third World Debt gets worse, the World Bank (along with the IMF) tends to adopt a macro-economic perspective. For instance, it enforces adjustment policies that are intended to balance heavily indebted countries payments. The World Bank advises those countries that have to undergo the IMFs therapy on such matters as how to reduce budget deficits, round up savings, enduce foreign investors to settle within their borders, or free prices and exchange rates.

s structural adjustmentStructural AdjustmentEconomic policies imposed by the IMF in exchange of new loans or the rescheduling of old loans.

Structural Adjustments policies were enforced in the early 1980 to qualify countries for new loans or for debt rescheduling by the IMF and the World Bank. The requested kind of adjustment aims at ensuring that the country can again service its external debt. Structural adjustment usually combines the following elements : devaluation of the national currency (in order to bring down the prices of exported goods and attract strong currencies), rise in interest rates (in order to attract international capital), reduction of public expenditure (streamlining of public services staff, reduction of budgets devoted to education and the health sector, etc.), massive privatisations, reduction of public subsidies to some companies or products, freezing of salaries (to avoid inflation as a consequence of deflation). These SAPs have not only substantially contributed to higher and higher levels of indebtedness in the affected countries ; they have simultaneously led to higher prices (because of a high VAT rate and of the free market prices) and to a dramatic fall in the income of local populations (as a consequence of rising unemployment and of the dismantling of public services, among other factors).

IMF : http://www.worldbank.org/ policies have favoured an intensive form of export-oriented agriculture, competitive and profitable on the global market, squeezing out the production of staple foods and peasant agriculture, which produces 70% of the worlds food[2] . Food has become a commodity subject to speculation on the world market where a handful of large multinationals decide on prices.

Agribusiness grabs more and more land and water resources, destroys peasant seeds in favour of hybrids and GMOs, generalizes the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and increases the production of agrifuel

These large agribusinesses benefit from public subsidies, take over more and more land for the expansion of agrofuel production and drain water resources for high-consuming crops, they destroy peasant seeds in favour of hybrids and GMOs, and generalize the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

This production model considerably increases the vulnerability of crops to external shocks and hugely contributes to climate change and to droughts that affect rain-fedFEDFederal ReserveOfficially, Federal Reserve System, is the United States central bank created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act, also called the Owen-Glass Act, after a series of banking crises, particularly the Bank Panic of 1907.

FED decentralized central bank : http://www.federalreserve.gov/ agriculture and dry up the water tables. It is part and parcel of the global capitalist system and its maniy crises of which the food crisis is but one.

About 60% of the population is affected by moderate food insecurity and 20% by severe food insecurity

One person in ten in the World is permanently hungry.According to a wider standard developed by the FAO and other UN bodies, 30% of the worlds population experience moderate food insecurity. The FAO observes that on the African continent about 60% of the population is affected by moderate food insecurity and 20% by severe food insecurity, and those figures are likely to increase with climate instability.

45% of the deaths of children under 5 are due to malnutrition, which means 3.1 million children

In 2020, an estimated 45 million children under the age of five were suffering from wasting, the deadliest form of malnutrition, which multiplies child mortality rates by up to 12 times. Furthermore, 149 million children under the age of five had stunted growth and development due to a chronic lack of essential nutrients in their diets.[3] 45% of the deaths of children under 5 are due to malnutrition, which represents 3.1 million children.

The gender gap in food insecurity continued to rise in 2021 - 31.9% of women in the world were moderately or severely food insecure, compared to 27.6% of men a gap of more than 4 percentage points, compared with 3 percentage points in 2020.[4]

Unicef announced on 23 June 2022 that almost 8 million children under 5 in 15 crisis-hit countries are at risk of death from severe wasting unless they receive immediate therapeutic food and careCareLe concept de care work (travail de soin) fait rfrence un ensemble de pratiques matrielles et psychologiques destines apporter une rponse concrte aux besoins des autres et dune communaut (dont des cosystmes). On prfre le concept de care celui de travail domestique ou de reproduction car il intgre les dimensions motionnelles et psychologiques (charge mentale, affection, soutien), et il ne se limite pas aux aspects privs et gratuit en englobant galement les activits rmunres ncessaires la reproduction de la vie humaine. . . . Since the start of the year, the escalating global food crisis has forced an additional 260,000 children or one child every 60 seconds to suffer from severe wasting in the 15 countries bearing the brunt of the crisis, especially in the Horn of Africa and the Central Sahel. The Unicef also states, the price of ready-to-use therapeutic food to treat severe wasting has soared by 16 per cent in recent weeks due to a sharp rise in the cost of basic ingredients, 600,000 additional children are without access to life-saving treatment and at risk of death.

Paradoxically a majority of people suffering from malnutrition are farmers, mainly small producers who do not possess land or not enough, nor the means to develop it, and who must sell as much agricultural produce as possible on the market to pay off their debts depriving their families of food. Of course, there are also the impoverished urban classes.

Moderate food insecurity: Refers to the level of severity of food insecurity, based on the FIES, at which people face uncertainties about their ability to obtain food and have been forced to reduce, at times during the year, the quality and/or quantity of food they consume due to lack of money or other resources. It thus refers to a lack of consistent access to food, which diminishes dietary quality, disrupts normal eating patterns, and can have negative consequences for nutrition, health and well-being.

Severe Food Insecurity: The level of severity of food insecurity at which people have likely run out of food, experienced hunger and, at the most extreme, gone for days without eating, putting their health and well-being at grave risk, based on the FIES.

Malnutrition: an abnormal physiological condition caused by inadequate, unbalanced or excessive intake of macronutrients and/or micronutrients. Malnutrition includes undernutrition (child stunting and wasting, and vitamin and mineral deficiencies) as well as overweight and obesity

Wasting Wasting is a lethal form of malnutrition, generally the result of weight loss associated with a recent period of inadequate dietary energy intake and/or disease. In children under five years of age, wasting is defined as weight-for-height less than -2 SD below the WHO Child Growth Standards median. In 2022, over 45 million children under five suffer from it.

Severe wasting: Condition characterized by extreme emaciation in relation to size, which leads to a weakening of the immune system. Severe wasting is the most immediate, the most visible and the most lethal form of malnutrition. In 2022 over 13 million children under five suffer from it.

The global food crisis had started before the Russian invasion of Ukraine

mile Frison, a member of the international panel of experts on sustainable food systems (IPES-food) stated in Le Monde: we must not be misled into believing that the food crisis is the consequence of the Covid health crisis and of the war in Ukraine, and that if those problems are solved, all will be well. Mathilde Grard, a journalist with Le Monde added: Those two major international events actually aggravated previous structural difficulties.[6]

The Global food crisis is not the result of deficient food production. Actually the global food production has increased more rapidly than the worlds population for over half a century. In 2021, the cereal crop reached a record high level.

But it has to be emphasized that an increasing part of the food produced is not intended for human consumption.

Governments of the North have supported the production of agrifuel, misleadingly called Green Fuel or biofuel to trigger a positive response among the public. In an article of April 2022, Jean-Franois Collin, a senior civil servant and former adviser to the French Ministry of Agriculture, highlights the considerable increase in the industrial uses of world cereal production (...), in particular the production of ethanol: 30% of the increase in world production over the last fifty years has been devoted to the development of industrial uses for cereals. This mainly concerns corn but also wheat. () Approximately 200 million tons of American corn are processed each year into ethanol for use in automotive fuel. 10% of the cereals produced in the world are now used as fuel Governments of the North have supported the production of agrifuel, misleadingly called Green Fuel or biofuel to trigger a positive response among the public. In an article of April 2022, Jean-Franois Collin, a senior civil servant and former adviser to the French Ministry of Agriculture, highlights the considerable increase in the industrial uses of world cereal production (...), in particular the production of ethanol: 30% of the increase in world production over the last fifty years has been devoted to the development of industrial uses for cereals. This mainly concerns corn but also wheat. () Approximately 200 million tons of American corn are processed each year into ethanol for use in automotive fuel. 10% of the cereals produced in the world are now used as fuel. We could add the areas devoted to other plants that are not cereals, such as rapeseed, soya or palm oil, which are used to produce diester, also used as fuel. These are all areas that are not devoted to the production of wheat or rice that could directly feed humans.

