Hi Bradford,



Your essay is about balance, how to achieve economic balance, and it gets us thinking about the kinds of policies we'll need to prevent economic predators from stealing wealth from the naive -- which is merely a symptom of a deeper problem.



I see 'the problem' as a lack of political and economic vision.



Thus far, our political and economic model has evolved. It wasn't designed, it evolved. Big difference.



(It might be the best Model T Ford ever built in history, but it's still a Model T, if you catch my meaning)



It's exactly the conversation that we need to have.



Here in North America as you've said, 1% of the workers (and presumably 1% of the total available investment pool) produce enough food to feed everyone on the continent.



And yet, we see a major distribution problem in North America -- let alone the rest of the world.



With regards to agricultural output and distribution, our North American model is the best yet, but it is far from perfect. That is my point.



Instead of waging trillion dollar wars, we should have continued our work to better improve our model, and especially in regards to the food distribution aspect.



I don't think that we should be giving food away for free (except in emergency situations) but there are far too many Food Banks in operation for such an affluent society, and there is constant demand for more of them.



Q: And why do we have this particular symptom that I choose to single-out of many symptoms?



A: There are far too many idle hands, because all of their jobs picked up and went to Asia -- a process that began in 1973.



We could end a number of social ills simultaneously by simply arriving at the correct equation.



1) By legislating mandatory job-sharing, every healthy person of working age in North America would be entitled to a job for a minimum of 6 months of the year.



That means everyone (except for people that can't work for health reasons, students, homemakers, retired people, or the very wealthy) has a job for a minimum of 6 months of the year, and is then eligible to receive short term unemployment insurance benefits during their (short) unemployed time away from work -- ***instead of welfare***.



With mandatory job sharing, there will be no need for welfare. At all.



With mandatory job sharing, there will be a yearly unemployment rate of 0% -- that is, over the course of the year, every worker will have worked a minimum of 6 months -- however, at any given point, the actual unemployment rate will be 2.5%-3.0%.



With a job (and full unemployment benefits during the short periods of unemployment) long term unemployment will become a thing of the past.



We know that long term unemployed individuals eventually turn to welfare in order to be able to eat, have shelter, etc. once unemployment insurance payments run out.



We also know that long term unemployment turns into substance abuse, crime, homelessness, more crime = bigger policing budgets = bigger insurance claims/higher insurance rates = more citizens injured or terrorized by crime, etc... all that is just the beginnings of the problems caused by high and long term unemployment, welfare, and changes in the thinking of individuals in such circumstances (long term depression, withdrawing from society, anger, resentment, etc)



By not keeping our people fully employed (or on very short term unemployment insurance, while waiting to get back to work) we bring on an OCEAN of troubles on ourselves.



Job Sharing is the answer.



By legislating that every able worker in North America can have a job for a minimum of 6 months per year, we could solve the worst of inequality, poverty, social ills, and dramatically and positively lower crime rates, insurance rates, policing and court costs, and enjoy a safer, more egalitarian society.



It's so simple.



Thank you again, Bradford, for publicly posting your thoughts at ProSyn.



http://johnbrianshannon.com/2015/06/24/in-sweden-nobody-sleeps-in-dumpsters/



As always, very best regards, JBS