Throwing Name

For 5 years I raised money every November for Movember. In the first year, I raised more by growing a moustache than I had as part of a dedicated Youth Council in a full year’s effort. It blew my mind. Hours selling hot dogs, arranging charity dinners and “expanding Rands” versus a few emails and some fancy dress. I sharpened my self-mocking for money over the next few years and learnt a few lessons. (1) Don’t make the one time a year you contact someone, a time you are asking them for something, (2) Don’t always ask the same people, and (3) Be interested in and support the causes of other people. People like people who are consistent and interested, rather than only there when they need help. This is analogous to new tools like LinkedIn. Don’t take it seriously only when you need a job. It takes time to become a contributory member of a community. To be trusted. Relationships and Networks are the backbone of privilege. But now tools are there to democratise that, and change the game. If they are used authentically. If they are used as a conversation rather than a request. Be part of the conversation.

Easy Money

Foreign Aid

Foreign Aid is a controversial subject despite the fact that no countries give a significant portion of their wealth away. Sweden tops the list of donors with 1.4% of their Gross National Income. 'How much is doing enough?' is a good question. We also have an awful history of people trying to help others through 'Civilising Missions'. One problem with Foreign Aid is the Foreign, and the other problem is the Aid. National Borders are made up. It isn't okay to just worry about 'your own people' when the world is so deeply connected. If your neighbour's house is on fire, it is also your problem. Giving them a cup of water isn't the point. The problem with Aid, is it suggests a hierarchy. It suggest those who are helping know the solution. It stops people from seeing each other. There has to be a better way to unwind Global Apartheid than Foreign Aid.

Development Committee for the Colonies

A clumsy change of the moral compass of Empires

How Much?

South Africa is on the podium for inequality. It is a visceral example of lives in parallel. Extreme poverty is right next door to opulent wealth. To be clear, South Africa is not at war, has a strong constitution, institutionalised checks on power, and a very vocal public who push back on abuse. A public that defeated Apartheid will not fall easily. There are many strong, resilient communities, that simply don't have enough. It is not a failed state. But ... we tend to compare 'up'. To where we aspire. South Africa is one of the places in the world where it is most difficult to ignore people who are struggling because of the contrast, despite Global Apartheid meaning starker contrasts are real, but not as visual. Your immediate neighbours can't live in a war zone while you live in peace. Fire spreads. Global neighbourhoods are more like the frog in boiling water.

I am a big believer that you can't 'ignore Cape Town'. Like Schrödinger's cat, the boiled frog doesn't just disappear if you close the box by hopping in a plane. A 'Champagne Socialist' is someone who claims to be against inequality, and yet their belief is not reflected in their day to day life. They chink glasses while getting angry about the have-nots, 'someone should really do something about that.' We are our actions, not our intentions.

Champagne Socialist

I also believe we are human, and have to look after ourselves. You should never be more than a half-hearted fanatic.There is no point in being a hero, because heros normally die. If you set yourself up as some pious devotee, but you aren't able to sustain that lifestyle, others will just look at it and say, 'wow, that is amazing, but there is no way I could do that.' or 'what an idiot'. Small, sustainable, changes on the other hand can have a multiplied effect.

Boiling Frog

Two questions I regularly ask, and have not yet found a comfortable way of answering, are 'How much is enough?', and 'How much is doing enough?'. The first question is a 'me' question. If the answer is 'more', then you will never be able to lift your eyes to the second question. You will end up living hand to mouth where you are lived, more than you are living.

There are knock on questions about Conspicuous Consumption, Conspicuous Hoarding, Shared Space and Community Building. The world we see may be the only world we know, but it is not the only world there is.

Work Ethic

While I am not religious, I grew up in a very religious community. It has been interesting moving from South Africa in which Church life plays a big role in people's life, to the United Kingdom, where it doesn't. Despite the lack of church attendance, many of the cultural aspects are deep soaked. 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' (WASP) culture is still very recognisable. A big part of this culture is 'God helps those who help themselves'. A belief that you can't just pray for things. You have to crack on and get it done. A belief in self-reliance, self-motivation and not looking for excuses or support.

Self-reliance is empowering. It forces you to look inside and do what you can, with what you have.

