This was a rather painful piece to read.  The concluding sentence is 
simply stunning: " Poverty <https://www.theguardian.com/society/poverty> 
is a lack of cash."!  This is painful to me because of my interest in 
development economics, monetary economics, and the history of economic 
thought.  The author makes a fundamental error of confusing poverty, the 
lack of the basic necessities of life, with the lack of money, cash.  
But cash in a modern society is printed by a central bank.  And one 
comes into possessing as much of it as one is able to exchange one's 
produced goods and services for it. Poverty thus is not the lack of cash 
but the inadequacy of one's production.  Thus, anyone concerned about 
the eradication of poverty must first make the effort to understand the 
obstacles in the way of those who do not produce enough to be classified 
as being above the "poverty line," a line that is not fixed but changes 
along with the overall level of production in society.

When one clearly understands the meaning of poverty, one is hopefully 
also led to recognize the danger of designating a basic level of 
"income" to people, whether they work for it or not.  The danger is 
that, to fulfill the promise, those who are more productive have to 
cede, forcibly, through taxation, a part of their production to those 
who are less productive.  Now if one is socialist inclined, there is 
nothing dangerous or morally wrong about the scheme.  But if one is 
cognizant of the property rights violation entailed in the 
redistribution scheme, one is appalled by it.  Need historians of 
economics be reminded of Adam Smith's explanation of the proper role of 
government in society  -- the protection of private property, besides 
national defense (_WN_, 2: 231-2)?

Data may well show that when a government redistributes income from the 
rich to the poor, schooling, health status, and some other qualities of 
life improve for them.  Why would that be so? The "poor" would be merely 
catching up with the better quality of life enjoyed by the more 
productive (middle income and rich) who are able to purchase such 
quality of life from their higher levels of production (income).  The 
author, Rutger Bregman, asserts: "Imagine how many brilliant would-be 
entrepreneurs, scientists and writers are now withering away in 
scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got 
rid of poverty once and for all."  Isn't scarcity a fact of life, 
affecting everyone, rich or poor?  What the author doesn't seem to 
recognize is that (1) without people producing more goods and services 
beyond their own desired levels of consumption, taking some of what they 
produce to give to others to assure a "basic level of income" would only 
lower level of consumption for everyone and (2) there is no guarantee 
that many brilliant entrepreneurs, scientists, and writers would emerge 
from the redistributive scheme.  What data have not shown is that 
schemes to assure that everyone consumes a basic level of income, 
whether they work for it or not, have produced a rapidly growing level 
of wealth creation (poverty reduction) along with much civil liberty for 
the population, particularly in the less developed countries.  For 
example, the spectacular reduction in the level of poverty in China 
since 1980 did not arise from designating a basic level of income for 
the population.  There are many other countries in the third world that 
have experienced impressive poverty reduction since the 1950s without 
Bregman's scheme.

History has known arguments for redistributive schemes or socialism.  
This version may seem novel to the Rutger Bregman. But socialist schemes 
always will have their critics for their preaching the violation of the 
property rights of those from whom they seek to achieve the utopia.

James Ahiakpor

Erreygers Guido wrote:
>
> Some on this list may be interested in this article published by /The 
> Guardian/ today:
>
> Rutger Bregman: “Utopian thinking: the easy way to eradicate poverty 
> <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/utopian-thinking-poverty-universal-basic-income>”
>
> Guido Erreygers
>
> University of Antwerp
>


-- 
James C.W. Ahiakpor, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA 94542
510-885-3137
510-885-7175 (Fax; Not Private)