‽istis wonders: needs - why not? (weekending August
27th 2022)
‽istis acknowledges a level of paucity of economic
expertise and generally assumes that ‘most things are more complicated than that’,
yet wonders:
· why perhaps might we not be clear about what are public goods and public essentials – what are ‘needs’? A starter for ten[i]: e.g:
o
physical
and mental health, social care and well-being services from before the cradle
to the grave
o
life-long
education, training and development
o
non-individualised
transport
o
heating,
lighting and power
o
water
treatment and management
o
policing
and justice
o
international
aid and development of other countries (perhaps not least those we might now consider
were under-developed, exploited, even robbed by us to make ‘great Britain’ – OK,
I’ve said it!)
o
defence (defined clearly in a way that perhaps does not serve as a
euphemism for offence…) including promoting and funding international
peacekeeping
§ please add your own... and let a
debate about ‘needs’ v ‘wants’ begin…
· why might we possibly not expect that all these industries and service companies pay an inflation-linked living wage so that no-one working for them needs to receive benefits?
· why might we maybe not have expectations/requirements in relation to what happens to any income over cost for these ‘need-meeting’ services and industries? E.g:
o
it
is not available for ‘private’ profit (yes, alright then, ‽istis imagines that
there is likely to be the need for another debate about what ‘private’ actually
means, if only to close any loop-holes through which money is pulled for the
enrichment of sometimes out-of-sight individuals, some funding/receiving behind
those infamous ‘hedges’…)
o
pay
differentials that reflect a recognition that perhaps all companies and organisations
require workers throughout all areas and types of work in a mutually co-dependent
organisational structure
o
no
pay gap associated with equality legislation protected characteristics
o
no
disproportionate pay/benefits/total emoluments or bonuses not linked to well-defined
and reasonable key performance indicators for everyone
o
an
expected % for research and development, for training and skill development,
for impact evaluation, for efficiency management; and with costs or charges
reflecting this, transparently
o
an
expected % for climate crisis mitigation/reversal; and with costs or charges reflecting
this, transparently
o
an
expected % for infrastructural upgrades, sustainability and ‘future proofing’ against
hard times and the ‘unforeseen’/’who could have known’/ ‘a one in a hundred years’
event’; and with costs or charges reflecting this, transparently.
And perhaps the cries go up: Naïve! Ridiculous!! Counter-productive!!!
Unworkable!!!! Socialist!!!!! Communist!!!!!! Just wrong!!!!!!! [ii]
Yet, and yet “we are where we are”…
…that seems to be working well‽
©
Pistis
NB: further reflections and comments linked to this week’s theme
and past blog entries to be found on Twitter: replies, retweets (which don’t
necessarily indicate approval, sometimes the very opposite!) and ‘likes’:
@Pistis_wonders. ‘Follows’ and respectful comment and dialogue welcome...
[i] As
Amol Rajan may soon say… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-62588667
(accessed this week)
[ii] And
yes, you are right, ‽istis did not study ‘Philosophy, Politics and Economics’ at
Oxford or any other university.
‘PPE was born of the
conviction that study of the great modern works of economic, social, political
and philosophical thought would have a transformative effect on students’
intellectual lives, and thereby on society at large.’ https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/course-listing/philosophy-politics-and-economics
(accessed this week)
