"Social Investing"

[jacee]

Ottawa looks at rewriting rules on charitable giving BILL CURRY OTTAWA From Friday's Globe and Mail

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/life/giving/giving-news/ottawa-looks-at-rewriting-rules-on-charitable-giving/article2216738/?service=mobile

In addition to meeting with think tanks foundations and government officials, Ms. Finley spoke with Sir Ronald Cohen, chair of the bank-like social investment fund called Big Society Capital and David Hutchison, CEO of Social Finance UK which focuses on research and advice in the burgeoning field.

The concept of social investing, as it is called, has a growing number of advocates worldwide. But its mplementation in the UK at a time of drastic cuts n government spending is also the subject of considerable controversy and confusion. considerable controversy and confusion At its core, Britain’s Big Society asks local volunteers and the private sector to provide some of the services that government used to finance, in areas including schools, libraries and hospitals. Mr Cameron says it will empower communities, but critics call it a public-relations effort to put a positive spin on deep cuts.

The G20 ordered deep cuts, and here they come, to be replaced by the largesse of the private sector, currently declining as needs rise.

Basically they're downloading much of current government funding of charities and nonprofits to private donations.

Full employment and guaranteed annual income would be far cheaper and simpler for the private sector, I'm thinking.

Edited October 28, 2011 by jacee

[blueblood]

No it wouldn't, the employment has to be useful to society and produce something that we benefit. So we should have everyone employed in shipyards building massive warships and every 10 years all the countries of the world drag them out to the middle of the ocean, evacuate their crews and proceed to scuttle them? Everybody has a job right??? SHould we be having all the people dig holes and the next day fill them in as well?

Edited October 29, 2011 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[Shwa]

No it wouldn't, the employment has to be useful to society and produce something that we benefit. So we should have everyone employed in shipyards building massive warships and every 10 years all the countries of the world drag them out to the middle of the ocean, evacuate their crews and proceed to scuttle them? Everybody has a job right??? SHould we be having all the people dig holes and the next day fill them in as well?

Does full employment and guaranteed income necessarily mean the jobs will be of no utility?

[eyeball]

SHould we be having all the people dig holes and the next day fill them in as well?

No, burying the rich would be a waste of good meat.

[blueblood]

Does full employment and guaranteed income necessarily mean the jobs will be of no utility?

Given current demands and labor costs, that's a yes. The USSR had full employment and guaranteed income yet many people waited in breadlines. The jobs have to be useful which means there has to be real demand, you can't pull demand out of your backside

[Shwa]

Given current demands and labor costs, that's a yes. The USSR had full employment and guaranteed income yet many people waited in breadlines. The jobs have to be useful which means there has to be real demand, you can't pull demand out of your backside

Why would you use the USSR example for implementation rather than Roosevelt's New Deal?

[blueblood]

Why would you use the USSR example for implementation rather than Roosevelt's New Deal?

Same crap different pile. Fdr tried to prop up prices instead of letting them fall thus making the depression worse.

[fellowtraveller]

Basically they're downloading much of current government funding of charities and nonprofits to private donations.

Of course, churches and private charities did exactly the same thing in reverse in previous generations.

[Shwa]

Same crap different pile. Fdr tried to prop up prices instead of letting them fall thus making the depression worse.

So the New Deal was no good and nothing good came out of it is what you are saying.

[blueblood]

So the New Deal was no good and nothing good came out of it is what you are saying.

The new deal was awful and prolonged the depression. All that came out of it was a ton of debt

[jacee]

Nonprofit organizations in Canada

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Non-profit_organizations_based_in_Canada

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Charities_based_in_Canada

One thing that strikes me, looking at this list, is that this "social investing" policy will be a death knell for any orgs not aligned with the avarice of the wealthy.

Example:Citizens for public justice

To ensure that all Canadians are able to participate in the economy on an equal footing, CPJ has offered three policy recommendations for Budget 2012 that will support low income Canadians while boosting economic growth and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions

1. Budget 2012 should cancel the corporate income

tax cut scheduled to take place January 1, 2012 and instead invest the $3 billion in new and repaired affordable housing agenda

2. Budget 2012 should repeal the "Tough on crime" agenda and invest the $1.5 billion in savings in Aboriginal programs and an increase to the National Child Benefit Supplement.

3. Budget 2012 should cancel the oil and gas subsidies and invest the $1.4 billion in savings in green technologies and an eco-retrofit program for low income households.

http://www.cpj.ca/en/content/building-sustainable-recovery

If I was a suspicious person, I might think that "social investing" is just a new vehicle for wealthy predators to destroy any oppositional voices, and get mega tax breaks for doing so, INCREASING the income gap and wealth inequality.

Surely not!

Edited October 28, 2011 by jacee

[Shwa]

The new deal was awful and prolonged the depression. All that came out of it was a ton of debt

So the TVA, FDIC, Securities Act, Social Securities Act, National Labour Relations & Fair Labour Standards Acts, Federal Crop Insurance, Food Stamps - all bad things? Is this what you are saying?

[Tilter]

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then the fight you, then you win" Gandhi

This is like "the meek shall inherit the earth" and will happen just as frequently

[jacee]

This is like "the meek shall inherit the earth" and will happen just as frequently

Nothing "meek" about Ghandi ... nor the OCCUPY protesters. It's their lack of 'meekness' that has the 1% kerfuffled. They're used to mouthless. peons sucking up to them. A bunch of students and single Moms speaking truth to corrupted power is quite a shock to their systems.