10% of the cereals produced in the world are now used as fuel, 35% as animal fodder

More than one third of the global production of cereals (35%), is destined to be fodder for farm animals.

A handful of transnational corporations control the cereal market, thus forming an oligo-pole, and constantly increase their profits and their assets to the detriment of the interests of the people. On a global level four corporations, three of which are US companies and the other is French, control 70% of the international cereal market. They have a fundamental influence in pricing and supply. They are Archer Daniels Midland, De Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus, often referred to as ABCD. On a global level four corporations, three of which are US companies and the other is French, control 70% of the international cereal market.

Let us take the case of Cargill. A recent report by Oxfam international stated: Cargill is a global food giant and one of the worlds largest private companies. In 2017 it was reported as one of four companies controlling over 70% of the global market for agricultural commoditiesCommoditiesThe goods exchanged on the commodities market, traditionally raw materials such as metals and fuels, and cereals., and is 87% owned by the 11th richest family in the world.70 The combined wealth of family members listed on the Forbes billionaire list is $42.9bn and their wealth has increased by $14.4bn (65%) since 2020, growing by almost $20m per day during the pandemic. This has been driven by rising food prices, especially for grains. Four more members of the extended Cargill family have recently joined the list of the richest 500 people in the world. In 2021, the company had net income of $5bn and made the biggest profitProfitThe positive gain yielded from a companys activity. Net profit is profit after tax. Distributable profit is the part of the net profit which can be distributed to the shareholders. in its history; the year before it paid out dividends of $1.13bn, most of which went to members of the family. The company is expected to make record profits again in 2022, adding to the familys already eye-watering wealth. The wealth of the Cargill family increased by 65% from 2020 to 2022, growing by almost $20m per day during the pandemic

Oxfams report adds, Cargill is not alone in seeing big profits off the back of food shortages and market volatility, according to Bloomberg. One of the companys competitors, the agricultural tradingMarket activitiestradingBuying and selling of financial instruments such as shares, futures, derivatives, options, and warrants conducted in the hope of making a short-term profit. house Louis Dreyfus Co., said in March that its profit surged by 82% last year, largely due to grain price fluctuations and strong margins in oilseeds. (Source: Oxfam Media Briefing Profiting from Pain. The urgency of taxing the rich amid a surge in billionaire wealth and a global cost-of-living crisis, published on 23 May 2022)

Such control over food distribution has allowed those agribusiness corporations, but also large commercial chains such as Wallmart or Carrefour, to impose around 30% price increases in 2021.[7]

Neoliberal free-trade policies, which we discuss further on, are other deep-lying causes of the food crisis. Indeed they have made countries of the Global South more and more dependent oncereal imports (see below our critical comments on various policies implemented by countries of the South under pressure of institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF but also of their own ruling classes). In case of an external shock leading to a price increase on the world market and/or a supply difficulty, the countries of the Global South, which do not produce enough cereals, are directly affected.

Among recent factors that have aggravated the food crisis, we have to mention the huge speculation on cereal markets as soon as Ukraine was invaded by Russia. The prices of wheat and corn increased by almost 50% within two weeks while at the time there had not yet been any destruction of production or supply problem. It was sheer speculation on the part of private corporations stocking up cereals (including future crops) on stock markets (the main one being located in Chicago). The price of rice also increased, though less steeply.

After the invasion of Ukraine prices of wheat and corn increased by almost 50% within two weeks while at the time there had not yet been any destruction of production or supply problem

Supermarket corporations immediately increased food prices without any reason.

At the moment these lines are written, end of August 2022, over the past three months the price of wheat has decreased by 32% and the price of corn by 22% on the Chicago stock market, but this had no effect on retail prices.

From end of May to end of August 2022 the price of wheat went down by 32% and the price of corn by 22% but this had no effect on retail prices.

Retail prices for consumers have sharply increased and it is unlikely that they should go down as governments do not enforce a policy of price control or price setting. Large private companies are free to set prices as they see fit.

Actually on a global scale the situation had been deteriorating since 2014. While there had been a serious food crisis in 2007-2008 (see our explanation 3865) resulting in over 800 million people experiencing hunger, the situation had improved from 2009 to 2013 then again deteriorated since 2014 (see tables 1 and 2).

Table 1: Number of people experiencing food insecurity at a severe level (in millions)

Source: FAOThe State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022, table 4, p. 26

Globally, between 2014 and 2021, the number of severely food insecure people increased by more than 350 million, from 565 million to 924 million

Table 2: Number of people experiencing food insecurity at a moderate level (in millions)

Source: FAOThe State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022, table 4, p. 26

From 2014 to 2021 on a global scale the number of people experiencing severe food insecurity increased from 565 to 924 million

Eradicating hunger is perfectly possible. Solutions to achieve this vital objective demand a project of food sovereignty radically different from the intensive agribusiness model. Food sovereignty refers to the right of each country to maintain and develop its own capacity to produce its staple food. It assumes the protection of natural resources, notably land, water and seeds. Food producers, distributors and consumers are to be put at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and transnational corporations, feeding the people by local producers, while reducing imports and exports. Food sovereignty can only be achieved if agro-ecology underpins governments decisions. Agro-ecology is an alternative to the productivist neoliberal model. It guaranteesGuaranteesActs that provide a creditor with security in complement to the debtors commitment. A distinction is made between real guarantees (lien, pledge, mortgage, prior charge) and personal guarantees (surety, aval, letter of intent, independent guarantee). the collective rights of peasants, protects biodiversity, strengthens local food systems, and values the literally vital work done by the women.

It would supply quality food: without GMOs, without pesticides or herbicides, without chemical fertilizers. Yet to reach this objective, over three billion peasants must gain access to enough land and farm for themselves rather than enrich large landowners, agribusiness transnationals, traders and lenders. They must also have access to public subsidies to farm the land, and without exhausting it.

Land reform is needed, it is still sorely wanting whether in Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Asia or in some African countries. Such a reform must organize the redistribution of land, prohibit large private estates, and supply public support to farmers. It must counter the land policies enforced by the World Bank, trusts such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and multinationals that favour large-scale operations of land-grabbing.

It must preserve existing forests and encourage reforestation, stop the privatization and commodification of water resources, avoid single crops that exhaust the soil It has to be emphasized that the IMF and the World Bank have a huge responsibility in the food crisis since these institutions insisted that countries become more and more dependent on international markets, canceled help to small farmers and offered most favoured advantages to agribusiness transnationals. The IMF and the WB advised governments in the South to eliminate grain silos that were used to supply the domestic market in the event of a supply shortage and/or price explosion. The World Bank and the IMF have pushed Southern governments to abolish public credit agencies for farmers and have pushed these into the clutches of private lenders (often large traders) or private banks that charge usurious rates. This has led to massive debts among small farmers, whether in India, Mexico, Egypt or several countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. According to official surveys over-indebtedness among Indian peasants is the main cause of suicide of nearly 400,000 farmers in India over the past 25 years. India is precisely one of the countries where the World Bank convinced public authorities to suppress public lending to farmers. Over the past 50 years the WB and the IMF also pressed tropical and other countries of the South into replacing their production of wheat, rice or corn with export crops such as cocoa, coffee, tea, bananas, peanuts, flowers, cotton or cane sugar. To complete their labour in favour of agribusiness corporations and countries exporting cereals (starting with the US, Canada and Europe), they pushed governments to open their markets to food imports that, in the North, are largely subsidized leading many producers in the South into bankruptcy and causing a steep reduction of local food production.

To sum up, we have to implement food sovereignty, promote agro-ecology and introduce land reforms. We must stop producing industrial agro-fuel and ban public subsidies to those who produce it. We must recreate public food reserves (particularly cereals: rice, wheat, corn), (re)create public credit agencies for farmers and regulate food prices. We must make sure that low income populations can have access to quality food at low prices. We must cancel VAT on staple foods. The State must guarantee small farmers sufficiently good prices to allow them to significantly improve their living conditions. The State must also develop public services in rural areas such as health care, education, communications, culture, or seed banks. Public bodies are perfectly able to guarantee both subsidized prices for food consumers and sufficiently high selling prices for farmers to bring in a sufficient income.