The problem is, we aren't aware of all the support we have received. Christians may refer to this as 'God working in mysterious ways'. Where we were born, who our parents are, our schools, the social capital of living in a functional country, our natural talents, the random experiences we have be lucky enough to be exposed to.

A push back on a 'sense of entitlement' that leads you to waiting for hand-outs is at risk of ignoring all the 'blessings' we have received. Ignoring our privilege. 

I believe Meritocracy/Privilege is close to 1. In other words, we can't take credit for much of what we achieve. Yet, feeling we can take credit is incredibly motivational. Stopping making excuses is a powerful driver.

I don't believe Universal Basic Income is a handout. It is a sharing of blessings that doesn't remove any of the incentives to do more. Having the basics required to work doesn't disrupt 'work ethic'.

Christianity Branches

Protestant = Light Blue

Get Stuff Done

Before we looked to Government to provide basic human rights as part of the social contract, we had to do it ourselves. Although for most of humanity, we have lived in material poverty struggling for basic survival, many of us have a natural instinct to support each other. Voluntary Associations (clubs, religious groups, charities) sprung up where need existed. One of the things that hold us back now is the sense that everyone, particularly those wealthier than us, should pay for this support. If they don't, we don't. We can't be so scared of free loaders or scrooges that we don't just get on with it. A downside of the welfare state has been that we think we have to vote for change. We think that if we lose a vote, the change we want won't happen. In liberal democracies, we are largely able to get stuff done if we are willing to find people who voluntarily want to help. Don't vote for change. Change.

Releasing Value (with Piet)

Piet Viljoen and I met via Twitter through a shared interest in art, investment and South Africa. First contact was extended from digital to written with a little book. 'Learning from George' is a beautifully written envelope sized book by Adrian Hornsby. Short enough to have heard the writer read the whole thing in 15 minutes. That letter was followed by a coffee in Cape Town and a breakfast in Langa, that led to Piet signing up for the 2017 Unogwaja Team. The focus of Unogwaja is about searching for, finding and celebrating the light that fires people up. Seeing value. This is something both Piet and I have a professional interest in, in a different context. I had a chat to him to see if there were dots we could connect.

Piet

Trev:
Hayek argued that value is too subjective to determine what the 'right price' is for something. A lot of people get very frustrated that their salaries don't reflect the value they are adding. The horrible truth is that isn't what salaries do. They just reflect how much will keep someone in the job. Hayek's answer was that we should create frameworks that are liberal enough to permit creativity, stable enough to reward creativity and constraining enough to steer creativity to wealth creation rather than wealth capture. Basically, the answer to what something is worth is 'we don't know', but if we focus on trades (i.e. relationships) where both people are happy with the exchange, things will bubble in the right direction. Value is personal. Price is a cold 'somewhere in between'. With businesses, investors know that they have to detach from where the money goes. Some businesses are too hard to value. It feels like the economics that work for investing capital simply don't work for paying people? Capitalism is good at creating wealth, but awful at distributing it.

Piet:
On the contrary, Adam Smith's “invisible hand” distributes economic gains efficiently – on average. Yes, when an enterprise is successful there are inevitable winners and losers. But the gains of the winners far outweigh the losses of the losers. You need to reward the winners – that is how society progresses. No incentive, no progression. In specific instances, the distribution might not happen fairly. But the commonwealth is better off. I think one way of trying to understand this is through the difference between price and value. Price is the markets way of equating demand with supply. The price of an apple at the supermarket is low enough so that everyone who likes apples enough to pay that price can buy an apple. It is also high enough to encourage farmers to produce enough apples to satisfy the demand. But the value of an apple differs among individuals. I don’t particularly favour apples – for me the value of the apple is less than the price. You might love apples, and see the price as a bargain. Undervaluing the apple, so to speak. But, on average, everyone is satisfied. By disentangling price from value we can now begin to look at how the world works without the emotional baggage of what is fair at the individual level, and rather focus on what is fair on average.

