Countries like England, which issue currencies not tied to gold and with floating exchange rates can create as much of that money as they want, and buy anything they want, including unemployed workers. England could eliminate homelessness and almost all its poverty in less than a year if parliament gave every adult physically present in England the legal right to a job and assurance that an actual job existed by guaranteeing central government funding.
The central government would rely on local governments and non-profit organisations to create and manage the jobs. All employers in the country would have to match a guaranteed wage standard. Assuming that no additional taxes were levelled or bond sales made to pay for it, the central government budget would show a large deficit. But the deficit is of no concern because England can create as many pounds as it wants to if it ever needs to pay anyone back. No one else in England has this power to create money at will, not cities, not companies, not households. That is why the funding must come from central government.
Economics is not a problem. The problem is getting parliament to vote for it, and the governing party to sign the law because they don’t want working people to be well paid.
It reduces profits and makes working people think that they can have more and that they deserve more. And that’s a dangerous idea.
Tom Clarkson, Virginia, USA
Get the latest news and insight into how the Big Issue magazine is made by signing up for the Inside Big Issue newsletter
Trumped up
If we didn’t already know it, what an unbelievable fool we have in charge of the most powerful country on the planet! Donald Trump’s latest nonsense outburst suggests that the countries bordering on Gaza should do more to take in refugees from that country (but presumably NOT his friends in Israel)
Does this mean that his country is now going to take in more refugees from Mexico and the other nearby countries?
R A Skett
As the retired head teacher of a large, “outstanding” primary school, I would like to join the debate regarding school uniform.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that wearing a uniform somehow improves the behaviour, attainment or welfare of pupils. It’s very much a “British” thing. Other countries generally don’t do it, unless they have inherited the tradition from our colonial days.
I don’t think a basic, relatively cheap uniform is a problem. However, once you are expecting parents to be paying lots of money for badges on blazers, that’s not fair. Children definitely miss school days because going in without the correct uniform incurs penalties and punishment, often detention, in high school. You could blame poor parenting, but reasons are varied and some cannot be helped, but it is definitely not the child’s fault.
Some schools, particularly private schools love fancy uniform as it is regarded as the best form of advertising. And don’t forget the profits gained from selling uniforms. A very lucrative trade, especially if it’s compulsory. I can remember the school fund being boosted by selling sweatshirts with a logo.
My extended family live and attend school in America. Their children attend both state schools and a very prestigious private school there. No uniform of any sort.
Recently one of the teenagers spoke from the stage of the United Nations Assembly Hall in New York as part of an international youth conference. No one cared what she wore, just what she said!
Mrs J Jenkins, Neston
Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. Big Issue exists to give homeless and marginalised people the opportunity to earn an income. To support our work buy a copy of the magazine or get the app from the App Store or Google Play.