Indeed we cannot seriously claim that we are fighting hunger without getting to its root causes. Debt is one of them and the various announcements on this issue, which have been frequent in recent years, such as during the G7 or G20G20The Group of Twenty (G20 or G-20) is a group made up of nineteen countries and the European Union whose ministers, central-bank directors and heads of state meet regularly. It was created in 1999 after the series of financial crises in the 1990s. Its aim is to encourage international consultation on the principle of broadening dialogue in keeping with the growing economic importance of a certain number of countries. Its members are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, USA, UK and the European Union (represented by the presidents of the Council and of the European Central Bank). summits, do not hide the fact that hunger remains an unresolved problem. The current global crisis makes the debt situation of developing countries even worse and new debt crises are in the offing. The events in Sri Lanka or Argentina in 2022 are glaring examples. This debt has led peoples of the South, who could otherwise rely on significant human and natural resources, into massive poverty. The debt system is organized plunder which must be stopped.

Indeed the infernal mechanism of illegitimate public debt is a principal obstacle to the satisfaction of basic human needs, including access to decent food. Without a doubt, the satisfaction of basic human needs must take precedence over any other consideration, whether geopolitical or financial. From a moral perspective, the rights of creditors, landlords or speculators are a mere trifle in contrast to the fundamental rights of eight billion citizens, trampled on by the implacable mechanism of debt.

It is immoral to demand that people in countries impoverished by a crisis they are not responsible for devote a large part of their resources to repay well-to-do creditors (whether in the North and in the South) rather than to meet their basic needs. The immorality of the debt is often a consequence of its having been contracted by non-democratic regimes that have not used the loans in the interestInterestAn amount paid in remuneration of an investment or received by a lender. Interest is calculated on the amount of the capital invested or borrowed, the duration of the operation and the rate that has been set. of their populations and organized large-scale embezzlement with the tacit or explicit approval of countries in the North, private creditors, the World Bank and the IMF. Creditors of industrialized countries have often knowingly lent to regimes that are corrupt. They have no right to demand that the people pay back these immoral and illegitimate debts. To put it in a nutshell, debt is one of the main mechanisms through which a new kind of colonization operates. It comes on top of the historical violations already committed by rich countries: slavery, extermination of indigenous populations, colonial yoke, plundering of raw materials, of biodiversity, of farmers know-how (through the patenting of agricultural products from the South, such as Indian basmati rice, for the benefit of agribusiness transnationals from the North) and of cultural goods, brain drain, etc. It is high time, in a concern for justice, to replace the logic of domination by a logic of redistribution of wealth.

The G7, the IMF, the World Bank and the Paris ClubParis ClubThis group of lender States was founded in 1956 and specializes in dealing with non-payment by developing countries.

impose their own versions of truth and justice, of which they are both judge and party. Since the crisis of 2007-2009, the G20 has taken over from the G7 and has contributed to putting the discredited and delegitimized IMF back at the center of the political and economic game, particularly with regard to the Global South. We must put an end to this injustice which benefits the oppressors, whether they are from the North or the South.

The CADTM wholeheartedly supports the proposals and demands formulated by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina to face the current food crisis and move toward food sovereignty.

Faced with this dramatic context, La Via Campesina voices strong demands and proposals to address the crises, both in the short and the longer terms.

We demand immediate action to:

We demand radical changes in international, regional and national policies to re-build food sovereignty through:

A radical shift towards agroecology to produce healthy food in quantity and quality for the whole population. We must bear in mind that the climate and environmental crisis will be our great challenge in this current context. We must face the challenge of producing enough quali-ty food while reviving biodiversity and drastically reducing GHG emissions.

With thanks to Pablo Laixhay and Brigitte Ponet for their careful reading.

We recommend to read this CADTM press release -> 2022: Ending the food crisis

See the article here:

International food crisis and proposals to overcome it - CADTM.org

British economist and professor at the University of London, Guy Standing is a researcher specialising in labour economics and socio-economic security.

An advocate of unconditional basic income and co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), the 74-year-old explains his vision and the results of the experiments where it was applied.

In his research, Standing created the concept of a new emerging social class "the precariat" and in a feature interview, he details the supplicant characteristics of those who compose it.

In your books, you talk about the crisis of the welfare state after World War II, and with it, the income distribution system that emerged from the irremediable collapse of the welfare state. To deal with this, you propose basic income as a way to combat the eight giants. Could you share with our audience the concept of basic income that you develop in your book? And what would these eight giants be in broad strokes?

I developed my interest in basic income when I was doing my PhD at Cambridge [University] in the 1970s. It was clear at that time that the Keynesian welfare-state era was coming to an end. And we had a revolution in economics, which was led by what we now know now as neoliberalism.

It was clear from very early on and I wrote several books about this in the 1980s that the result would be an enormous increase in inequality and an enormous increase in insecurities for millions of people in every part of the world.It was clear that the welfare state's social policies of unemployment insurance, pension insurance and various things connected with the Beveridge system and the Bismarck system of welfare state capitalism were no longer fit for purpose. That was the first sense of my involvement in basic income. Since then, I've come to believe that a basic income is a right, an economic right of every individual in every society.

Now, let me begin by defining what I mean by a basic income. A basic income means that every man and every woman in one society would be entitled to a modest amount paid each month by the state unconditionally, in the sense that they wouldn't have to have done anything in particular to receive it, and they wouldn't have to do anything in particular to continue to receive it. It would be individual so that it would not be paid on a household basis. That's vitally important for women, so that women would receive their own individual basic income. Men would receive theirs, and a smaller amount would be paid for children, paid to the mother or the surrogate mother, and that it would be non-retrievable, in the sense that the state could not take it back for whatever reason. If a crime is committed, that is a different matter that is dealt with separately.

Now the essence of the justification for basic income is that it's a matter first of all of common justice, and what I mean by common justice is that all of us belong to societies in which our inherited public wealth is due to the efforts and achievements of the many, many generations that have come before us. And we dont know whose ancestors yours, mine or others contributed more or less to the public wealth of today. And if we accept private inheritance of private wealth, which every government does, then surely we should treat public wealth in the same way.

Moreover, every society and every legal system has recognised the existence of the commons. The commons were enshrined in ancient Roman common law, the Justinian codex of AD 5 to 9, in which a differential differentiation was made between private property, state property, no property and common property. But throughout history, governments and private elites and armies and so on have taken away from our commons. Now the commons belong to all of us equally the air, the land, the sea, the public amenities that we inherit as a society. And therefore, if anybody is taking from the commons, through pollution or through enclosure or whatever, they owe it to the society and to the commoners to compensate us as commoners. So for me, this is a matter of justice. The third matter of justice is that, as Pope Francis has recognised in coming out in favour of basic income, Pope Francis recognises that God has given people unequal talents, unequal skills, unequal abilities and in a sense, a basic income is a compensation for those who don't have the gift of those talents. I can understand the logic, the rationale of that, but basic income is also a matter of freedom. I'm an economist, a political economist on the left, if you like, and I believe passionately that freedom is a matter of the left. But what do we mean by freedom? The first freedom is the freedom to say no. The people who exploit, the people who oppress the ability to say no. So important.

When we've done basic income pilots, one of the beautiful findings is that women have walked out of abusive relationships because they have a little financial security with which to make a decision that they want to make that's freedom. But we also believe in liberal freedom. And for me, this is important because liberal freedom is the freedom to be moral, it's the freedom to make a decision. Because I believe it is right. It is the proper thing to do. But if you're insecure and if you don't have security, you can't be moral. You just have to do what you have to do to survive. And a basic income enables us to say this is a matter of your moral freedom. Finally, freedom is a matter of Republican freedom. Basic income means not only that I am free of constraints by other people, but I am free from the potential constraints of those people. And that is so important.