Trev:
Smith's writing on the "invisible hand" is beautiful. It matches closely with the point Hayek is trying to make. Smith was arguing against the prevailing Mercantilism of the time which believed in Zero-Sum games and strong nation states. He was arguing for Free Trade. He was arguing for creating frameworks which allowed for trades people to focus on areas where they had strong knowledge of the communities where they worked. Hayek argued we should focus on how people coordinate in intricate and mutually considerate ways. We should focus on relationships. This releases the magic of the invisible hand to shift resources around as you say. The example you give of apples is true... if everyone can vote for apples. If there are people without any money or any form of generating money (not enough jobs), then they can't vote for apples. You may not favour apples because you have had your fill, or can afford something a little fancier. People will naturally change their diet as they can. Without money to vote, the price of apples (or bread) will be too low. On average, everyone isn't satisfied.

Piet:
You are 100% right - if (too many) people have no money the price of apples will be too low. People will vote for apples, but only for free apples. Free apples is a powerful concept. Those who desire power will use that concept to get the most votes.  Once in power, they will make apples free. While people are focused on enjoying their artificially free apples, the powerful will help themselves to the reserves of the system. Of course, because the price of apples is now too low - i.e. the value of apples is far higher than the price, too many will be consumed, and not enough will be produced. Free apples have a habit of ending up to be scarce. Misappropriated by both the poor and the powerful. Eventually, the system breaks down. To prevent this process from happening,  poor people have to be in the minority. 

Smiths invisible hand is dysfunctional in the presence of price manipulation. Price manipulation is welcomed by those with nothing to lose, and encouraged by those who wish for power. The powerful use price manipulation - “free” - to drive a wedge in between those who have and those who don’t have, and in so doing, entrench their power.  It would seem a simple solution would be to aspire to the equality Marx proposed. Where the communities that Hayek envisaged  placed an appropriate value on their relationships. Where the value of a product was equal to the value of the labour that went onto producing it. But human beings are not wired that way. Profit - or surplus value appropriation - is a strong incentive for us all. In practice we don’t want to be equal, however attractive that sounds in theory.

Trev:

A big part of how we value ourselves is in relativity. Someone living at the American Poverty Line is in the wealthiest 14% in the world. The median annual household income worldwide is about $10,000 (R140,000 or £7,500). The minimum wage in the US is $7.25 which is about R100 an hour. Many domestic workers in SA get paid R150-R250 a day. That doesn't leave much scope for voting for apples, and yes... if people are poor, they become far easier to manipulate. This goes back to the power of empowering people at the grassroots. Not giving them 'free apples', but giving them votes. I think the simplest solution is a 'Capitalist path to a Communist Utopia'... not equality of outcome, but equity of opportunity. I am in favour of a Universal Basic Income, that ensures that the market works because it ensures that the framework can't be manipulated. Enough is less than we think. We will still be incentivised by having more than enough. Our relative drivers will ensure that, but if people don't have a roof over their head, security, and the opportunity to participate in building those relationships and trades, we are also wired to rise up and get angry.

Piet:
Your concept of a universal basic income is superficially attractive, as it allows everyone to exercise a vote of some kind. And in so doing seems to enable the “invisible hand” Yet a society with such a structure in place would lack incentives for a large part of the population – the part that would otherwise have been worse off. In effect the price of their input into the economy would be artificially high. This effectively removes the creation of a surplus that would help create more business and more jobs, and yes, even better pay for some of the participants. I would argue that a better way to create “equality of opportunity” would be to use some of the surplus not to pay a universal income, but to spend it on (targeted) free education, free heathcare and possible even free housing. As long as these free items are of high enough quality, they would act as strong enablers for those who want to create further surpluses in the economy. The downside of a universal basic income is that it potentially creates a class of freeloaders, while the risk of free enablers is that some outside of the target group try to benefit from the system. The second risk is covered by the potential upside.

Trev:
I haven't met someone who has been enabled in some way. I see the idea of Privilege as the sum of years of hereditary entitlement. The (targeted) free education, healthcare and housing provided by parents and our inherited network/community. We are comfortable with hereditary wealth but over time much of our wealth is social capital. The lottery of birth means the biggest drivers of your success are where you are born, and who your parents are. That isn't meritocracy. Unravelling that through messing with private property is messy, but a UBI provides the opportunity for a dividend on our common wealth. If it is true that money earned by others is a negative, then we shouldn't provide for our children and should bury all the wealth we create in our tombs. Instead of acting as custodians and handing things over better than we got them. Societal compound interest. Since a UBI covers just the 'Basics' and doesn't stop the standard capitalist incentives from working, people will still be able to participate in the normal way. They will just be driven more by the carrot of higher desires like self actualisation, and less by the stick drivers of hunger, fear and cold. Centralising the decision in state provision of welfare adds an expensive layer of bureaucracy and pushes the decisions away from the mechanics that make the Invisible Hand work. Neither Smith nor Hayek loved 'big plans'.

