Friday is review day and this time the book is by Danny Dorling, “Inequality and the 1%”. My aim in my reviews is to commend the resource and then to apply it in some specific way.
This rather dull cover belies the compelling content of this book. Imagine a book about economics you can’t put down; this is it. After each of its 5 chapters, I thought it cannot possibly get any worse: it did! This book clearly demonstrates the wealthiest people in this country are not an asset. Indeed they are a liability. Their wealth is a disadvantage to the poorest and all the 99%. They are disadvantaged by their own wealth, although most don’t get it.
I am not anti-wealth and I’m sure the same is true of most people on the left. That the left opposes aspiration is a myth by politicians on the right with vested interest in inequality.
I oppose inequality because it disadvantages everyone. The society that is so careless as to take away the welfare safety net and consign new generations to poverty is perverse. This book demonstrates what happens when a very few people buy up the state, make it less democratic and take away the modest livelihoods of the majority.
Wealth Equals Money Circulation
One of the comments I received about my ebook (see below if you would like to read it), “Community Development is Dead!” reads as follows:
I agree with most of what you have written but profoundly disagree with this sentence. (p24) “Any increase in the flow of money in the economy will in time impact the lives of the poorest.” Money can flow at any rate, but if you have an underclass that is totally marginalised from the economy they will never benefit from it. I’m very surprised you appear to be supporting the trickle down theory of poverty alleviation!
I replied:
I may need to rewrite this paragraph to clarify what I’m saying. It is not in support of trickle down and that’s why it might be ambiguous as the thought was far from what I had in mind. Trickle down implies a global 1% élite who by accumulating unbelievable wealth are supposed to somehow trickle it down to the rest of us. Indeed it doesn’t only disadvantage the most disadvantaged, it disadvantages everyone else – certainly the 99%. That doesn’t mean all the 99% understand the implications of inequality.
In that sentence, I mean the opposite of trickle down, where the 1% contribute by reintroducing their fortunes into the economy. This is not going to happen overnight, so when will it happen? It will never happen if we do not have the economic structures to accommodate it. This includes social enterprises and mutuals as well as local businesses. What we have failed to do is to build the infrastructure that supports local businesses. I was talking to a trader in Sheffield recently who understands this and looks out of his shop window at shops converted into houses. He’s actively supporting traders on the street where he is based.
What Happens When Talent is Scarce?
I’m self-employed and not a social enterprise or a mutual. Why? Because I’m developing something at my risk. If my business proves to be viable, that’s when I’ll look at making it a social enterprise. My long-term aim is to support those seeking ways to build an economy that serves the interests of all.
In my review of Della Rucker’s book, I said her undercurrent about talent is worth reading. She flags up a dilemma. Talent disadvantages many people because they don’t have the talent they need to take part in the local economy. My plans will not directly benefit the disadvantaged. So, provision must be made and integrated into plans to rebuild the economy. The state has no problem funding wealthy corporations who somehow wriggle out of paying taxes. At the same time it labels those who need benefits as scroungers and skivers.
Citizens’ Income
The approach I would use is the Green Party’s Citizens’ Income because it guarantees everyone has a basic income, introduces more money circulating in the economy and does not penalise small businesses as a living wage would. It is funded by a tax on everyone earning above the basic Citizens’ Income. The rate increases, so high earners make a higher contribution.
I do not accept the label of left, if by that people mean Stalinist. We should never forget that despite the rhetoric, Soviet Russia, was unequal. The élite lived in luxury whilst millions starved in the Gulags.
There is no neat solution to poverty but we can choose to support economic policies that are more or less fair. Dorling provides a valuable insight into why our economy is progressively becoming less fair and it our task to find alternative approaches that work better. It won’t happen overnight and that is not complacency, it is a realistic appraisal of the economic system we live in and massive changes we will need to turn it around. We gain nothing by not naming those who are responsible for keeping it as it is.