What can we learn from Denmark's economy? Everything. Denmark is the skeleton key. It's the answer to everything. It is the slayer of all disputation. The data about Denmark is so explosive I should win a Nobel Prize in economics for revealing it. The data from Denmark proves what I've thought all along: the citizen's dividend, and NO OTHER SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST maneuver, is the final, perfect economic solution for all.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=Denmark&countryCode=da®ionCode=eu&rank=119#da
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Denmark&countryCode=da®ionCode=eu&rank=28#da
The first two links are from the CIA World Factbook. The first link shows that Denmark is rich -- with a per capita GDP of around 37,000. The second link shows that Denmark has one of the best GINI indexes in the world. The GINI index measures how evenly distributed money is between all members of the country. If a country is both rich and its money is evenly distributed, it has cured the problem of poverty. It has reached economic heaven. It has also completely satisfied the entire reason behind socialism and communism, to get money to where people need it instead of where it 'justly belongs.'
Unsurprisingly, Denmark was rated the happiest nation on Earth:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/14/world-happiest-countries-lifestyle-realestate-gallup-table.html
So the next question is, how did Denmark carry off this feat? Was it through rampant socialism? Or was it perhaps by coincidence? Maybe Denmark didn't make any effort to redistribute income, and it just turned out to be so equal due to racial homogeneity or a libertarian 'invisible hand' or the like?
http://www.heritage.org/index/explore
This is the slayer of all disputes. From this table, we can learn precisely what Denmark is doing in order to achieve vast riches plus even distribution, which results in zero poverty in Denmark and the highest overall happiness rating in the world.
The freedom index measures many different aspects of freedom. These are:
Business Freedom, Trade Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Government Spending, Monetary Freedom, Investment Freedom, Financial Freedom, Property Rights, Freedom From Corruption, and Labor Freedom.
Business Freedom means the ability to start businesses without hassle. Trade freedom means free trade. Fiscal Freedom means low taxes. Government spending means how low government spending is. Monetary Freedom means how low inflation is. Investment freedom means how freely you can invest in foreign countries, or be invested in by foreign countries. (It's another aspect of free trade.) Financial Freedom means not overly regulating your banks. Property Rights means people are secure in their belongings, without arbitrary seizure by the law. Freedom from corruption is self-evident. Labor freedom means you can easily hire and fire people, and those you hire can work for flexible pay and during flexible hours.
A libertarian would insist that all of these freedoms are absolutely necessary for a functioning economy. A protectionist would try to take away investment freedom and trade freedom. A keynesian would try to take away monetary freedom. Wisconsin wants to take away Labor Freedom. The democratic congress recently targeted Financial Freedom. Everyone has a plan. Everyone says, 'I'll redress the grievances of the poor by limiting x freedom.' However, libertarians say to all of these groups, 'If you limit x freedom, the economy will collapse. If the economy collapses, the grievances of the poor cannot be met.' They then whistle a dandy tune, put on their top hats, gather their canes, tap their heels, and leave the debating parlor. The libertarians think they've got us by the balls.
However, Denmark paints a different story. Denmark is the first country to target 'fiscal freedom' and 'government spending' as a means to address poverty. Amazing, isn't it? 200 years of socialist/communist theorizing, and we have never tried to redress the grievances of the poor with fiscal freedom and government spending. It has Always been targeting some other freedom in the freedom index. All other freedoms, if lowered, DO result in the collapse of your economy. However, Denmark proves that specifically lowering your fiscal freedom and government spending score, does not result in any significant economic harm. This is the miracle datum that finally ends all debate.
Consider Denmark's freedom scores: Denmark has the 2nd freeist business freedom. It has the 12th freeist trade freedom. It has the 4th least free fiscal freedom. It has the 3rd least free government spending. It has the 25th freeist monetary freedom. It has the 2nd freeist investment freedom. It has the 1st freeist financial freedom. It has the 1st freeist property rights. It has the 2nd freeist freedom from corruption. It has the 6th freeist labor freedom.
If you look at these freedoms carefully, there's a "Where's Waldo" moment to be found. One of these numbers isn't like the others. Denmark is either the freeist, or nearly the freeist, in all freedoms involving production or exchange of goods/services. It is one of the least free in terms of taxing and spending -- ie, redistribution of wealth. It is almost the worst in the world by these categories. However, 'worst in the world' in these categories does not result in North Korea or Zimbabwe like we have been told by our dapper libertarian pals. It results, in this case, in DENMARK.
We now know that Denmark's GINI index is not an accident. It is the political, created will of the populace that has redistributed the money through force, coercion, law. This solution to poverty did not come about through libertarianism, or an 'invisible hand,' or 'racial homogeneity.' It came about through taxing and governing spending. Denmark's happiness was not an accident, it was a manufactured government policy.
Looking at these numbers, there is only one reasonable philosophy left. A citizen's dividend that includes high taxes, and high wealth redistribution, while leaving the economy completely free to produce and exchange goods, hire and fire people at any wages they please, loan money however they see fit, invest or trade with any nation they want, set up any business as quickly as the entrepreneur can get the hammer and nails, etc, etc. If all the IMPORTANT freedoms are left alone, people's natural productive urge and creativity will rush into the available niches and make them sprout green, green money. This sprouting money can then be periodically harvested and redistributed without harming the roots of our economy and ensuring another successful harvest next year.