Hereditary Wealth

Piet:
As far as big plans equate to big government, I would fall in the Smith/Hayek camp as well, mainly because big government tends also to be a corrupt government. But it is not certain that instituting targeted enablers would lead to big government. But it would need to be a well thought through process – otherwise bureaucracy will take over. Just as a UBI system would need to thought through properly, as a tax and spend type environment generally leads to more government over time. I don’t think that there is one neat and tidy solution that can tick all boxes. As far as systems go, I believe the one that provides the best incentives will work. I believe Munger said (or possibly paraphrased someone else): if you want to persuade someone, it is better to appeal to incentives than to reason. Targeted enablers are incentives based system, whereas a UBI is a reason based system, which assumes everyone is rational and acts accordingly.

I think the fatal flaw lies in your departure point - that the lottery of birth somehow needs to be corrected.  Poverty isn’t distributed along a normal curve, i.e. there are more people below the average income than there are wealthy above. Politicians know this, so anything that promises to redistribute plays very well at a political level. It also leads to more, not less inequality. The ratio of the wealth of the richest Zimbabwean or Venezuelan to the average is much higher that in the USA or Switzerland. This leads to far too much attention and effort being spent on redistribution than on education and health, which will make more of a difference to the broad population – and equality - over time.

Trev:
The beauty of a free market is the ability to carry information organically. The last 100 years since the first world war was a battle of various ideologies, but one of them was the idea of Scientific Management. That you can reduce things to numbers, and centralise decisions amongst a bunch of experts. The problem is that you can find Nobel prize winning experts on both sides of arguments. The problem is any power you give to the President you love will be power the next President has. We like democracy when we like the government. We like technocracy when we think the mob has lost its mind. Targeted enablers require a target. A target decided on by central decisions from the top. The great information bubbles up from the bottom.

When our side wins

A UBI would be the fire that bubbles understanding up from the front lines. Organisations like GiveDirectly (recommended by GiveWell) have shown how efficient small, regular, dependable, cash injections are at providing that golden incentive. It removes the costs of means testing, while enabling people to look up from hand to mouth survival. To think of the future. The same incentives that keep people looking for better or higher paying jobs remain. In the same way as breaking monopolies improves competition, breaking monopolies on poverty would do the same. An unconditional, universal income is far harder to manipulate by politicians. It can be run independently and simply. Targets enablers on the other hand are the bread and butter of corruption.

Give Directly

Piet:
To grow an economy, you need/want individuals to take risks. The reason most people are risk averse, is that they need to make sure they can pay for their kids schooling, that they can pay for any health issues, and make sure they have a roof over their head. My view is that if you can provide for these things, a huge wave of risk taking and value creation can take place. I agree, that there is a risk that the frictional costs imposed by human interference can be high - in this system, and in any other redistributive system. But in an age where AI is coming into its own, the decisions of who what and where can be implemented by incorruptible machines. Having said all that, your exposition of UBI makes good sense. The main problem I see is getting from here to there. Finally free market systems, with all their attendant faults,  have proved - in practice - to be far superior to socialist or redistributive systems in increasing the median wealth in the system over time.

Unogwaja Team 2017

Common Wealth

Property Rights help us invest our efforts with knowledge that we will be benefit from the fruits of our labour. Fruits come from a combination of Capital and Labour. We stand on the shoulders of giants. We produce far more fruit today than our ancestors because human knowledge is cumulative. 

Two challenges to Property Rights are (1) The First Mover, and (2)  The Veil of Ignorance.

When people first started to employ their labour, there would only have been shared resources. These resources would have been used from the abundance, and mixed with labour. Gradually there would have been more competition as resources grew more scarce, and, pre-'rule of law', force was used to take resources. We don't have full detail about the starting point, but we know it was dodgy. We know our ancestors, judged by today's moral standards, fail uniformly. Things as they stand are a fuzzy mix of today's rules and yesterday's first movers. To go forward, we need to be comfortable with a starting point.

