If a set amount of money can be calculated so that every single person had that much money, no more, no less, then the world would be at an equilibrium, with no separation of classes, and no poverty. However, as soon as one person gets a dollar, and one person looses a dollar, it's anarchy. The equilibrium could be set off by a penny. Not to mention how boring it would be if everyone had the same amount of money.
So no matter how Singer puts it, there is no way his proposal would solve any problems. If everyone donated the proper amount to just survive, then there would be imbalance in the opposite direction, or an equilibrium that could never be maintained and could only destroy the economy.
Instead, an amount of money should be calculated for one person to survive on for one day. Then everyone with more than that amount has to donate enough to fill that gap for others depending on how far they exceed that number. For example, if the calculated number was 5, and Fred had 2, Donna had 7, and Amber had 9, Donna would donate 1 to Fred and Amber would donate 2. They would then have 5, 6, and 7. Fred would have enough to live off of, and they would all be closer in wealth. If this proposal were to be carried out, there would be a lot smaller wealth gap, and people in poverty would have enough to live off of and pick themselves up from. Everyone would have a better opportunity to diminish the wealth gap even more, without reaching an artificial equilibrium.
I get what your saying about the fiscal imbalance that Singer's proposition would result in but I think that that is part of his point. That world hunger and poverty would come to a simple end if people lived a comfortable life without their precious tangible goodies but humankind is selfish and live lavishly even if it means that hundreds of millions are poor.
ReplyDeleteYour system is very interesting in theory - it provides everyone with a sustainable income while also allowing for growth. I fear that it's not super applicable though - who is impartial enough to decide where the cutoff of sustainable living is, how will we enforce it, once a cutoff has been created how will the free market be regulated so as not to raise the standard of living over that cutoff once again and beginning the cycle all over again? It's a tricky situation, but then again, if there were any perfect solutions to world poverty they'd have been implemented already.
ReplyDelete