Denmark taxes and spends over 50% of Denmark's GDP. To be safe, we could start by taxing and redistributing 25% of our GDP as a straight citizen's dividend. 25% of the USA's GDP is $47,400/4 = $11,850. The benefits of the citizen's dividend would rise and fall according to the strength of our economy. Everyone would have a stake in making sure the USA was still healthy and prosperous. No one would want to see any policy that might hurt our overall productivity. Furthermore, no one would want endless immigrants streaming into the country, because each and every one of them would dilute our portion of the citizen's dividend. At $11,850 per person, there is no such thing as poverty possible in America under this plan. Families could marry and have kids at any age they pleased, secure in the knowledge that their kids will GENERATE the family more money through the citizen's dividend than they cost to raise. One of the largest factors in divorce is fiscal instability in the family. The citizen's dividend would erase that factor forever.
The citizen's dividend solves everything. Low birthrates? Solved. Immigration? Solved. Poverty? Solved. Happiness? Solved. Stable marriages? Solved.
We have now learned that it comes at no price. Taxing people and redistributing income has no impact on economic prosperity for the nation as a whole. So long as other freedoms are kept intact, the economy can absorb this regular pruning without skipping a beat. Denmark does it. So can we.
The economic argument against the citizen's dividend is now gone. Likewise, all socialist arguments that start with, "We can't just throw money at the problem, but if we tinker with this law, or that law, or maybe these laws over here, the poor will be able to lift themselves up blah blah blah," have been definitively trounced. All such meddlesome laws are exactly what won't solve the problem. Throwing money at poor people is exactly what WILL, and HAS, solved the problem. Denmark, and perhaps a few other countries, are the only ones who tried to throw money at the problem. Everyone else across time and space has tried the old, stale socialist solutions -- they have never succeeded.
However, there is still the moral argument against wealth redistribution. Secretly, libertarians never cared about the economy. They never cared whether it collapsed or not. All they really wanted was to keep the poor down. There is a great scene of this in 'The Chimes' by Charles Dickens. A nobleman walks by a poor guy giving mooney eyes to a pretty lady nearby. He then goes into a rant about the feckless, worthless poor, and how he intends to keep them DOWWWWWWNNNNNN. With many examples of his stomping shoe. The poor guy is so troubled by this speech that he goes insane. Libertarians collectively have been making this speech since Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. They no longer wanted to make arguments like, "don't kill the golden goose." They went straight for the throat: "The poor are evil parasitic cockroaches. Crush them! Crush them wherever you find them! Death to the POOOOORRRRRR!"
After this channeling of their inmost hearts, libertarians have made the moral argument that even if people are starving in the streets, unemployed, homeless, sick or disabled, they deserve it, no one should help them, and good riddance. They are absolutely heartless bastards. But to make matters even more comical, they argue that 'if only taxes were lower, our endless private generosity would take care of all such cases.' Only, this isn't true.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/638_charity_contributions_average_dollar_amount_and.html
According to the most recent data, in 1998, poor people, making less than $10,000 a year, donated 5.2% of their money to charity. As wealth increases, charitable giving decreases. The selfish, greedy, heartless rich have no interest in helping the poor, no matter how painless and easy it would be. Only the poor care about the poor, giving money they can't even afford to give. This is a trait noticed by eminent authors like Steinbeck in Grapes of Wrath and Charles Dickens, in The Old Curiosity Shop. It is now statistically proven. Those making $75,000 - $99,999 only donate 1.6% of their income to charity. The hyper-rich, making over $100,000 a year, donate a whopping 2.2% to charity. The people who can most easily give their money away without suffering any decrease in standard of living, are the most tight-fisted people in America. They have hearts of flint.
It is impossible to believe that these people, due to taxes, simply don't have any spare money left -- Apparently, according to them, their taxes make them poorer than the $10,000 a year group, because they can't afford to give as much, after taxes, as the poorest people in America. Those are some tax rates!
Furthermore, private giving is less than 1/10 what it needs to be to support poverty alleviation. Even supposing tax rates were dropped tomorrow, the increase in private charity would be a drop in the ocean compared to the loss in government spending for the poor. 2% of the rich's GDP does not cut it. 25% may not cut it. Denmark spends over 50%, and is the happiest country on Earth. 2% spending is just a spit in the face. At that point, you may as well give no money at all. The libertarian creed is morally bankrupt. People do not volunteer to help the poor. Of those who do, twice as many volunteers come from the poor themselves.
I reject the moral argument against helping the poor. I reject the terms 'parasite,' and 'thief,' and all the rest. I think if one person can literally swim in dollar bills, and another cannot feed his children, it is the moral right of anyone, anywhere, to forcefully seize those funds and give it to the party in need. Since government makes this transition orderly, efficient, and safe for everyone, government coercion is the optimal method to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, cure the sick, shelter the cold, and do all the acts all of our religious and philosophical gurus have called upon mankind to perform. Compassion is an important source of happiness, not just for the receiver, but the giver. Love is one of the three greatest goods on Earth. Those who would have us slay our compassion and love for our fellow man, and turn our eyes away from crying babies and mothers who are too weak to give any further milk for suck, are not just hurting the poor. They are hurting our humanity. They are hurting our happiness.
In any case, even if you can convince men to hate the poor and call them cockroaches while channelling the demonic voice of Ayn Rand from the grave -- you will not convince women. Since the majority of voters in a democracy are women, and women still have feelings, still have compassion, and still have love, men's dreams of stomping on the cockroaches and KEEPING THEM DOWWWWWWWN are a lost cause. Kind of like the Confederacy. As romantic as your dreams of bug squishing may be, socialism has been a constant of our democracy, and a growing constant, ever since women got the vote. Either you can work with reality, or rail against it.
The citizen's dividend, Denmark's tax and spend policy, is working with reality. It is an economically painless practice which is morally uplifting and fulfilling. It is the key to happiness. Libertarians, protectionists, unionists, keynesians, and all the rest can now step aside. The question of how to address poverty is now scientifically, absolutely, indisputably proven. It was my citizen's dividend plan all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment