Following is a link to a talk he gave in November 2009 in London. After opening with a somewhat general discussion of modern capitalism, particularly the fact that consuming is now a lifestyle activity, he discusses basic income. That part of the talk is great. Zizek mentions developments in Brazil, South Africa, and Europe, and then discusses the work of Philippe Van Parijs, who’s cited in several places at www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

This mostly theoretical talk, which is increasingly abstract after the section on basic income, was featured on New Year’s Day on a popular progressive political website, CommonDreams.org. The basic income idea is spreading, even in the United States.

After that section of the talk, Zizek returns to his theme of the contradictions in post-1968 capitalism, using the work of a contemporary German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk (who I had not previously heard of). Sloterdijk and Zizek seem to believe that the modern social welfare state, with its taxes, infrastructure, rule of law, and so on, must be preserved by the good works of the rich, people such as Bill Gates and George Soros.

Zizek then states that he agrees most with some ideas from Oscar Wilde’s “The Soul of Modern Man Under Socialism,” specifically the notion that charity degrades and demoralizes and merely prolongs the contradictions and injustices of capitalism.

Thus, asserting that basic income is a form of charity that will leave people envious and demoralized, Zizek concludes that it’s an attractive idea but can’t work. His argument reflects three misconceptions about basic income. First, he seems to think that the basic income is little more than taxing the rich to subsidize the poor, and would therefore prolong or increase envy, greed, and demoralization. He thus ignores the fact that the rich will benefit enormously from basic income, because they will have greater security and a more stable and sustainable society, along with opportunities to become even richer.

Second, the funds don’t have to come from taxing income and labor. Society can charge some rent or fees on what people take from nature and the community. Such takings include oil, land, timber, minerals, electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. The opening section of Zizek’s talk suggests that he ought to be sympathetic to this point. This is the idea of carbon fee and dividend that I’ve posted about a few times in recent weeks, and the idea of Thomas Paine, Henry George, and other people who are discussed elsewhere on this site.

Finally, he seems to view basic income only as a form of charity. It’s not. Instead, it would ensure that everyone can participate as citizens within the economic, social, and political activities of the modern state. It would be transformative in just the ways Zizek and Wilde appear to desire.

I hope Zizek continues to read and think about basic income, and to spread the word. His criticisms, particularly because of their contradictions and blind spots, mostly serve our interests.

The whole tape is 29:24.

Here’s the link:

http://vimeo.com/8073858

(I tried to upload the video so you could view it here, but had some trouble with that. Sorry.)

Steven Shafarman

Namibia, in southwest Africa, is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a high rate of AIDS and many of its 2.1 million people living on less than $1 a day. But it may be leading the world in showing a way to end hunger and poverty.

The German magazine Der Spiegel has an article about the remarkable successes of a Basic Income Grant experiment in the village of Otjivero. I’ve been following the program since shortly after it began in January 2008, and I contributed money to help fund it. It’s scheduled to run through the end of this year, and the organizers hope it will become a model for the nation, the continent, and the world.

As the article describes, moreover, the program is doing much more than ending hunger and poverty. There have been dramatic improvements in health outcomes, school attendance, reduced crime and alcoholism, and a significant increase in entrepreneurial activity and employment.

This is one of the most hopeful and important breakthroughs in the world today, though it has not been reported by any American news outlet (there have been earlier stories in the BBC and AllAfrica.com). Please circulate this news widely.

This is how our government ought to be investing our foreign aid dollars, and what the Gates Foundation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other aid agencies and charities ought to be supporting. They should pay for expanding the Otjivero program to the whole country — and could do so for less money than they are currently spending on piecemeal programs.

The Der Spiegel article is here. (It’s in three parts: Part one is “How a Basic Income Program Saved a Namibian Village. Part two is “A Village of Entrepreneurs.” Part three is “‘I’m Doing Very Well.’”)

The Namibia pilot program was organized by a coalition of church, labor, health, and social justice organizations. The coalition’s web site has a good description of the program and its advantages compared with conventional aid programs reasons, here.

