Does “wasting” money on “an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard” negatively affect the poor?

March 8, 2020, I went to a mass in my mother’s hometown, Karlskrona Sweden.

That date the Lord’s words was from Mark 14:3-9

3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 

5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 

7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 

8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.

9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

The preaching that followed was beautiful and true, but I felt it left out something very important of that what Jesus was alluding to.

I refer to: would have that “alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard” even existed, had someone not been willing and capable of paying more than a year’s wages for it? 

And, after more than a year’s wages had been paid for it, what stopped that money from not going to the poor? Those who helped produce that perfume, would most probably be less poor than if they had not have had that chance.

It was not the first time my mind was wandering into that direction

The wealthy and the poor should all be interested in a Universal Basic Income scheme

What is a Universal Basic Income? It refers to a payment, made for instance monthly, to all citizens, without any differentiations based on wealth and income.

The wealthy must know that' some voluntary redistribution must occur, in order to stop involuntary redistribution from happening, and so they know that some Pro-Equality Tax on wealth and income is lurking around the corners. In this respect they have a vested interest in that the redistribution is done as cost effective as possible, so that the redistribution needs are minimized.

The poor have also a vested interest in that the redistribution is done as cost effective as possible, so  they get the most out of the redistribution.

And to top it up, the redistribution could help the real economy, and so that the wealthy could perhaps fast recover what was redistributed from them.

And to top it up, with the resulting increased demand, the poor can help the real economy to provide them with jobs and, hopefully, with opportunities for also them become wealthy.

The direct cost of redistributing by means of a Universal Basic Income should be 2 percent… tops! What current distribution performed by any government can compete with that?

That some who received the Basic Universal Income might, because of wealth and income, not merit it? So what, they only gave a gift to themselves, at a cost much less than what they ordinary pay for a tip.

Consider Universal Basic Income to be a Societal Dividend, like a dividend you get when inheriting some shares in a corporation.

Now who could be against all that? The usual redistribution profiteers of course... the redistribution mafia.

Besides a Pro-Equality Tax, there could be are many other good alternatives to how to fund a Universal Basic Income scheme.

It could for instance be funded by carbon taxes, which would help us to align the fight against inequality with the fight against climate change… and thereby also keep the climate change profiteers at bay.

And since we can almost be sure there will be lot of structural unemployment in the near future a Universal Basic Income begins to respond to the needs for worthy and decent unemployments.

And all that would provide us one great additional benefit. By keeping the social redistribution functions separate, we could have a better and more transparent oversight over how the government is performing its other functions... and that would help us to keep the government profiteers at bay, and increase our chances of getting good governments. 

It’s a win, win, win! Of course, as long as it is paid out in real money... funny money would make all worse.

Question: If only 1 million produce all the food the world needs, should only they eat, or Universal Basic (Food) Income? Would the all the rest allow the food producers to dine in calm?

PS. In my country Venezuela the poor did not get more than tops 15%, of what would have been their per capita share of some incredible oil revenues. That is why I have had enough of redistribution profiteers to last me several lifetimes. That is why I have defended net oil revenue sharing among  all citizens for soon two decades, which is nothing but a (variable) universal basic income funded with oil revenues.

My Universal Basic Income blog

“The wealth of 62 richest equals that of 3.6 billion poorest” That‘s a deviously false odiously divisive argument.

I come from Venezuela where I have seen a discourse full of hatred, carried out by those who want to profit financially or politically from promoting redistribution, destroy a country. I cannot sit back and see the Venezuelan tragedy reenacted on a global scale.

As always in all useful lies there are traces of truth. Of course the market value of the possessions of the 62 richest, especially after being inflated by means of fiscal deficits bailouts and QEs, could be similar to that of the market value of the possessions of the world’s 3.6 billion poorest. 

But, what does that mean when there is no way to liquidate the possessions of the rich in the market, so as to be able to transfer a similar amount of wealth to the poor. What on earth does a $25 million dollar penthouse in New York, which only some equally wealthy can buy, signify to the poor in terms of access to a better life?

And what's to be gained from the wealthy selling all their Picasso's and the Picasso's losing a lot of value? How do you morph a $200 million Picasso hanging on a wall of a wealthy into real purchasing power for the poor?

So if we are to analyze wealth inequality with intellectual honesty in any concrete applicable way, we should refer exclusively to the inequality that exists in transferable wealth. 

And, besides that, I swear that, in years of life lived, air breathed, water drunk, land trampled, food eaten, laughs and tears shed, those 3.6 billion poor posses at least a billion more times than those 62 most wealthy.

And this does not mean I do not commiserate with the poor of the world, and would not like them to have much more resources available in order to diminish their hardships. I do so very much, and that is precisely why I insist that what we must do, is to analyze what type of interventions help to generate the existing inequalities, and what blocks the opportunities for the poor to reach up. And on that route, one of the most important steps is keeping the redistribution profiteers at distance.

And this does not mean I am against redistribution. In fact before we are able to enable the opportunities that can lead to a sustainable betterment for the poor, I accept the need of redistribution, even if that is clearly less sustainable. But, that redistribution should take place in the most direct and cost effective way among citizens… again with the least interference possible by redistribution profiteers.

In my Venezuela that starts by sharing out its oil revenues directly to the citizens so as to avoid these falling into the hands of redistribution profiteers like Hugo Chávez.

And again, much more important for the poor than having wealth redistributed, is the generation of more wealth for them, which can only happen by enabling their access to opportunities. 

And in the enablement of opportunities there is much to do. For instance we must ask whether open-ended patents, no profit limits, stimulates or blocks more growth and human creativity. And we must stop that odious regulatory discrimination against “the risky’s” access to bank credit. This last really decrees inequality.

And for the health of our planet's sake...keep all those non-productive climate change profiteers out of the way. As I have often said, if the fight against climate change fall into the hands of something like our bank regulators...we're toast! If we really want to help on all fronts, let the fight against climate change go arm in arm with that of the fight inequality, by using Universal Basic Income.

Did poverty in the world decrease over the last decades because the world redistributed wealth, or embraced the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), or because many (like China) allowed their citizens more opportunities to generate wealth?

"Panama Papers" Don't let redistribution agitation profiteers raise your expectations.

Legend holds it that when Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, chief strategist of the 1974’s Carnation Revolution in Lisbon, told Sweden’s Olof Palme: “In Portugal we want to get rid of the rich”, Palme replied, “how curious, in Sweden we only aspire to get rid of the poor”

Hugo Chavez and the poor of Venezuela

Now upon his death, we often hear news-media reporting in reference to Hugo Chavez, that he helped to pull a lot of Venezuelans out of poverty. That is simply not true. 

Hugo Chavez did indeed help many poor to live better in poverty, good for him, but that is far different than pulling poor out of poverty. To do so exceeded by far Hugo Chavez’s capabilities, and that of his collaborators. 

Those Venezuelans who did manage to pull themselves out of poverty, did that entirely on their own, or with the help of oil revenues and corruption and very little else.