The word economy is used most often to describe the mathematical figures assigned to measure certain aspects of business, such as the stock exchange numbers. Thus we have such assessments as “Trump’s presidency has been defined by a strong and growing economy” (Boston Globe, 5-10-20) despite growing hunger, homelessness, and inequality of opportunity. This limited view of the economy encourages an unhealthy focus on money. It leaves out the value of unpaid work, such as people caring for people who are not able to care for themselves outside institutions as well as a great deal of volunteer work that fills in the gaps in community service, including by non-profit organizations.
Economy, in a broader sense, refers to the efficiency of interactions to produce things people need in exchange for their labor, with money as the language of this interaction. It should be a system of orderly management of resources to produce things efficiently. Looked at in this way, it is easy to see these days that people who provide essential services are grossly under-compensated and that many people who receive and accumulate a great deal of money contribute nothing of value to anyone but themselves and their clients.
It is easy to see that lack of essential supports does not arise from a lack of sufficient resources; there is plenty of food and sufficient commodities for everyone. The problem is a system that has evolved as a result of flawed political philosophy and misuse of political power. Equality of opportunity and a level playing field should be the primary goal of government involvement in the economy.
Several factors promote inequality and inefficiency of the system. A free market does not provide for quality sickness care and education. Medical insurance requirements and Social Security payments mandated for employers force entrepreneurs to become bookkeepers for the government rather than focusing their attention on their business.
The tax code is a major problem that has promoted instability and poverty in hard-working families while allowing a few people who game the system to pay little or no tax and accumulate enormous wealth, which they pass on to their families, thus ensuring a permanent moneyed class — inequality of opportunity. It is also cumbersome and expensive to execute for individuals, businesses, and the government.
The government involvement in the economy needs a whole new approach. Consider this: Pay every citizen a base income through gift cards payable for necessities such as food and rent. This could, in time, eliminate tax credits and replace Social Security, unemployment insurance, and welfare for most people. Provide for basic accident and sickness care (perhaps direct subsidies to states for clinics and hospitals to guarantee minimum care) to replace employer mandated insurance costs and administration.
Tax all other income at a flat rate, rich and poor the same. This would free up the IRS to pursue fraud and tax avoidance and collect taxes that now slip through the cracks. Create a government accounting office (like the federal reserve, independent of executive interference) to audit how funds were used.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that although the government has regulations requiring safety in the workplace, there is never sufficient funding to ensure enough inspectors, and the system depends too much on the willingness of the administration to enforce those standards. If workers had a base income, safety would be more self-regulating as workers would be more able to leave jobs that were unsafe.
Obviously, this is a bare-bones idea. There is not room in one column to really get into the details.
Very recently, such a bizarre idea as this would never have occurred to me. I am not advocating for it even now — just pointing out there need to be some new ideas brought to the table rather than just more manipulating a seriously flawed system.
I am just tired of hearing that the Dow Jones numbers are measures of how healthy the economy is. If the “economy” is not about people, it is missing the mark. And there are many facets relating to the economy that are never discussed or considered. We need to broaden the parameters of the discussion.
Judith Truesdell is a resident of Shelburne.