Secondly new-comers need to be comfortable with their starting point. Our communal wealth today is not the same as that of our first conscious, common ancestors. We are born, at random, with differing genetics and geography. Much of our success depends on our starting point now. The 'Veil of Ignorance' suggests that in order to accept the rules, you have to be happy with the starting point of every player. 

An Unconditional Basic Income is analogous to a dividend on our communal wealth. It is impossible to determine what the level of that dividend should be and what our Common Capital is. 

Tax is partly re-distributive, but it is also partly a fee for use. If we are all common owners/custodians of the earth through our shared inheritance, the 'systems' our ancestors built belong to us all. The fee for use doesn't need a central government to decide how to spend it. It needs to go to the owners. It needs to go to everyone.

Welfare is redistributive. A UBI doesn't carry the stigma of charity. A UBI may simplify or reduce the need for welfare, but it is not welfare. It is part of the deal that allows people to accept the system that allows us to prosper. Why should someone in Poverty agree to accept the Rule of Law? What ownership do they have in that system? 

It is impossible to figure out what is common wealth, but if we can afford it (which we can), ending poverty through an unconditional basic income is the bare minimum.

'Olive Grove' by Van Gogh

Fruits of our labour, from shared wealth

Lesotho (Aubrey)

Aubrey Thomas is a friend of mine from school. We grew up together in Westville, South Africa. Earlier this year we caught up and part of our conversation touched on mission work and poverty. In our desire to help other people, sometimes we can mistakenly think we know the answer and position ourselves above people. The driving forces behind colonisation included, confusingly, liberal principles of spreading 'a better way'. Even if we believe strongly we have something to offer, any engagement worth its salt starts with listening. Any engagement should be a relationship of partners looking to see each other. Aubrey has spent time working in Lesotho and shares some of his experience of this type of relationship building.

Lesotho

by Aubrey Thomas

Being Poor doesn’t mean living in poverty.

Lesotho is one of last monarchies that is still governed and ruled by a king. It is also a country accredited as being the country with highest average altitude of any country in the world. The topography and weather of this small and land locked country create some unique challenges with regards to farming and industry however it is rich in Diamonds and due to summer rains and winter snow it also has good amount of water. Two heavily exploited aspects of this country by foreign exports.

I take regular mission trips to Lesotho, particularly the south eastern side, which is a lot like going back 150 years in time. These are the observations and things I have noted and discussed with my friends that I go visit up there. As such it is country close to my heart.

Subsistence farming, small isolated villages whose buildings are thatched stone single roomed “rondavels” or round huts with often zero contact to the “modern way of life” and where “wealth” is still measured by amount of live stock and the size of your arable land, often leads people to believe they are stuck in the poverty cycle when taken at face value because in general their clothing usually tattered and they mostly wear what appears to be a humble blanket at all times over old clothing. This is where western culture goes wrong when dealing with aid and the "ah shame but they have nothing" mentality by basing aid relief in monetary terms. New clothes are no good in the fields and that amazing blanket is warm in the wind and keeps the sun off skin. New clothes are kept for going to town or for special occasions. The Basotho people have a pride in themselves that is enviable by any culture but function comes before form and necessity before want. Mostly anyway.

Rondavels

The tribal systems and chieftains that govern the culture are rich in structure. What one village lacks or cannot grow or provide for themselves is available from another village in exchange for something the other village requires. Disputes are settled in ways we may not agree with or understand but they are fair in dealing with transgressions.

Sadly AIDS has taken its toll on the population and most of the middle aged (25 -50) population is either dead or dying of AIDS related illness. Life expectancy is not high and those men and women that are able to are working away from home. This leaves a massive hole in their society where one finds 12 year old heads of households and grannies bringing up large families of orphaned children. Once again the tenacity and culture has stepped in to find ways to deal with this. Food and clothing is shared in the villages amongst everyone, nothing is wasted. The village brings up kids as a village family. These kids are happy most of the time. The people of Lesotho are a warm inviting culture. Show respect for how things are done in the Lesotho way and doors open into a beautiful culture full of life. Begging is shunned by the adults and it is discouraged that tourist hand out sweets and things from vehicles to the kids and young people. It leads to a lazy culture of open handed youths unwilling to work for their survival…. Donations and gifts should always be given to the chief of the village and they will distribute it as seen fit. It is just how the culture works….and work it does.