The coalition recently prepared a comprehensive assessment report that includes a  discussion of how it could be implemented nationwide. For your convenience, copied below are the executive summary and concluding remarks. The complete report is a 103 page pdf, here .

Similar ideas can be applied in any country, including the United States. That’s the subject of my blog, IncomeSecurityForAll.org, and my book, Peaceful, Positive Revolution: Economic Security for Every American.

Steven Shafarman

MAKING THE DIFFERENCE! THE BIG IN NAMIBIA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2008, the Basic Income Grant (BIG) pilot project

commenced in the Otjivero-Omitara area, about 100 kilometres

east of Windhoek. All residents below the age of 60 years receive

a Basic Income Grant of N$100 per person per month, without

any conditions being attached. The grant is being given to every

person registered as living there in July 2007, whatever their

social and economic status.

This BIG pilot project is designed and implemented by the Namibian

Basic Income Grant Coalition (established in 2004) and is

the first universal cash-transfer pilot project in the world. The

BIG Coalition aims to practically pilot the Namibian Government's

NAMTAX recommendation of a BIG for Namibia. Thus the

BIG Coalition regards this project as the first step towards a BIG

for all. The BIG Coalition consists of four big umbrella bodies in

Namibia, namely, Council of Churches (CCN), the Namibian

Union of Namibian Workers (NUNW), the Namibian NGO Forum

(NANGOF) and the Namibian Network of AIDS Service Organisations

(NANASO). Funds to start the pilot project were raised

through voluntary contributions from supporters of the idea

from all sections of Namibia's society, and by support from

people, churches, organisations and donors in other countries.

The BIG pilot project will run for a period of 24 months up to

December 2009.

The effects of the BIG pilot project are evaluated on an on-going

basis. Four complementary methods were used. First, a baseline

survey was conducted in November 2007. Second, panel surveys

were conducted in July and November 2008. Third, information

was gathered from key informants in the area. Fourth, a series of

detailed case studies of individuals living in Otjivero-Omitara

was carried out.

This report presents the socio-economic results after the implementation

of the BIG for 12 months. The key findings include

the following:

➢ Before the introduction of the BIG, Otjivero-Omitara was

characterised by unemployment, hunger and poverty.

Most residents had settled there because they had

nowhere else to go, their lives were shaped by deprivation

and they had little hope for the future.

➢ The introduction of the BIG ignited hope and the community

responded by establishing its own 18-member

committee to mobilise the community and to advise residents

on how to spend the BIG money wisely. This suggests

that the introduction of a BIG can effectively assist

with community mobilisation and empowerment.

➢ As the BIG was only introduced in one particular location,

there was a significant migration towards Otjivero-

Omitara. Impoverished family members moved into

Otjivero, attracted by the BIG, even if migrants themselves

did not receive the grant. This points to the need

to introduce the BIG as a universal national grant in order

to avoid migration to particular regions, towns or

households.

➢ The migration to Otjivero-Omitara affected the data obtained

for this study. Per capita income from the BIG

dropped from N$ 89 per month in January 2008 to N$ 67

in November 2008. We thus analysed the impact of the

BIG, taking the influence of migration into consideration.

➢ Since the introduction of the BIG, household poverty has

dropped significantly. Using the food poverty line, 76% of

residents fell below this line in November 2007. This was

reduced to 37% within one year of the BIG. Amongst

households that were not affected by in-migration, the

rate dropped to 16%. This shows that a national BIG

would have a dramatic impact on poverty levels in Namibia.

➢ The introduction of the BIG has led to an increase in

economic activity. The rate of those engaged in incomegenerating

activities (above the age of 15) increased from

44% to 55%. Thus the BIG enabled recipients to increase

their work both for pay, profit or family gain as

well as self-employment. The grant enabled recipients to

increase their productive income earned, particularly

through starting their own small business, including

brick-making, baking of bread and dress-making. The

BIG contributed to the creation of a local market by increasing

households' buying power. This finding contradicts

critics' claims that the BIG would lead to laziness

and dependency.

➢ The BIG resulted in a huge reduction of child malnutrition.

Using a WHO measurement technique, the data

shows that children's weight-for-age has improved significantly

in just six months from 42% of underweight

children in November 2007 to 17% in June 2008 and

10% in November 2008.

➢ HIV positive residents' access to ARVs was hampered by

poverty and a lack of transport before the BIG was introduced.

The BIG enabled them to afford nutritious food

and gain access to the medication. This was further enhanced

by government's decision to make ARVs available

in Otjivero, freeing residents from the need to travel to

Gobabis.

➢ Before the introduction of the BIG, almost half of the

school-going children did not attend school regularly.

Pass rates stood at about 40% and drop-out rates were

high. Many parents were unable to pay the school fee.

After the introduction of the BIG, more than double the

number of parents paid school fees (90%) and most of

the children now have school uniforms. Non-attendance

due to financial reasons dropped by 42% and this rate

would have been even higher without the effects of migration

towards Otjivero-Omitara. Drop-out rates at the

school fell from almost 40% in November 2007 to 5% in

June 2008 and further to almost 0% in November 2008.

➢ The residents have been using the settlement's health

clinic much more regularly since the introduction of the

BIG. Residents now pay the N$4 payment for each visit

and the income of the clinic has increased fivefold from

N$ 250 per month to about N$ 1,300.

➢ The BIG contributed to the reduction of household debt

with the average debt falling from N$ 1,215 to N$ 772

between November 2007 and November 2008. Savings

increased during that period, which was reflected in the

increasing ownership of large livestock, small livestock

and poultry.

➢ The BIG has contributed to a significant reduction of

crime. Overall crime rates – as reported to the local police

station – fell by 42% while stock theft fell by 43%

and other theft by nearly 20%.

➢ The introduction of the Basic Income Grant has reduced

the dependency of women on men for their survival. The

BIG has given women a measure of control over their

own sexuality, freeing them to some extent from the

pressure to engage in transactional sex.

➢ The criticism that the BIG is leading to increasing alcoholism

is not supported by empirical evidence. The community

committee is trying to curb alcoholism and has

reached an agreement with local shebeen owners not to

sell alcohol on the day of the pay-out of the grants.

➢ The BIG is a form of social protection, which reduces

poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth. As a

national policy it would greatly assist Namibia in achieving

the Millenium Development Goals to which the country

has committed itself.

➢ The costs of a national BIG in Namibia are substantial.

The net costs will be between N$ 1,2 – 1,6 billion per

year, equivalent to 2,2 – 3% of Namibia's GDP. There are

various options to finance such a national grant. A moderate

adjustment of VAT combined with an increase in

income taxes is one option. This would benefit all middle

and lower income households in terms of available incomes.

Other financing options include a re-prioritisation

of the national budget and the introduction of a special

levy on natural resources.

➢ An econometric analysis revealed that Namibia's tax capacity

exceeds 30% of the national income. The current

collection rate is below 25% and thus Namibia's excess

capacity to raise tax revenue significantly exceeds the

net costs of a Basic Income Grant. This makes the BIG

affordable in Namibia.

➢ A national BIG would have several medium to long-term

benefits. Based on the developments in Otjivero-Omitara,

it is safe to argue that the BIG will reduce poverty

and unemployment, increase economic activities and

productivity, improve educational outcomes and the

health status of most Namibians.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The BIG pilot project in Otjivero-Omitara has shown

the wide-ranging benefits of a universal income grant in

addressing poverty. The findings contained in this report

document the social and economic changes that

occurred during the past 12 months – some of them being

nothing less than spectacular.

The Basic Income Grant is more than an income support

programme. It provides security that reinforces human

dignity and empowerment. It has the capacity to

be the most significant poverty-reducing programme in

Namibia, while supporting household development,

economic growth and job creation. A BIG has various

developmental impacts. A grant of N$ 100 per person

per month would generate a net benefit of over N$ 900

million a year reaching the rural communities in Namibia.

It can be argued that this would work as an engine

for local economic development. The poor would have

the ability to spend larger amounts on locally produced

goods and services. This would create more viable and

sustainable opportunities for employment in the rural

areas. Furthermore, if people are constantly confronted

with economic insecurity, they will not be able to engage

in entrepreneurial activities. The BIG would therefore

provide income security, which has the ability to

free resources for entrepreneurial risk taking. A BIG is

not an added burden at a time of economic crisis, but

an appropriate intervention that will stimulate demand

- particularly for basic consumer goods.

