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