Blankets

Learning to deal with African problems in an African way and live in 3rd world Africa with a 1st world view is quite a strange concept, and one that I grapple with on a daily basis. Africa is a complex place that cannot be fixed with Western or Eastern cultural influences or ideals.

Lazy Poor People

The 'Lazy Poor People' argument is one of the arguments given for why people find themselves in poverty. We don't point to studies to prove this belief, it just feels right. If we give money to people, the will just drink it or smoke it away. They most certainly won't use it in the way we feel best. It is very hard to step away from a hierarchical view that people outside poverty understand how to get outside poverty. Without experience of the actual process of getting out of poverty. Without seeing people, one approach is to turn to aid - deciding what they need, or 'teaching them how to fish'. Pointing out that years of aid haven't helped, many people just feel helpless, rather than questioning how the aid was given.

Rutger Bregman (Utopia for Realists) tells of a study in Liberia with counter-intuitive findings. They got a group of the most suspect individuals (alcoholics, addicts and petty criminals) and gave them each $200. Three years later, it turned out they had spent the money on food, clothing, medicine and small businesses. The people who understand the poor the best are the poor.

See People

I am against hand-outs, but not for the reason I think many people are. Throwing solutions at problems doesn't work primarily because of the thrower, not the receiver. An alternative to hand-outs of a 'nothing for nothing' philosophy also leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Again, I think the problem doesn't solely lie with the person trying to get out of their hole. The primary problem in my mind is that we don't 'see people'. It is not a relationship. It is an attempt at a 'hand-up' rather than a 'walk with'. Charity has an implicit hierarchy. That the person giving has the answers and that the person receiving aspires to reach their level. Sharing is different. It requires the hard work of community building. It requires learning from each other.

One push back on hand-outs is entitlement. That people will expect things to just be given to them. The best example of entitlement I have seen is privilege. Through travelling, I have been lucky enough to spend time with a number of families in the past two years. Most of these families have been privileged. In privileged families children grow up with parents doting over their needs. Interpreting screams. Working through and around tantrums. Slowly teaching them how to engage with society. Showering with love even when they behave badly. Slowly building up boundaries. In the first few years these kids believe the world is designed for them. Little emperors throw things on the floor. Dismiss food. Insist on going home. The world often bends to their will.

That is not what I experienced in my two week stay in a place outside my bubble. Normally I stay with families for 2 or 3 days. It is enough to relax and see people as they are. Longer than the curtain can be held up. I get to know the children. I get to have awesome chats with my friends. Normally it is long enough for kids to misbehave. For me to see the many varied approaches parents attempt to use. In the two weeks I spent learning isiXhosa with a family that didn't have the privileges I have, the children didn't misbehave. They were incredible. Obviously it is just one example, but in poorer communities there is an inner fight I don't see elsewhere. Resilience busting a gut to shine.

Privilege includes the ability to forget all the handouts we have received. Teachers, family and other mentors that have put up with our nonsense over the years. Lessons in punctuality. Lessons learnt playing team sports. Lessons in confidence and inner-belief - that you are entitled to the fruits of your labour. The big difference is our hand-outs came from people who were making a genuine attempt to see us. To help us carve away the obstacles that were holding us back. Our hand-outs came from our community.

Like Michelangelo, our communities carve out our talents and beauty

A Universal Basic Income isn't a hand-out. In a society with Private Property and an ability to deserve the fruits of your labour, there has to be a functioning community. We don't know how all wealth was created. We have a long history of screwing other people over. Of looking after our own. Of taking things, land and power that we want at the expense of others. The most powerful tool I have come across of redressing this, is directly. Put cash in the hands of everyone. Enough to survive. Enough to look up from living hand to mouth, and start thinking about living. A Universal Basic Income is a muse.

Hand in hand with a Universal Basic Income, we start the hard work of building communities that work. Communities that look after each other. You can't monetise a lot of the work that is required. Paid work is only possible where functioning markets can be created. Where there is supply and demand. The most obvious example is parenting. The tools of pricing don't work there. The Emperor may feel entitled, but there is normally only a small circle of people willing to supply that love. Immediate family. Perhaps a friend or two. The salary of a parent is normally zero. The worth of that job is priceless.