The BIG is a form of social protection which reduces extreme

poverty and supports pro-poor economic growth.

As a national policy it would greatly assist Namibia in

achieving the Millenium Development Goals to which

the country has committed itself. These goals include

the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, the pro-

motion of gender equality, the reduction of child mortality,

combating diseases like HIV/AIDS and malaria,

and ensuring environmental sustainability. The empirical

results in Otjivero-Omitara have shown that a BIG

will have a positive impact in all these areas.

While the BIG alone cannot solve all of Namibia's social

and economic problems, it will certainly make a substantial

contribution. One of our findings in Otjivero-

Omitara was that the grant has reduced the dependency

of young women on men for their survival. The

BIG has given women a measure of control over their

own sexuality, freeing them to some extent from the

pressure to engage in transactional sex.

There is no doubt that the cost of a BIG is substantial -

ranging from 2.2% to 3.0% of national income. As

shown by the calculations in this report, Namibia has

the capacity to mobilise the necessary resources

without undermining financial stability. On the contrary,

over time, as Namibia benefits from the long term

growth impact, the Basic Income Grant will become increasingly

more affordable. Moderate adjustments to

VAT and income tax, alternatively royalties levied on

natural resources, or a shift in budget priorities or a

combination of these interventions, will make a national

BIG an immediate option for Namibia. Its implementation

is thus merely a question of political will.

Welfare rolls are increasing, according to the Wall Street Journal, and food stamp use is increasing even faster. The facts are only part of the story.

A few key sentences from the Journal article:

Twenty-three of the 30 largest states, which account for more than 88% of the nation’s total population, see welfare caseloads above year-ago levels.

The number of food-stamp recipients has risen in every state and was 19% higher in March than a year ago, a much bigger increase than the number of welfare cases.

In general, a family of four must have a monthly income of less than $2,297 to qualify for food stamps. Welfare, on the other hand, is designed as a last resort.

The average monthly welfare benefit in 2006, which reflects the most current data collected by the government, was $372.

The complete article is here.

Can anyone live on $372?

Suppose every adult citizen is getting $1,000 a month, Citizen Dividends. That’s unconditional. It would go to the homeless and unemployed, members of the middle class, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey. And its independent of earnings, unlike welfare and food stamps. The unemployed will have strong incentives to work and earn.

For a poor couple, even one adult working part time would put them above the limit for food stamps. Thus, we could eliminate welfare and nearly eliminate food stamps, using that money to help pay for Citizen Dividends.

Giving it to everyone will end the stigma, coercion, and degradation, including the moral and spiritual degradation, that comes with welfare and extreme poverty. That will also make it simple to administer, with no means-testing or welfare bureaucracy. We won’t have to endure continuing political conflicts about who’s included, how much they get, where and how to draw the lines. Plus, there will be a baseline of economic justice and economic equality, constant reminders that each of us is a member of We the People, that we’re all in this together with mutual interests in making your government more just, efficient, accountable, and responsive.

Here’s the final paragraph from the Wall Street Journal article:

A further explanation is that income limits for welfare eligibility are set so low, and haven’t been adjusted for so long, that having a low-wage part-time job can disqualify an applicant. In New Jersey, a family of three earning more than $636 a month is ineligible. “These are the people who really will fall through the cracks because they’re not eligible for any help,” says Donna Gapas, who oversees the welfare program in Hunterdon County, N.J.

Can anyone live on $636?

It’ll be hard for people to live on $1,000 a month, of course, though for a couple that’s $24,000 a year, which is more than the current federally-defined poverty level for a family of four. People will have strong incentives to work and earn more, because unlike with welfare and food stamps they won’t be penalized for working and earning.

Cutting welfare is just one way to pay for Citizen Dividends. We can also cut, and perhaps eliminate, corporate welfare. No more bailouts or subsidies. No more need for government spending with the specified purpose of “creating jobs.” Everyone who’s unemployed or underemployed will have a basic income for food and shelter while they find or create their own jobs.

