I don't normally read a lot of non-fiction and I can't remember when I have ever read anything about the economy, but a few months ago I saw an interview with Rutger Bregman talking about his book Utopia for Realists and I was intrigued. It was entirely likely that I would reserve the book from the library, flip through a few pages and decide it wasn't going to actually be readable- not by me, anyway. I did just go on and on in my last review about how little patience I have with books that don't capture my attention. Well, no one could be more surprised than I was to find myself completely absorbed with concepts I knew absolutely nothing about before opening this book.
According to Bregman, we need to drastically change some of our economic beliefs if we want to make the world a better, and more profitable, place. He talks about a universal basic income, shorter work weeks, and significant changes to immigration laws. These ideas will sound entirely too radical for many people, but Bregman does a good job of explaining how they work and what it could mean for society. Here are a few points that stood out to me:
Lest there be any misunderstanding: It is capitalism that opened the gates to the Land of Plenty, but capitalism alone cannot sustain it.
On the topic of international relief: The great thing about money (actual cash) is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. And, as it happens, there is one category of product which poor people do not spend free money on and that's alcohol and tobacco. In fact, a major study by the World Bank demonstrated that in 82% of all researched cases in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, alcohol and tobacco consumption actually declined.
Did you know that Nixon was in the process of passing a bill to provide a basic income in the 1970s, but a study found that the divorce rate among those participating in an experiment in Seattle jumped more than 50%? My first thought was that when women have the financial means to support themselves, they are no longer forced to stay in bad marriages. This rise in the divorce rate was enough to change the opinion of politicians supporting it despite all the other outcomes, such as better school performance and improvements in health. A basic income, evidently, gave women too much independence. Sadly, it was discovered a decade later that there had been a statistical error and that the divorce rate hadn't actually changed at all.
There were several studies that illustrated that the cost of poverty and homelessness (health care, social services, police, and court costs) is actually more than what it would cost to provide a basic income which has been shown to be more successful anyway. In Utah, in 2005, in an effort to combat homelessness, housing became a right. Free apartments were provided for those in need and it was actually a windfall for the state budget. State economists calculated that a drifter living on the street cost the government $16,670 a year. An apartment plus professional counseling, by contrast, cost a modest $11,000.
It may be an unpopular topic among some, but raising taxes on top earners has been shown to improve not only society at large, but actually the economy as well. Not all work is created equal- an investment banker or hedge fund manager may make a lot of money, but doesn't actually create anything. A builder fills a need, but doesn't make as much income. For every dollar a bank earns, an estimated equivalent of 60 cents is destroyed elsewhere in the economic chain. Conversely, for every dollar a researcher earns, a value of at least $5 - and often more - is pumped back into the economy. … In plain English: Higher taxes would get more people to do work that's useful.
Regarding immigration, Bregman suggests that open boarders would be the solution to many problems, but if you're not ready to go quite that far, he says: Even just cracking the door would help. If all the developed countries would let in just 3% more immigrants, the world's poor would have $305 billion more to spend, say scientists at the World Bank. That's the combined total of all development aid - times three.
These ideas may all be a bit hard to swallow, but Bregman explains them in a way that certainly does make the reader curious about what could be. The author does not browbeat his readers, nor does he discount the concerns they may have. He simply presents the information with the hope that it will educate and enlighten. I found this book fascinating and very accessible. I am sure there is a lot I don't understand, but this gives me something to consider and maybe even hope for in the future.
I think this book could be an excellent conversation starter if you thought your book club could handle it. Money and politics can be tricky, but they are important conversations to have.
According to Bregman, we need to drastically change some of our economic beliefs if we want to make the world a better, and more profitable, place. He talks about a universal basic income, shorter work weeks, and significant changes to immigration laws. These ideas will sound entirely too radical for many people, but Bregman does a good job of explaining how they work and what it could mean for society. Here are a few points that stood out to me:
Lest there be any misunderstanding: It is capitalism that opened the gates to the Land of Plenty, but capitalism alone cannot sustain it.
On the topic of international relief: The great thing about money (actual cash) is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things that self-appointed experts think they need. And, as it happens, there is one category of product which poor people do not spend free money on and that's alcohol and tobacco. In fact, a major study by the World Bank demonstrated that in 82% of all researched cases in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, alcohol and tobacco consumption actually declined.
Did you know that Nixon was in the process of passing a bill to provide a basic income in the 1970s, but a study found that the divorce rate among those participating in an experiment in Seattle jumped more than 50%? My first thought was that when women have the financial means to support themselves, they are no longer forced to stay in bad marriages. This rise in the divorce rate was enough to change the opinion of politicians supporting it despite all the other outcomes, such as better school performance and improvements in health. A basic income, evidently, gave women too much independence. Sadly, it was discovered a decade later that there had been a statistical error and that the divorce rate hadn't actually changed at all.
There were several studies that illustrated that the cost of poverty and homelessness (health care, social services, police, and court costs) is actually more than what it would cost to provide a basic income which has been shown to be more successful anyway. In Utah, in 2005, in an effort to combat homelessness, housing became a right. Free apartments were provided for those in need and it was actually a windfall for the state budget. State economists calculated that a drifter living on the street cost the government $16,670 a year. An apartment plus professional counseling, by contrast, cost a modest $11,000.
It may be an unpopular topic among some, but raising taxes on top earners has been shown to improve not only society at large, but actually the economy as well. Not all work is created equal- an investment banker or hedge fund manager may make a lot of money, but doesn't actually create anything. A builder fills a need, but doesn't make as much income. For every dollar a bank earns, an estimated equivalent of 60 cents is destroyed elsewhere in the economic chain. Conversely, for every dollar a researcher earns, a value of at least $5 - and often more - is pumped back into the economy. … In plain English: Higher taxes would get more people to do work that's useful.
Regarding immigration, Bregman suggests that open boarders would be the solution to many problems, but if you're not ready to go quite that far, he says: Even just cracking the door would help. If all the developed countries would let in just 3% more immigrants, the world's poor would have $305 billion more to spend, say scientists at the World Bank. That's the combined total of all development aid - times three.
These ideas may all be a bit hard to swallow, but Bregman explains them in a way that certainly does make the reader curious about what could be. The author does not browbeat his readers, nor does he discount the concerns they may have. He simply presents the information with the hope that it will educate and enlighten. I found this book fascinating and very accessible. I am sure there is a lot I don't understand, but this gives me something to consider and maybe even hope for in the future.
I think this book could be an excellent conversation starter if you thought your book club could handle it. Money and politics can be tricky, but they are important conversations to have.
No comments:
Post a Comment