So for me, basic income is ethical, but it is also a vital need in the economic system, which I've characterised as rentier capitalism. It's no longer neoliberalism, in which chronic insecurity and the growth of the precariat are the main characteristics.

You are a founder of the Global Basic Income Network, BIEN according to its acronym in English. What is it and how does it work?

In 1986, a group of us met who were young radical philosophers, economists, activists, and several people from the left. We decided to form a network to inform ourselves about the arguments for basic income. And I came up with the idea of calling ourselves BIEN because in French bien means good, and it has a nice sound! And it meant at the time, the European basic income network. After that, many people from Latin America and the United States and Canada and Australia and then India and then Africa started to join up, and when I was chair in 2004 at the Barcelona Congress, we changed our name. We wanted to keep the same acronym, but to change it to the Earth Network. And I'm very proud of the fact that we have had a number of major meetings in Latin America, including one of our congresses in 2010, in So Paulo, when I had the privilege of meeting [then-] president [Luiz Incio] Lula [da Silva]. He told me that he was very supportive of a basic income, and I think that was a high point in our journey. But every year now we have our congress in different cities in the world. We just had one in Glasgow. The next one is in Brisbane, Australia in September and we alternate in different countries at different times.

In your book, you talk about the emergence of a new social class, which you call the precariat? Could you explain the concept? What are the characteristics of this new social class and why is it emerging now?

For many years I was working in the International Labour Organisation, based in Geneva. I worked in some 26 countries and everywhere I went you could see that the labour process was fragmenting. We were not working, living in a neoliberal age. The rhetoric of neoliberalism continued long after neoliberalism had changed character altogether. And we were seeing a different form of class structure emerging in a system of what I've called rentier capitalism.

Rentier capitalism is the triumph of private property rights over market forces. We do not have a free-market economy. Anybody who thinks that we still have a neoliberal free-market system just doesn't understand the political economy of what has been happening. I wrote a book called The Corruption of Capitalism, but it's basically about rentier capitalism. Property returns have gone up and up, and the returns from labour have gone down and down. And a new class structure that has emerged, with a plutocracy at the top [headed by] billionaires who are rentiers. All their income comes from different forms of property financial, intellectual, physical property.

When I was at Cambridge, we were taught basically that by the end of the 20th century, everybody in rich, industrialised countries would have employment security pensions, paid holidays, paid maternity leave, paid medical leave, etc., but they're shrinking in every part of the world. And below that the old proletariat have been withering and dying. The new emerging class below the old proletariat is the precariat and one defines the precariat in three dimensions. It's very important to recognise that these three dimensions define what it is to be a class.

The first dimension is a particular relations of production to use a Marxist term. In other words, a pattern of labour and work. People in the precariat have to accept a life of unstable and insecure labour. People in the precariat do not have an occupational narrative to give to their lives I am becoming an economist, I am becoming a journalist, I am becoming a lawyer, I am becoming a surgeon, etc. You're in the precariat, you don't have that. You don't know what you're going to be doing. And here again is another important aspect, which is that this is the first mass class in history whose average level of education is above the level of the type of job they can expect to get. That's never been the case before. And again different from the old proletariat the precariat has to do a lot of work, work that is not recognised as work, but unless you do it, you pay a heavy price. This uses up a lot of your time. You don't get paid for it. You have to wait in queues. You have to do this, you have to put in forms, you have to apply for jobs. I use the term multiple application syndrome. In the precariat, you have to spend a lot of time just applying for jobs or benefits or whatever. It takes up time. It's work.

The second dimension is distinctive relations of distribution. And here what I mean is that unlike the old proletariat, the precariat has to rely almost entirely on money wages. It doesn't get non-wage benefits like pensions or paid holidays or paid medical leave. And moreover, unlike previous classes, it is systematically exploited through debt. Debt is an institutional mechanism of exploitation. Finance, capital, which is dominant in rentier capitalism, wants everybody to be in debt. That's how they make their money. And the precariat is living constantly on the edge of unsustainable debt.

And the third dimension. It is that the precarious has a distinctive relationship to the state. What I mean by that is that if you're in the precariat, unlike any class in past history, you are systematically losing the rights of citizenship you're losing civil rights, you're losing cultural rights, you're losing economic rights, you're losing political rights because you do not see in the political spectrum politicians or parties representing you.

You don't have rights. And in the end, you feel a bit like a beggar. And that is why I say the key thing about being in the precariat is you feel like a supplicant. Thats undignified.

You speak of the poverty trap that exists with respect to the subsidies that poor people receive. What is the difference between these subsidies and the basic income that you propose?

There's a huge difference. A basic income means that you or I or any individual in Argentina or elsewhere would receive each month a basic amount, determined by the capacity of the state to pay it independently established, independent of the government of the day, and it would not be withdrawn. In other words, you wouldn't lose it if your status changed. It's a right as an individual, as an Argentine living in Argentina.

A means-tested benefit is quite different, it creates a poverty trap because the idea of a means-tested benefit which is what Argentina and many, many, many, many other countries operate is that it says we are only going to give to you if you prove you are poor, and therefore, if you make an effort to become non-poor, you lose that benefit. You go slightly up the scale and you lose more than you gain. That's called the poverty trap. It's ridiculous, but that's what we have.

In many countries, the poverty trap turns out to be about 80 percent. What that means is if you increase your income by 100, you lose 80, whatever the denomination might be. Now that is a situation which makes people not make the effort, or to go into the shadow economy and go illegal because of the unfairness of that situation. That's the poverty trap.

If you're in the precariat, it's made even worse because you don't get benefits straight away, you have to apply for benefits, you have to wait for benefits. You have to prove with paperwork, and therefore you wait for a few weeks before you actually start receiving those benefits. And then along comes say an employment official and says, on the other side of Buenos Aires there is a short-term casual job, you must take it. You would be crazy to do that because not only would you be going from a poverty situation, but very quickly you could expect to be out of a job again and applying and waiting again to get some low-level benefits.

This is a huge difference from basic income. A basic income is your right and you start paying the standard rate of tax for each dollar or whatever you start earning once you're in a job, but whatever. But that is not a disincentive for you to take jobs or try to improve your income. With the poverty trap situation that we have with means-tested benefits. It's a huge disincentive for poor people. It's unfair.

Is the basic income that you propose applicable in any country? What is necessary in economic conditions?

Well, I'm very intrigued by the fact that since we started working on basic income and I've been working on it now for over 30 years to start with, people said, Well, it's only possible in rich industrialised countries because only they have the resources. Now I'm more likely to find people who say, well, it's possible in developing countries, but not so easy in rich countries. So it's a very strange turnaround in thinking.

My belief is that every country can afford to pay a basic income that is related to their standard of income. We did a big pilot in India, which is a poorer country than Argentina, and we provided thousands of people with a basic income and we did a randomised controlled trial and examined the impact that basic income had for those communities and those individuals compared with people who didn't have the basic income in similar communities. And what we found is that the basic income recipients had huge improvements in their nutrition, in their help, in their schooling, it increased the amount of work they did. Increased investment had a greater income multiplier effect so that it basically paid for itself. This is a basic rule of economics, a multiplier effect of investing in people leads to lower demands on public health, it leads to less malnutrition, it leads to increased economic activity, economic cooperation.

But I also believe that we need a long-term and a short-term approach to basic income. In the financial crash of 2008 Argentina has had many financial crashes too, as we know the governments and the central banks bailed out the banks, in the United States, in Britain, in every country that you can imagine, they paid out billions of dollars and pounds and euros to prop up the banks. They found the money, they gave the financiers vast amounts of money, to enable them to recover and make more money. So what we saw was an increase in poverty, an increase in homelessness, an increase in inequality, but the government had found the money. I calculated that you could have given every individual in Britain 50 a week for three years with the amount of money that the government handed out without having to repay to the financial markets. The same with Covid what happened was the governments introduced measures which helped the financial markets, which gave big corporations billions of dollars or euros or whatever in loans, and hardly helped the precariat at all. So we see higher levels of inequality, higher levels of poverty, more debt, indebtedness amongst the precariat today. But they had the money, they paid it out, they just paid it out to the wrong people. So that's the short term issue.

