5 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2021
    1. Eat locally and organically grown food as much as possible

      This depends on the existence of flourishing local food networks that make such organic food available and affordable. Such networks also need protection from predatory food producers and suppliers that can undercut local food systems in all sorts of way (eg. giant supermarket chains pushing down the prices they pay for local produce through their superior buying power).

    2. This author has emphasized that the need to start new businesses or join new businesses is essential to revitalizing our economic conditions.

      This is a good enough reason for introducing a Universal Basic Income. Starting/joining new businesses require a degree of entrepreneurship that is impossible if there is any risk of falling into deprivation and poverty during the process.

    3. Just as economic stimulus checks can’t cover our living costs and actually disincentivize participation in economic activity (i.e. people now get paid not to work)

      This is just plain wrong. All the Universal Basic Income pilots I know of show that UBI actually incentivise participation in economic activity. Because people can now get their basic needs met, they are freed up to engage in activities that increase their economic status, such as setting up their own businesses or learning new skills.

    1. passengers had been failed by “years of fragmentation, confusion and overcomplication”

      So why was the unified public rail system privatised in the first place? Fragmentation was the direct result of privatisation!

    2. franchises replaced by contracts that will incentivise private firms on punctuality and efficiency rather than raising revenue.

      Is this the first step on the road to full nationalisation of rail again? Indeed, hard to see much difference between contracts imposed on private firms by a central public body as much different from a nationalised service. Only real difference is that the private companies involved can extract profit from revenues raised from the services they are obliged to offer. In a fully nationalised service there would be no profit extracted out of the rail system and probably out of the public sector altogether, only surplus revenue reinvested in the railways or extracted out of the railways into the central government's treasury for expenditure elsewhere across government. Question: will Great British Railways be setting the profit margin for the rail companies, or will it simply be setting the overall budgets for the companies to operate within and then it's up to those companies to work out how much profit it can extract within that budget?