I just read this article about globalization which argues that income inequality isn't caused by globalization, but by societies not choosing to distribute the benefits of globalization equally. As an example, it mentions the idea of a Universal Basic Income, which just came up for a referendum in Switzerland last spring and was defeated. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is when the government guarantees every citizen a basic income - enough to just barely live on - instead of social support like unemployment or food stamps or public housing. I personally think UBI is a great idea, but I don't really think it has any chance of being enacted anywhere in the near future. 

Here in Switzerland, in the months before the referendum, there were billboards all over showing a fat man in a dirty t-shirt with pizza and empty beer bottles on the table. I don't remember the slogan on the ad, but it was something to the effect of "why would you want to support this loser who doesn't want to work or do anything productive with his life?" The measure was defeated pretty soundly, and most people I spoke to were against it for vague, not well thought through reasons. 

To get back to the point, the article doesn't really give any good options or ideas for more equally distributing wealth, and I don't think it's very well thought through. It does raise a good point though, which is that the technological advances which have given the multi-nationals so much money and power at the expense of the middle and lower classes could easily be used to benefit everyone. Why aren't they benefitting everyone? Because the multi-national corporations exist only to make money, so why would they share their money with others when they can have it all for themselves? 

Regardless, this article does provide a different opinion to the one in "No Logo" and to my own opinion, so I thought it was worth sharing.

Labels: personal, economics