Cutting individual welfare and corporate welfare won’t be at the federal government level only. We’ll also be able to cut a lot of state and local programs. That’s how we pay for Citizen Dividends, by cutting or eliminating the programs that become superfluous.

Guaranteed income was a mainstream, moderate idea in the 1960s. Martin Luther King called for it in his last book, and a plan to provide it passed the House of Representatives by two-to-one, but was blocked in the Senate. Proponents including leading economists from the left and the right.

In the 1930s, mass movements for guaranteed income security generated the political will for Social Security, and that history is document on the official web site of the Social Security administration.

Early ideas about income security helped power the progressive and populist movements of the 1890s and go back to the Founders, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. A summary history is elsewhere on this web site, here.

The complete plan, the idea, the benefits, and how we can make it happen, is in Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.

Additional information is on the home page and elsewhere on this web site.

Please comment on this blog and help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

A new book reports that 35 million Americans go hungry every day. It’s Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It.

Here’s a quote from the author, Sasha Abramsky:

“The failures of our policies that led to this epidemic of hunger and poverty are evident across the country. Unemployment, lack of benefits, and wage cutbacks by major employers are forcing families to the food pantries.”

Though I haven’t read it yet, that quote and subtitle are certainly promising. Does he talk about guaranteed income, basic income, Citizen Dividends, or anything of the sort? I hope so, though there’s no sign of that in any of the reviews or articles I’ve seen.

Here’s a bit more from one article:

SOME OF THE NUMBERS FROM BREADLINEUSA:

• In 2008, the official poverty line was $ 10,590 for a single person and $21,203 for a family of four. Census data shows 37 million Americans at or below these numbers.

• From 2000 through 2007, as corporate profits grew 2.5% per year, median income for working-age households fell by 0.6 %–with African Americans and Latinos experiencing greater losses.

• In 2008, 28.4 million Americans were receiving food stamps. In New York City, 1.1 million residents were on food stamps; 700,000 more were eligible but not enrolled.

• A single person on food stamps in mid-2008 received an average of $26 per week and a maximum of $40 in vouchers.

• From 2002 to 2007, the USDA cut its food contribution to the state of California from 97 million pounds to 39 millions pounds.

• In the 1950’s, one in three Americans worked a manufacturing job with fair wages, benefits and secure pensions. By 2007, that number declined to one in 10.

• By 2008, America’s 499 billionaires owned over $1.5 trillion in assets, equivalent to the average annual salaries of approximately 30 million of the country’s workers.

The complete article is here.

We can end hunger by providing income security for all. I believe, moreover, that there is no other way to achieve that goal, and I will be happy to debate that assertion with anyone.

Income security for all, as I’ve written elsewhere on this blog and web site, updates ideas that were mainstream and moderate in the 1960s. Martin Luther King called for guaranteed income in his last book, and a plan to provide it passed the House of Representatives by two-to-one, but was blocked in the Senate. Proponents including leading economists from the left and the right.

In the 1930s, mass movements for guaranteed income security generated the political will for Social Security, and that history is document on the official web site of the Social Security administration. Mass demands for economic justice also helped power the Populist and Progressive movements of the 1890s, which resulted in many political reforms.

The updated idea is to set some amount, say $1,000 a month, and provide that to every adult citizen. It should be enough for food and shelter, but just enough, so people still have strong incentives to work and earn.

Give it to everyone – the hungry and homeless, you and other readers of this blog and our families, Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey – because that will minimize the administrative costs and bureaucracy, while preventing political fights about where and how to draw the lines over who’s included. That will also create a baseline of economic justice and economic equality, thus making it easier for us to work together to solve our social, cultural, political economic, and environmental problems.

We will achieve this if we individuals and We the People demand it.

The complete plan, the idea, the benefits, and how we can make it happen, is in Peaceful, Positive Revolution,.

Additional information is on the home page and elsewhere on this web site. IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

Please comment on this blog, especially if you’ve read Abramsky’s book. And please help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

There are many lessons. One is that we depend on government. In crisis situations particularly, we rely on government to respond appropriately and inform us responsibly. President Obama and other officials mostly did that, with the notable exception of some excessive comments by Joe Biden, while the tone in the news media was at times somewhat hysterical. We have to be active citizens to ensure that our government is prepared and does its job.