The long term issue is this: I believe that every government, including Argentina, should create a common capital fund, a form of sovereign wealth fund, independently and democratically managed, in which levies on those who take from the commons should be put into the fund. The fund invests in ecologically sustainable investments and then, as the value of the fund rises, dividends should be paid out as a form of common property right, which is another name for a basic income. Now we have examples of how that works they have such a fund in Alaska, in the United States, it works very well. It's very popular, was set up in the 1980s and has been paying out each year a dividend to the population of Alaska individually. There is a wonderful fund in Norway which has been built up and is now the most capital-loaded fund in the world. It means that every Norwegian is effectively a millionaire. I think we need to do it through levies on ecological bads, ecological things that we need to restrict, and that includes the carbon tax. We need a carbon tax, we need a high carbon tax if we're going to get a downward trend in fossil fuel consumption. But of course, a carbon tax by itself is politically unpopular because it is regressive. It means if you apply a carbon tax on fossil fuels, on dirty diesel, for example, that a low-income person pays a higher proportion of their income than a rich person. But it becomes progressive if you guarantee that all the revenue from the carbon tax is recycled to help pay for basic income. In my new book, The Blue Commons, I have gone through all the varieties of levies that you could build such a commons fund, which would be ecologically very important, socially, very important and economically functional, regardless of your politics.

In your conception of basic income, you stress that it's not universal. It's basic, but not universal. What would be the difference between basic income and universal basic income?

If I were a philosopher king and you woke me up on a Sunday morning and asked me that, I would say I want everybody to have a basic income. I believe in universalism. But I think for practical political considerations one has to realise that if Argentina, for example, were to introduce a basic income tomorrow, it would have to make it a [apply] only for those who are usual resident, legal resident Argentines and people who are legally resident in Argentina. In other words, you would have to say Sorry, but we cannot include every migrant from all over the world. We can't include every Argentine who might be living in a far distant country, making money and living there. We are making it for our people who are living in Argentina.

I don't use the term universal simply because it creates misunderstanding. I believe in the concept of universality, I believe that we should all be equal, I believe that we should all be treated equally. But because the concept of basic income has to be introduced in a step-by-step way, we have to be realistic and gradually build it up so that as the person comes into Argentina from any part of the world, they would have to wait for a period to get the basic income. That doesn't mean you would give them no help. But that help would have to be given from outside the basic income system.

We are almost at the end, but I want to give you the opportunity to transmit something else about your ideas of basic income.

The feeling I have is that the basic income would give people a sense of control over their time, and we don't have a politics of time. A politics of time would be to say that time is a precious resource. Time is the only thing we have, and yet we waste most of it and we cannot control how we use our time. Having a basic income would enable me or anybody listening or reading this to have a greater sense of control. Those of us who have fought for that sense of control, of our time, know how precious it is. And everybody should have that right.

Production: Sol Bacigalupo and Sol Muoz.

related news

Go here to read the rest:

Guy Standing: A basic income is a right of every individual - Buenos Aires Times

Universal Basic Income (UBI, Citizens Basic Income CBI, or simply Basic Income) is an idea whose time appears to have come. The Welsh Government has committed to trialling it, the Scottish Government has invested in the feasibility of pilots, several English cities are keen to test it out and a number of political parties included UBI trials in their manifestos. But is it really the right basis on which to build a post-pandemic society? What problems is it trying to solve? Is it the only or the best solution to those issues?

There are many models but at its heart it is a regular cash payment every individual receives, without any reference to their other income or wealth and without any conditions. Payment amounts can vary according to broad demographic characteristics, such as a different payment for working-age adults, children and pensioners.

It is important to distinguish UBI from a Minimum Income Guarantee, which at its most basic is simply a set of policies designed to ensure no one falls below a set income level.

Some argue that Universal Basic Income is part of a radical rethinking of our economy and society, that provides a level of economic security to everyone and destigmatises the social security system. It is also seen as a potential solution to insecurity in the labour market.

The social security problems which UBI could help to address include -

Policy design - for example, deficiencies in maternity and paternity pay, support whilst training, and low-earning workers without Statutory Sick Pay.

Non-take up - due to stigma, lack of awareness, mistakes, the difficulty or unpleasantness of the system.

Dropping out of the system - because of conditions or treatment.

Sanctions - losing part or all of your benefits because you are deemed not to have met the conditions of receipt.

Delays, errors and problems with benefits - which can result in people having to go for long periods of time with little or no income.

Some advocates also argue that UBI could improve work incentives, if it was either not withdrawn at all as people earned more or was withdrawn at a lower rate than in the current benefit system. (Although others worry that the incentive to enter work at all might be reduced if people could rely on a high enough income outside it, discussed further below).

Alongside problems in our social security system, many advocates also see UBI as a response to increasing insecurity in our labour market. Too often low-paid jobs are unpredictable and insecure. Workers dont know what shifts or hours they will be working from one week to the next or how long the job will last. People cycle in and out of low-paid, temporary jobs, never able to rely on a steady income. UBI could provide a fixed income stream to offset this earnings volatility. In addition, some argue that UBI would free people to choose whether to take paid work or care for others, train or do other activities, and would recognise the value to society of such activities. In this scenario, it might bring wider benefits through better job matches and people holding out for better quality work, creating pressure on employers to pay more and achieve greater productivity. There are also wider debates about the extent to which automation may lead to significantly fewer jobs or climate change may necessitate such major economic changes that there will be a new norms of people doing much less paid work. For some, UBI is a necessary accompaniment to such radical economic changes.

Finally, there are a range of other arguments put forward for UBI which do not relate to poverty, social security or labour market insecurity, such as the idea it would reduce the level of state involvement in peoples lives. In this piece, we focus on the arguments relating to poverty and insecurity. There are, of course, versions of UBI which would significantly increase poverty by reducing the support provided to those on low incomes, but we assume these would not be proposed by those aiming to reduce poverty.

Most UBI proposals now include two features, in contrast to some earlier proposals which intended to replace all benefits with UBI or introduce UBI without accompanying tax changes. Alongside flat payments, there would continue to be a system of benefits linked to costs. A system of flat payments alone could not offer adequate support with varying costs of housing, childcare or disability. This means that there would continue to be a degree of complexity and means-testing even if UBI was introduced (sometimes known as UBI+), and that efforts to improve the existing system must continue. Second, UBI would replace parts of the tax system as well as social security. Most likely, the tax-free personal allowance would be removed, so people would pay tax on the entirety of their earned income. Depending on the design, many on lower- to middle-incomes would more than recoup this in the universal payment.

A key design question is obviously the level at which UBI is set. Would it be based below, at, or just above current benefit levels? Or provide much higher payments, for instance at the level of JRFs Minimum Income Standard?* This would be the main determinant of both the cost of UBI and its immediate impact on poverty levels.

A recent study by the Fraser of Allander Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University and IPPR Scotland, examined the costs and benefits of a Citizens Basic Income in Scotland at current benefit or at Minimum Income Standard level. These costs relate to introducing the scheme in Scotland; those for a UK-wide version would be much higher. However, estimates of necessary tax rate increases would be similar whether in Scotland or across the whole country.

A UBI based on current benefit levels would bring clear gains for those who are currently ineligible, where they are on a low income but are shut out, or fall out, of the existing system; it would probably bring smaller gains for many of those successfully claiming current benefits. Fraser of Allander et al estimates the costs and impacts of introducing this kind of UBI in Scotland. This scheme would require 7 billion in net additional funding (after existing benefits have been reduced and the tax-free personal allowance eliminated), paid for by increasing all tax rates by eight percentage points. UBI at this level would deliver lower levels of poverty and greater income security (reducing the number of people in poverty in Scotland by a quarter and child poverty by a third). However, it seems unlikely to achieve wider goals of significantly reducing insecurity and allowing more people to choose whether to care, train, or hold out for better jobs.