[blueblood]

So the TVA, FDIC, Securities Act, Social Securities Act, National Labour Relations & Fair Labour Standards Acts, Federal Crop Insurance, Food Stamps - all bad things? Is this what you are saying?

Did they end the depression?

All they did was create a moral hazard for the gov't to tax and spend which results in everything being more expensive, and hurting the country as a whole with a large bloated debt. All these things made the depression longer, and ended up hurting far more people than it tried to help.

[jacee]

Did they end the depression?

All they did was create a moral hazard for the gov't to tax and spend which results in everything being more expensive, and hurting the country as a whole with a large bloated debt. All these things made the depression longer, and ended up hurting far more people than it tried to help.

Did they keep people alive?

But I agree that debt TO THE BANKS is wrong.

We should be planning ahead, keeping corporate income taxes high during the better times to be prepared for the low ends of cycles.

But they don't because the banks wealthy investors stand to reap megaprofits off the public debt,

And thus the recession-suction of wealth from the rest of us to the 1%,

Rinse and repeat ...

[blueblood]

Did they keep people alive?

But I agree that debt TO THE BANKS is wrong.

We should be planning ahead, keeping corporate income taxes high during the better times to be prepared for the low ends of cycles.

But they don't because the banks wealthy investors stand to reap megaprofits off the public debt,

And thus the recession-suction of wealth from the rest of us to the 1%,

Rinse and repeat ...

People wouldn't have starved to death, there was market panics before the depression, hell in 1920 there was double digit unemployment and guess what the gov't did? Nothing! I bet you didn't know there was double digit unemployment in 1920-21 because the gov't did nothing and allowed the market to correct itself and nobody starved! If everyone takes a hit on income there isn't as much money floating around and as a result prices drop because producers don't want to be stuck with inventory which costs money.

So you think that people would keep prices high when there is little available money in the economy to purchase their products? If I'm selling something and there's little money available, I'm dropping my prices so that person will be able to buy from me.

Corporate taxes should be low so that in the good times they have more incentive to produce more, hire more, spend more, and invest more.

[Shwa]

Did they end the depression?

All they did was create a moral hazard for the gov't to tax and spend which results in everything being more expensive, and hurting the country as a whole with a large bloated debt. All these things made the depression longer, and ended up hurting far more people than it tried to help.

Did the depression end with those programs intact?

I find it a little ironic how you wax on all the while America, with all it's social programming burdens, is as great as she is.

You appear to be arguing failure in spite of the obvious, observable and tangible success. This is usually an indication that your hypothesis is wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

The devil is in the details. We will need to radically change how our countries work in the post-industrial age.

Those of the right who say, basically, 'buck up and work for minimum wage' are no more correct than those who say that the state owes people jobs for life.

The government has changed the economic rules of the game in such a way that there is a dearth of well-paying jobs, even though the economy as a whole is better. Volunteerism is one way to ensure that people are taken care of, but in the end I believe that the rich will have to pay more than they have been.

[punked]

Same crap different pile. Fdr tried to prop up prices instead of letting them fall thus making the depression worse.

Wow. You win my award for most misinformed post of the day.

[blueblood]

Wow. You win my award for most misinformed post of the day.

And you win the award for ignorance on the subject. Bravo!

[blueblood]

The devil is in the details. We will need to radically change how our countries work in the post-industrial age.

Those of the right who say, basically, 'buck up and work for minimum wage' are no more correct than those who say that the state owes people jobs for life.

The government has changed the economic rules of the game in such a way that there is a dearth of well-paying jobs, even though the economy as a whole is better. Volunteerism is one way to ensure that people are taken care of, but in the end I believe that the rich will have to pay more than they have been.

Uh, in the end the rich won't be paying more, they already pay their fair share. This isn't the fifties anymore when the usa was the only kid on the block. Hike up the taxes and the rich job creators haul ass out of there or shut down. If anything its regulations are going to be coming down allowing the rich to "pay more" in terms of investing, hiring, and spending/saving.

[jacee]

People wouldn't have starved to death, ...

Corporate taxes should be low so that in the good times they have more incentive to produce more, hire more, spend more, and invest more.

Corporate taxes should be higher to allow for savings to take us through lean times without debt and paying interest on that debt.

The rich profit most during lean times because public debt is high.

If the richest 1% were paying their fair share, we wouldn't have a huge and growing gap between them and the rest of us.

Edited October 29, 2011 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Uh, in the end the rich won't be paying more, they already pay their fair share.

Are you saying that tax laws will ultimately reflect what's "fair" ?

This isn't the fifties anymore when the usa was the only kid on the block. Hike up the taxes and the rich job creators haul ass out of there or shut down.

The US is still a pretty big market, as well as home base to a disproportional number of rich individuals and companies. There's the sleeping giant of protectionism to consider too.

If anything its regulations are going to be coming down allowing the rich to "pay more" in terms of investing, hiring, and spending/saving.

Hiring whom ? Investing in what ? The higher paying jobs are gone... they're not getting replaced by anything else that I can see.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Hiring whom ? Investing in what ? The higher paying jobs are gone... they're not getting replaced by anything else that I can see.

Hiring those with the skills to get those high paying jobs. People wishing for yesterday's jobs and pay to come back are only kidding themselves and losing more ground every day. If you can't see them, maybe you don't know where to look.