Other lessons concern poverty. A piece in today’s Washington Post discusses the fact that poverty among Mexicans added to flu deaths. If Mexicans had sought prompt medical treatment, there would have been fewer deaths and perhaps no pandemic.

In the United States, poor people are also more at risk, and so are the rest of us, because many of the poor cannot afford to stay home from work. People who cannot afford to see  doctors are more likely to take their symptoms to work and perhaps infect others. More likely, also, to send kids who may be infected to school.

Recall the news reports of the past week. How did you respond? Were you worried? What did you think? Did you do anything differently?

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine that we have Citizen Dividends, a basic income for every adult citizen, and even the poorest among us have some secure income independent of their jobs. That lest phrase is key: secure income independent of their jobs.

What would that mean for you and your family? Would you feel more secure, knowing that you can afford to stay home if you had symptoms? If your kids school is closed, would it be easier for you to make the necessary arrangements?

Two pieces about poverty reinforce the idea that guaranteed income will bring significant benefits to all of us, though neither piece talks about guaranteed income. First is a New York Times column by Judith Warner. Second is from USA Today about tent cities and growing poverty around the country.

We will all be safer and healthier when our neighbors, all of our neighbors, have some basic income security guaranteed. Citizen Dividends will promote the general welfare directly, efficiently. The general welfare includes public health. This is common sense, something liberals and conservatives ought to support.

To learn more about these ideas, visit the home page and other material on this web site, www.IncomeSecurityForAll.org.

You can read the complete plan, the idea and how we can implement it, in Peaceful, Positive Revolution, which is available from Tendril Press.

I hope you’ll also comment on this blog. And please help spread the word.

Steven Shafarman

Every poor person will have some income, guaranteed, to meet their basic needs. That income will be provided with minimal government, because the same amount will go to everyone, the homeless, the unemployed, minimum wage workers, single parents, the middle class, and the wealthy. No means-testing, no government intrusiveness, minimal bureaucracy. Plus, we won’t have continuing political disputes about who’s in and who’s out, where and how to draw the lines.

Good reasons for conservatives to endorse this proposal.

Liberals, too, because this is sure to be the most reliable and effective way to help the poor. Current efforts and programs, typically, are too stingy and too vulnerable to changing political and economic conditions. As activists and scholars have noted, “programs for the poor are poor programs.”

These comments are prompted by “States Slashing Social Programs for the Vulnerable” — the headline of a front page story in the New York Times. Here it is.

A similar point was made in a USA Today story a few days ago: “Many of the jobless get no unemployment benefits.” It’s here.

Advocates for the poor, the unemployed, the vulnerable, ought to stop fighting to strengthen or recreate the categorical and conditional programs. Those days and programs are past. Citizen Dividends is the future.

Steven Shafarman

Could this tragedy have been prevented if we had a guaranteed income? Very possibly, especially if it was a true basic income, income security for all, with the baseline of economic justice and economic equality that will come with this approach.

Similar circumstances are part of the story in just about every instance of someone suddenly shooting up a workplace. Poverty is also a factor, typically, when people kill spouses, children, and other relatives, though in such cases the family drama may be more compelling.

Such events incur massive costs, incalculable costs because so many costs are delayed and diffuse. Costs to the individuals involved, extended families, police, hospitals, other businesses in the area when people miss work to attend funerals, and so on. Costs to victim’s family members and friends who live elsewhere. Costs to our nation as a whole, including the well documented fact that such incidents often provoke copycat events.

Unemployment insurance cannot accomplish what we’ll have with income security for all. UI stigmatizes and comes with coercion to find a job. ISFA will end the stigma, coercion, and other social and psychological complications that come with any conditional benefits. UI also requires some large bureaucracy to monitor recipients. ISFA is universal and therefore can be implemented with minimal bureaucracy and government intrusiveness.

There will surely be more such shootings. When they occur, we should note the economic circumstances of the shooter and the costs to the communities and our nation.

Steven Shafarman