Introducing a higher level of UBI, for instance at Minimum Income Standard level, would potentially achieve these benefits and almost eradicate poverty in Scotland, but would be extremely expensive. Fraser of Allander et al estimates this would require 38 billion in net additional funding (again, after existing benefits have been reduced and the tax-free personal allowance eliminated). If funded through income tax it would require tax rates to start at 58p for the first 1 earned and rise to 85p for the higher and top rates. The Minimum Income Standard is significantly higher than the poverty line. An alternative would be to set UBI rates at or around the poverty line. This would be less costly than a version based on the Minimum Income Standard but still very expensive.

The specific design of UBI significantly impacts the distribution of winners and losers, and increases or decreases in poverty amongst different groups. Some proposals result in higher poverty for some groups than under the current social security system. One version with UBI payments based mainly on current benefit levels (funded by increasing tax rates by three percentage points and abolishing the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance thresholds) would reduce poverty overall but lead to higher poverty rates for children and lone parents. Around 20% of people in the poorest fifth would lose more than 5% of their income (despite the scheme being highly redistributive overall).

Other proposals avoid big losses for people on low incomes. Malcolm Torry proposed a UBI payment of 60 per week, funded by raising the basic, higher and top rates of tax by two, three and four percentage points respectively (and substantially reducing though not eliminating - the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance threshold). This reduces the number of people in poverty by 16% and children in poverty by 13%, while fewer than 2% of the poorest fifth of households lose more than 5% of their income. Compass proposed a scheme that reduces working-age poverty by a fifth and child poverty by a third, with only around 1% of people in the bottom fifth losing more than 5% of their income. It raises existing tax rates by three percentage points, abolishes the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance thresholds, and introduces a starter tax rate of 15% on the first 11,850 of earnings. However, that leaves a funding gap of 28 billion.

These models provide only illustrative examples of how UBI might be funded by income tax. In reality, such radical changes might require a more balanced tax response (such as wealth or carbon taxes) but there is no doubt that significant tax rises would be necessary.

Would giving people an income regardless of work lead to many more people deciding not to take paid employment, valuing the unpaid work of carers and contributions to society other than paid jobs? If so, would that damage or improve our economy and society? Alternatively, UBI could increase work incentives by reducing the rate at which income from it was reduced as someone earned more. For example, Universal Credit is reduced by 63p in every pound earned above a set level; under some versions of UBI this would change to someone losing only 20p for every pound earned.

Economic models estimate employment effects purely through a financial lens. Work incentives are calculated according to the net financial gain from taking a job or increasing earnings. Most modelling suggests that UBI (accompanied by higher taxes on earnings to pay for it) would have a complex mix of impacts. Some groups see increased work incentives because their benefits are reduced by less as they move into work or earn more. Others have lower work incentives due to unearned income and higher tax rates. Under the version of UBI modelled by Fraser of Allander et al, the overall result was that UBI reduced financial incentives to work and so could lead to a lower labour supply and a smaller economy. By contrast, Martinelli and Pearce found that several UBI schemes strengthened work incentives on average for low- and middle-income households.

A change on the scale of UBI would be likely to affect other aspects of our economy, for instance how wages were set. It is hard to predict how individuals and businesses might react to such changes. In addition, in the real world we dont make decisions purely on the basis assumed in economic modelling. There is limited evidence about how people respond to UBI in practice. So far, trials suggest that providing an unconditional payment may not have the negative employment effects found in some modelling. Finland is the only country to have carried out a nationwide, randomised control trial of UBI. The evaluation found that people receiving basic income were more likely to be in work than those in the control group. This is not conclusive, due to the introduction of other unemployment policies at the same time, although the signs from other smaller trials have also been positive, such as those in Stockton (USA) and the Netherlands. However, these trials have not examined the potential employment effects of changes to tax rates or other measures to fund such a system.

One of the potential benefits of UBI is the removal of stress caused by means-tests, conditionality and uncertainty about whether support will be withdrawn, coupled with destigmatisation of social security support. This could lead to better mental and physical health. It is easy to see the well-being advantages of a system providing a reliable income, uncoupled from complex conditions, shorn of the fear of failing and the feeling of being seen as a scrounger or having to continually prove your eligibility. The limited evidence from trials backs up this theory. In Finland, people on basic income reported higher life satisfaction, better health and lower levels of depression and loneliness.

Some versions of UBI could reduce poverty and improve recipients mental health and well-being. But it would be expensive. It would require significant increases in tax rates, which people may be reluctant to accept, even if many of those on low- to middle-incomes would be better off overall once receipt of their UBI payment is accounted for. The principle of offering payments without conditions might well also meet resistance among the public.

Public attitudes towards welfare have been softening in recent years, with increasing support for raising benefit levels. There has also been rising willingness to pay more tax to fund more public spending. However, when asked what kind of public spending additional taxes should be spent on, very few people prioritise social security. When asked directly about UBI, some studies show a sizeable minority of the public are receptive to the idea, at least of a pilot, but with no majority in favour and significant concerns about cost and use of the money, even among supporters; other studies suggest around half may be in favour. JRF polling in Scotland found a majority in favour of the Minimum Income Guarantee and significant minorities receptive to the idea of UBI, but no majority for that, or for increasing unemployment benefits. Willingness to personally pay more tax to fund UBI may well also be much lower than such polling implies. YouGov polling in 2020 examined whether the British public would be willing to pay more in tax to deal with the costs of the pandemic. It found that the public did support tax rises, but not for themselves. Only a quarter would back a tax rise that affected everyone.

A second barrier to introducing UBI nationally is the potential complexity and disruption of introducing large-scale changes to the social security and tax systems. The roll-out of Universal Credit has shown just how challenging such a change can be, for claimants, staff and civil society. Many of those who rely on social security feel extremely fearful about transferring from one benefit to another, or from one system to another. The extent of potential disruption does depend on the details of the scheme. The addition of a small simple new universal payment while maintaining the rest of the existing benefit system around it might be less challenging.

It is undoubtedly true that our social security system is failing to protect people from destitution and hardship. We need better coverage and to invest more in the system. But a multitude of changes to the existing system would go a long way to achieving those goals, without the expense and disruption of a new system. We could remove the benefit cap, the two-child limit and the five-week wait; extend sick pay to all; boost support for those at most risk of poverty; run national take up campaigns and reform council tax. A range of other measures, such as these, could be taken to fulfil other goals or principles of UBI. None of these individual changes would eradicate poverty, as a generous UBI system would. They would all require money and political will. But pursuing such improvements could transform the system for a fraction of the cost and difficulty of that kind associated with UBI.

Our current system fails to ensure that all those within it are treated with dignity and respect. It causes unnecessary and harmful stress for too many people and the sanctions regime is unnecessarily punitive. Again, however, we could roll back the complexity and harshness of conditionality and refocus the current system on maximising take up, valuing caring and supporting people to move into high-quality work.

Changing the public and media narrative is necessary to achieving greater and more sustainable investment in our social security system, whether that is to improve the existing system or put a new UBI in place. The question is whether couching the debate in terms of introducing UBI will be more or less effective in building that support compared to focusing more specifically on the different elements that are needed, such as greater understanding of the purpose of social security, greater empathy for those relying on it, the need for adequate support and dignity.

And what about the underlying issue of insecurity in work (and housing for that matter)? Our social security system needs to do more to counter the volatility in earned income that many low-earning workers face. For some, Universal Credit is exaggerating that volatility rather than counterbalancing it. This is a difficult policy challenge, but UBI is not the only way to solve it. Smaller changes could achieve significant improvements such as strengthening more universal elements of the system (like Child Benefit) and contributory benefits; more infrequent reassessments of eligibility for some benefits; run-ons when circumstances change, and disregard when incomes rise or fall by small amounts. Clearer incentives to move into work and increase earnings could be achieved by allowing people to earn more before they started to lose benefits and reducing the taper rate so benefits reduce more slowly. All of these would require additional investment, so the argument about funding still needs to be won, but they would probably be less expensive and might be less challenging to achieve than UBI.

