By Tony Weekes on October 29, 2009

A deeply compassionate letter in Wednesday’s Guardian (Spend to help those hit by recession, 28 October) calls on those of us who have escaped the effects of the recession to “ … stop saving and to spend on the goods and services that will open up more factories, shops and restaurants”.  The intention is clear: creating ‘demand’ will create ‘jobs’, which, in turn, will give people affected by hardship an income.

Without reservation, I share the writer’s concern for those in hardship.  But will these jobs deliver what we need to face the challenges of our time … or will they create trivia, wasting precious natural resources and adding to the waste stream?  Will they create work which matches and fosters an individual’s talents?

The idea of a citizen’s income would be a better step. Brief descriptions can be found on the internet; website www.socialjustice.ie/node/248 is one I find useful.

I say “step”, because other things would also need to be changed

Could the country ‘afford’ it? Yes, but ideally as a more effective form of ‘quantitative easing’ than the present scheme.

James Robertson’s September Newsletter (website www.jamesrobertson.com/news-sept09.htm) offers access to one of his papers: The Twenty-first Century Crisis of World Development.

In the final paragraph, he expresses the frustration we all feel: “Proposals for monetary reform, land value taxation and basic income have all received committed support for many years, and are now clearly needed. But, the beneficiaries of the status quo still successfully resist. … public outrage in the United Kingdom about our MPs’ expenses is provoking demands for parliamentary reforms. How long before concern at the much more serious worldwide corruption and injustice inflicted by the present money system creates unstoppable pressure for its reform?”

Do we need similar ‘outrage’ about the issues with which we are concerned?