"If such a Basic Income scheme were introduced we could then claim to have succeeded in making absolute poverty hitory".
What a statement of uninformed optimism; and that is not knocking the scheme: Would that the world had sufficient good-will for implementation, it would be a really grand step in the right direction.
But what hope of making absolute poverty history, when the world is fast depleting the environmental resources fundamentally upholding what we call civilisation? When the needs of 6.5 billion become the needs of 9 as these resources continue to run down? When Australia pushes itself to the forefront of the degradation stakes?
And what hope for adequate discussion of a grossly serious problem when the article is hampered by an unwillingness to even mention the underlying giant of all the complex problems: human numbers and their increase?

There are some articles which annoy me. There are others which irritate, some make me feel sad.. but very few make me want to SCREEEAAAAAAAMMMMMM.... like this one does (and its brother by Tomlinson)

OH... MY.... GOD.. Lord open these BLIND eyes......

The thing which boggles the mind to the point where one feels like volunterring for institutionalization.... is this:

1/ The inCREDIDBLE "Western" cultural assumptions behind the thinking. (It appears to suggest that all the world is URBAN and that every person is an INDIVIDUAL rather than connected to an extended kinship group)
2/ The Lamentable IGNORANCE about reality out there in 3rd world land.
3/ The 'plain stupid' idea that the many varied social and political factors on a nation by nation basis, are of no account (it appears)
4/ The woeful lack of true understanding of 'poverty' and
4/ The idea that we can solve it by throwing 'money' at it.

Did this author make ANY reference to anthropological studies, or even have a peek at the social dynamics of some of these countries ?

I think the source material for these 2 articles was 'SBS'.

I recall seeing an doco on Malaysia, where they showed crappy looking houses on stilts over water, and because they had a few rusty sheets of gal on them, they were 'in such degrading poverty' hmmm I happen to KNOW the villages shown, and there is a surprising number of Color TV's, VCRs Fridges, Washing machines etc in them, kids getting good schooling, many own CARS..(which they park elsewhere) arrrg....Newsflash.. the people live on the water because the LOVE to and its their culture... (that particular group)

There is one MAJOR thing wrong about this 'basic wage' idea... its wrong ! Not wrong in principle, but wrong in assumptions and impossible to implement. Are they going to suddenly come up with money for all rural people who farm but don't get much cash ?

The solution is NOT $$$ but maintaining kinship and family ! They work the rest out themselves.

The “ex-colonies” have not been “denuded” of all their resources – except possibly by their own inability to control population growth.

The issue of corruption is a matter for each sovereign nation to address, unless Tomlinson is suggesting the old colonial powers wrest control back from such corrupt leaders. Eg. despite 15 years of isolation under UDI, Southern Rhodesia had a viabrant economy, albeit white ruled. Mugabe inherited and subsequently ruined it.

The theory that we make the poor richer by making the rich poorer is as old as time and been proven to be a complete bucket of bullsh*t since before the days of Cromwell’s levellers or the luddites.

Following WWI, the great depression and WWII, Britain’s notions about social equality and security etc. embodied in nationalisation of industry and other sheltered workshops, produced the worst levels performance which dragged Britain behind its European and Trans Atlantic partners / competitors.

The miserably poor social performance of USSR only achieved its mediocre status at the cost of mass famine and a human rights record which was worse than Nazi Germany.

The real point of this article is this
Basing the “distribution of wealth “ (which is what it is about) on some theoretical and nebulous standard of niceness and “universal fairness”, will fall in a heap because

To administer a Basic income scheme requires the highest degree of centralised control.

Power on such a scale will attract the worst forms of corruption, as seen in the debauchery under Stalin and Hitler.

The world always has been and always will be an unequal place.

Denying the “commercially astute” the right to benefit from trade because the less astute are incompetent is as sensible and morally defensible as cutting the tendons of athletes because they make the less sports orientated look bad.

The world will be a far better place where everyone is allowed to benefit from the quality of their own endeavours – instead of being taxed and repressed to support a social mantra which caps an individuials life experience at mediocre.

David_BOAZ – Agree with every word you wrote.

A cost. A monetary value. An expense. Is all created by man himself.

Give it a lower cost, a lower monetary value, you have a lower expense.

Imagine, if you will, Col Rouge, a world in which an understanding of British empiricist philosophy, semiotics, or theoretical astrophysics was the key to riches (a world which I freely admit is extremely unlikely to exist, but this is a reductio ad absurdum of your argument). Suddenly commercial astuteness counts for nothing. Do you then think, just for even one moment, that because your skills are not marketable, that it's wrong you should be at the bottom of the heap? That your family suffers privation because you weren't born with the right sort of brain? That despite the "quality of your endeavours", as you put it, you just aren't saleable? No matter how you try, your commercially astute brain will not bring you an acceptable standard of living. Do you think you (and more importantly, your loved ones) should be supported, not by denying the philosophically, semiotically, asptrophysically gifted the right to benefit from their gifts, but by redistributing part of their surplus income to you and your kind? Or should you, and they, simply become part of a deprived underclass because you weren't born with the right type of mind? Few of us lefties suggest totally depriving the "winners" of their spoils. We just believe it's right to help those whose who are equally human.

anomie “Suddenly commercial astuteness counts for nothing..

.. that because your skills are not marketable, that it's wrong you should be at the bottom of the heap?”

I love it when people ask me that question. For your enrichment, education and edification.

As a young lad I had a calling for things “artistic”.

Unfortunately, I lacked the skill and income to allow me to pursue my “calling”.

I took up Accounting, specialising in commercial/manufacturing aspects of same (distinct from audit or tax), with great success.

I then hankered to do software design – again with great success.
Returning to Australia in 2001, from living in USA, where I had successfully marketed my "skills" (and aged 50+), I found “demand” for those “skills” was flat - to use your words “skills are not marketable - Bottom of the heap”

I exercised a commercially astute tactic (your first and most significant error – “commercial astuteness” will never, ever “count for nothing”) and consulted a career specialist to plan my next endeavour.

I recently purchased a finance services franchise which is growing rapidly.

In the mean time, having developed a rapport with government and some commercial clients. I could readily work and earn a 10 day week if I so chose. Certainly the “income streams” are not only good but looking brighter as each day passes and my financial, personal and commercial future are not only assured but independent (should any single venture suddenly turning sour).

As for “but by redistributing part of their surplus income to you and your kind”

I have never sought benefit of a “redistribution” of someone else’s wealth. Such an action would lack “character” and be “undignified”.

Which explains “socialism” in two words
Characterless and
Undignified

What “values” you “lefties” (your word) choose is entirely up to you – but that does not give you the right to impose those same “values” on me – I am fully capable of adopting my own.

Ultimately you “Lefties” lack the human insight, the moral right and intellect to impose your will on the rest of us.