Addressing insecurity also requires wider changes to our economy and society no social security system can or should do the whole job. We must redesign the labour market to offer greater security as well as better pay, training and treatment at work. We need more low-cost rented homes and better rights for private sector renters so that people on low incomes can be freed from the constant fear of homelessness.

UBI is not a silver bullet that would immediately and straightforwardly solve poverty. It could not replace the whole social security system. It is beyond doubt that a UBI that radically reduced poverty levels would require enormous increases in public spending and be a very significant redistribution across society. A smaller, less radical but potentially more immediately achievable, partial UBI payment could achieve some valuable outcomes but would fall short of some of the bigger aims of UBI. There are more targeted ways of achieving similar outcomes, although these might not bring some of the wider impacts of a very generous UBI.

The debate about ambitious interventions to reduce poverty is welcome, underlining the growing consensus that the current social security system is inadequate and does not provide the effective public service we need to protect people from poverty. A social security system that provides adequate support, reduces poverty and removes the indignities and stigma associated with the present system is a vital part of ending the injustice of poverty in the UK. A Minimum Income Guarantee could provide a positive framework within which to make progress. Whatever form it takes, it will require significant investment, for which we must build public support.

*The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and carried out by Loughborough University. It involves research which produces budgets for different household types, based on what members of the public think you need for a minimum acceptable standard of living in the UK.

View post:

Is Universal Basic Income a good idea? | JRF

Atlantic Canada > Opinion

HALIFAX, N.S. The story this week said: "Halifax regional council is calling on the provincial and federal governments to provide a livable basic income for all." And they will be sending letters to the provincial and federal governments to call for an unconditional, basic income guarantee (BIG). HRM isn't the only Canadian city that is pushing for a regular income for any adults whose annual earnings are below $20,000. And with all government programs, it would come at a cost. But there's already huge financial implications for leaving people to struggle in poverty. Independent Canadian Senator Kim Pate was quick to share the news, and a release on her twitter account. She wrote: "The unconscionable consequences of Canadas failure to address poverty and income inequality include starkly magnified, needless and cruel exposure of people to preventable health risks." She praised HRM's decision and called for the Canadian government to step up. She says we've already shown we have the mechanisms in place to do it, now we need the political will.

Sheldon MacLeod has been a broadcast professional for close to 30 years. Eyewitness to the transition from 45s and magnetic tape to CDs, MP3s, computers, websites, blogs and the worldwide web. And through all of the technology one thing remains constant: the satisfaction of sharing compelling stories with other humans. The responsibility of knowing better, is doing better. Sheldon is based in Halifax, N.S.Reach out to Sheldon at[emailprotected].

SaltWire Network welcomes letters on matters of public interest for publication. All letters must be accompanied by the authors name, address and telephone number so that they can be verified. Letters may be subject to editing. The views expressed in letters to the editor in this publication and on SaltWire.com are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or views of SaltWire Network or its Publisher. SaltWire Network will not publish letters that are defamatory, or that denigrate individuals or groups based on race, creed, colour or sexual orientation. Anonymous, pen-named, third-party or open letters will not be published.

See the original post here:

THINKING OUT LOUD WITH SHELDON MacLEOD: Basic Income Guarantee - Saltwire

A variety of potential income-support policies could save thousands of American lives each, according to a new study published in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

Researchers at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the University of California system modeled out the potential effects of four different income-support policies: a universal basic income of $12,000 a year; a negative income tax that guarantees an income of 133% of the federal poverty level; a modified version of the LIFT Act, proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris while she was in the Senate, that would provide $6,000 to individuals with annual household income below $100,000; and a more targeted income guarantee of at least 100% of the federal poverty level for one person.

They found that each of the four hypothetical policies could avert thousands of deaths, with universal basic income saving between 42,000 and 104,000 lives of working-age adults a year, followed by the negative income tax (19,000 to -67,000 lives). The modified LIFT Act would avert 17,000 to 52,000 deaths, they estimate, while the most targeted poverty-fighting approach would prevent 12,000 to 32,000 deaths among the lowest-income, working-age adults.

Despite decades of research that has demonstrated that income is an important determinant of health, discourse around income support policies has disproportionately emphasized their economic benefits and costs, with little to no focus on the health benefits that these interventions might provide, the researchers conclude.

Read more about the study at The Hill.

See the original post:

Income-Support Programs Could Save Thousands of Lives a Year: Study - The Fiscal Times

Welcome to the weekend! Here's what's happening.

Consumer prices rose at an annual rate of 8.6% in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Friday, as inflation hit the fastest pace in 40 years. On a monthly basis, prices rose by 1%, more than triple the 0.3% month-over-month rate recorded in April.

Price increases were broad-based, with energy, food and housing leading the way. Energy costs rose 3.9% in May and 34.6% over the last 12 months as gasoline hit record prices in the U.S. The cost of groceries jumped 11.9% on an annual basis, the biggest increase since 1979. And the cost of shelter picked up speed in May as well, rising at an annual rate of 5.5%, the biggest jump in over 30 years.

Core inflation a measure that leaves out volatile food and fuel prices and is closely watched by the Federal Reserve increased at a 6.0% annual rate, higher than in April and slightly above expectations.

No silver lining: The May inflation report dashes hopes that inflation has peaked, and increases the odds that the Fed will have to move even more aggressively to get inflation under control, perhaps for months to come and at the risk of causing a recession.

I keep looking at the line item breakdown of the CPI report searching for silver linings and I just don't see any, said Neil Irwin of The New York Times. This report is a disaster if you're a Fed or Biden administration official hoping this inflation will go away without a serious downturn.

The breadth of the price hikes is particularly concerning. Inflation is hitting not only the volatile food and energy categories, which themselves look to persist at high levels, especially food, but has moved deeply into services and shelter costs, while remaining high in goods categories we thought were cooling off, Robert Frick of Navy Federal Credit Union said in a note.

Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, tried to find some ray of hope. Airline fares will stop rising [very] soon, given 45% drop in jet fuel prices from peak, and US vehicle output back to pre-Covid levels will ease pressure on vehicle prices. And economist David Rosenberg argued that the inflation numbers look much better if you strip out of the CPI all the items that are linked to energy (air fares, moving/freight, rental cars, delivery services, new and used vehicles), which produces an adjusted inflation rate closer to 4%. But as others noted, the economy people actually live in is heavily dependent on oil, the cost of which shows no signs of easing as the war in Ukraine rages, China reopens its economy and the demand for travel in the U.S. soars.

Consumers sinking low: A closely watched gauge of consumer sentiment from the University of Michigan has now fallen to a record low, sinking to 50.2 in June, down from 58.4 in May. Its the lowest reading going back to 1952, and worse than the lows seen during the 2008 financial crisis.

"Consumer sentiment declined by 14% from May, continuing a downward trend over the last year and reaching its lowest recorded value, comparable to the trough reached in the middle of the 1980 recession," Joanne Hsu of the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers said in a statement.

The price of gasoline always a sensitive issue in a country built on highways and suburban sprawl seems to be playing an important role in the souring mood. Overall, gas prices weighed heavily on consumers, which was no surprise given the 65 cent increase in national gas prices from last month, Hsu said. Half of all consumers spontaneously mentioned gas during their interviews, compared with 30% in May and only 13% a year ago. Consumers expect gas prices to continue to rise a median of 25 cents over the next year, more than double the May reading and the second highest since 2015.

White House responds: Clearly threatened politically by the depth and persistence of the inflationary surge, President Joe Biden sought to reassure Americans Friday that the White House is focused on the issue, while also making it clear that he thinks others are to largely blame for the problem.

Todays report underscores why I have made fighting inflation my top economic priority, Biden said in a statement. While it is good to see critical core inflation moderating, it is not coming down as sharply and as quickly as we must see. Putins Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world.

During a visit to Los Angeles, Biden slammed oil companies for earning record profits as fuel prices soar. One thing I want to say about the oil companies: They have 9,000 permits to drill. Theyre not drilling, he said. Why arent they drilling? Cause they make more money not producing more oil the price goes up.

Asked if he planned to target oil company profits, Biden singled out one company in particular for criticism: Exxon made more money than God this year, he said. Exxon, start investing. Start paying your taxes.

Summers warns: With the Fed facing the difficult task of cooling the economy without causing a recession, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers chided the central bank for getting it wrong on inflation.

Its pretty clear that peak-inflation theory, like transitory theory is kind of wrong, Summers told Bloomberg Television. The Feds forecasts from March, saying that inflation would be coming down to the 2s by the end of the year was, frankly, delusional when issued, and looks even more ridiculous today.

Summers said the latest inflation numbers point to bigger interest rate hikes, lasting for a longer time an increasingly popular view that helped send stocks sharply lower Friday as traders adjusted their expectations. The debate has been between 25 and 50 basis point moves a couple months from now, he said. I think a more fruitful deliberation would be between 50 and 75 basis points.

Separately, analysts at Barclays upped their forecast for the Feds rate hike in June: We are changing our forecast to call for a 75bp hike on June 15.

The Biden administration has reportedly decided to scrap former President Donald Trumps plan to use a red, white and blue paint scheme for two new Air Force One jets after an analysis found that the design would raise the cost and delay delivery of the planes.

The Trump paint scheme is not being considered because it could drive additional engineering, time and cost, an unnamed administration official told Politico.

Politicos Lara Seligman and Lee Hudson reported earlier this week that Trumps proposed makeover, which would have painted the planes underbelly and engines in dark blue, could contribute to excessive temperatures on the plane, a problem that Boeing would likely have to pay out-of-pocket to fix.

The White House reportedly is likely to keep the planes Kennedy-era light blue and white design. The new planes arent expected to be ready until 2026, Politico says. The program has been delayed by supply chain issues, Boeings trouble finding workers with appropriate security clearances and a dispute between the airplane maker and a subcontractor.

Boeing was awarded a $3.9 billion contract in 2018 to deliver two new presidential 747 jets to replace the existing planes. Boeing CEO David Calhoun told Wall Street analysts earlier this year that the deal struck by his predecessor was a mistake. "Air Force One, I'm just going to call a very unique moment, a very unique negotiation. A very unique set of risks that Boeing probably shouldn't have taken," he said. "But we are where we are."

A variety of potential income-support policies could save thousands of American lives each, according to a new study published in the journal JAMA Health Forum.

Researchers at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and the University of California system modeled out the potential effects of four different income-support policies: a universal basic income of $12,000 a year; a negative income tax that guarantees an income of 133% of the federal poverty level; a modified version of the LIFT Act, proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris while she was in the Senate, that would provide $6,000 to individuals with annual household income below $100,000; and a more targeted income guarantee of at least 100% of the federal poverty level for one person.

They found that each of the four hypothetical policies could avert thousands of deaths, with universal basic income saving between 42,000 and 104,000 lives of working-age adults a year, followed by the negative income tax (19,000 to 67,000 lives). The modified LIFT Act would avert 17,000 to 52,000 deaths, they estimate, while the most targeted poverty-fighting approach would prevent 12,000 to 32,000 deaths among the lowest-income, working-age adults.

Despite decades of research that has demonstrated that income is an important determinant of health, discourse around income support policies has disproportionately emphasized their economic benefits and costs, with little to no focus on the health benefits that these interventions might provide, the researchers conclude.

Read more about the study at The Hill.

See more here:

Biden Slammed With Another Awful Inflation Report | The Fiscal Times - The Fiscal Times

In the last three decades, the world has made considerable progress in reducing child malnutrition, but there is still work to do. (Shutterstock)

Achieving food security, improving nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture are key to reaching one of the United Nations most critical Sustainable Development Goals: Zero Hunger.

The goal is important for all people, but is crucial for children. There is work to do to meet this goal not just in low- and middle-income countries, but also in high-income countries. In Canada and the United States, food insecurity affects one in six children.

Children rely on adults to nourish their growth and prepare them to become successful adults in an increasingly precarious world of pandemics, war and climate change all of which threaten the global food supply, food affordability and the equitable distribution of food.

In my book Small Bites: Biocultural Dimensions of Childrens Food and Nutrition, I examine the challenges of feeding and nourishing children.

As a species, humans are co-operative breeders. For much of our evolutionary history, nurturing children has fallen on parents, grandparents, older siblings and extended relations.

Today that responsibility also extends to institutions such as daycares, schools and governments. Its a responsibility that regrettably we have not adopted as our highest collective priority.

Today, the collective responsibility for child nutrition includes institutions such as daycares, schools and ultimately governments. (Shutterstock)

In the past three decades, the world has made considerable progress in reducing child malnutrition.

In Nepal, where I conducted childrens nutrition research in the 1990s, an alarming 60 per cent of children under five were stunted, a term used to describe kids who are short for their age due to chronic malnutrition.

From 2001 to 2011 the prevalence of stunting in Nepal declined to 41 per cent from 57 per cent the most rapid improvement ever documented.

A study of this reduction in Nepal isolated five factors:

These improvements were brought about by broad social, economic and policy changes at both community and national levels, featuring the combined efforts of many partners.

Still, the world has a long way to go to achieve zero hunger by 2030, in keeping with the Sustainable Development Goals.

In 2020, 22 per cent of all children in the world under the age of five were stunted, 6.7 per cent suffered from wasting (being too thin for their height due to acute malnutrition) and 5.7 per cent were overweight.

Stunting and wasting are mostly low-income country phenomena, but even children being overweight often assumed to occur only in high-income countries is now common in middle- and low-income populations. The so-called double burden of malnutrition being both undernourished and overweight occurs in tandem with stunting and wasting within an individual, household or population.

For example, an individual with obesity may also have nutritional deficiencies due to a poor diet. At the household level, one member may be living with obesity while another has a nutrient deficiency such as anemia. On a larger scale, this double burden can affect neighbourboods, cities and regions.

Bagged lunches await stapling before being distributed to students at a U.S. elementary school. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

Child malnutrition is no stranger to high-income countries. In Canada and the United States, food insecurity is more prevalent in households with children under 18, affecting about 17 per cent in this age group.

In Canada, food-insecure households with children are more likely to be headed by lone parents and more likely to identify as Black or Indigenous.

While the U.S. has a range of federally funded programs to address child hunger, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children and the National School Lunch Program, Canada has no government-funded programs dedicated to supporting childrens nutrition. It is the only nation in the G7 without a national school meal program.

Instead, Canada has a range of charitable efforts such as school breakfast programs and food banks staffed by volunteers.

Whats especially concerning in Canada is the lack of action at all levels of government to address the problem of food insecurity for children that is prevalent and growing. In a UNICEF report on youth well-being in 41 high-income nations, Canada was ranked 37 in working toward the Zero Hunger goal for children. Canada ranked ahead of only Malta, Turkey, Mexico and Bulgaria, with the U.S. ranked just above Canada at 36.

Reducing child poverty is critical.

Unfortunately, U.S. President Joe Bidens expansion of the existing federal child tax credit in 2021 during the coronavirus pandemic expired after Congress failed to extend it in 2022.

Rising inflation has increased food costs, which has only heightened the crisis in childrens food security and malnutrition. (Shutterstock)

In Canada, cash transfers to families such as the Canada Child Benefit have helped to reduce poverty, but are not enough. Basic income guarantee programs would go far toward reducing the most severe food insecurity among those at the lowest income levels.

In 2019, Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus federal Liberal government announced its long-awaited National Food Policy that included, among other promises, a federal commitment to work with the provinces and territories to develop a national school food program to deliver healthy food to children before and during school.

Sadly, COVID-19 has stalled the implementation of that policy, while rising inflation has increased food costs, which only heightened the crisis in childrens food security and malnutrition.

A recent infant formula shortage in the United States that also affected Canada is emblematic of the necessity for government intervention to ensure that goods vital to childrens survival are not under the complete control of the food industry.

Now more than ever, food policies targeting children are needed from all branches of government.

Tina Moffat, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Here is the original post:

Analysis: Ending child hunger and food insecurity needs to be a top priority in Canada as well as globally - Brighter World