'Nothing for Nothing' can encourage a 'Work for work's sake' mentality. That is basically just killing time. Killing time keeps people away from building relationships and supporting each other. The fact is there isn't enough meaningful monetise-able work to go around. There are structural problems that prevent job opportunities. It isn't laziness. In Johannesburg, I drive past guys just sitting on street corners hoping someone will come and give them a job. Any job.

To finish with a quote from Rutger Bregman:

'There is no evidence at all that people will turn out to be lazy. You know, most people are inherently creative. Most people want to do something with their lives. People get really depressed most of the time when they are unemployed. So what may happen is people do less paid work in order to do more unpaid work.'

Savour Each Bite

Starting is the hardest part. Whether it is getting fit, eating properly, learning a language, fixing a broken relationship, or breaking down the barriers that trap the world in Global Apartheid and Privilege. I love Tim Minchin's commencement address in which he talks about Micro-ambition. He says that we should make our goals tiny and achievable. Take a bite. I love John McInroy's focus on helping people who are helping themselves, not through charity, but by seeing the fact that they are already helping themselves. Recognising resilience as it already exists. Understanding the bites they are already trying to take.

We live in two worlds. The one in our heads and dreams, and the one that we experience. Both are illusions created by the way we understand things. The experiences we have had. The emotions we understand and the emotions we don't. There are inputs for us to expand these emotions and experiences if we are open to them. Look. Listen. Taste. Feel. Think. Love.

Savour each bite with all the senses

If we open ourselves up to other people, then I firmly believe we can start the work of building our communities. Then we will be able to savour more fully each and every bite we take.

Umsilinga Primary School

It's the hand up. It's the sharing. It is the building of relationships. Harnessing resilience and lighting flames. The Unogwaja Challenge and the Red Love Train are walking with the Umsilinga Primary School (located near the route of the Comrades Marathon). Through conversations and reciprocal education, we can build a community that is deeply bound together. In mutual support of dreams, aspirations, passions and meaning. Investing in the fabric of a society we draw from and give to. Planning with each other. Making our future together. Real liberation starts with being connected. Real liberation starts with seeing each other.

To contribute, please click here

Red Love Train

Unogwaja and The Red Love Train coming together from all over the world

You have 12 hours to finish the 89km Comrades Marathon. I would like to finish somewhere around 11 hours 45 minutes. Walking as much as I need to. Just keep moving. I will be part of the 'Red Love Train'. A group from Brazil, Germany, Britain, Canada, Portugal and (of course) South Africa will be running alongside the Unogwaja team. That team of 14 (adding Australia and the US) led by Nathaniel Mabetwa will be cycling about 1000 miles from Cape Town to the start of the Comrades over the 10 days before the race. We will then run together. The race is a part of a much wider project to walk together through life. To see each other. To build a community of which we are all a part by coming together, with respect, and seeing how we can release the energy within us. Not charity. Unogwaja is about light. It is about removing obstacles.

Click here if you would like to donate to the effort

Removing Obstacles

Two legs of support for the Welfare State come from arch political opponents. The traditional Right and Left. 

On the right, the idea of 'Charity with strings' allows a tough love approach to supporting those in need. If you do this, that, and the next thing... then we will help. Clean up your act. Behave in a certain way. The welfare is in effect a reward for good behaviour. Like the sweets you give a child when they do their chores. Love with a sprinkle of judgement.

On the left, the idea of 'Charity with ag shame' allows a parental caring love approach to supporting those in need. You don't know how to do it. Shame, let me do it for you. I will decide what you need, and who needs something more than you. Let me teach you slowly how to do it for yourself. If that is possible. There are a lot of people who can't look after themselves at all and will never be able to. Love with a sprinkle of condescension. 

Sprinkles of Judgement and Condescension

I am a believer in empowerment. I hate hierarchy. It makes my blood boil. I love working with people. In partnership. I think the role of 'bosses' should be to remove obstacles. I think the role of the state should be to remove obstacles. Two legs I think would support this is a Universal Basic Income and building relationships. In order to really 'see someone' you can't approach with judgement or condescension. You approach with friendship. You learn from each other and with each other.

See the Boston Review forum on 'A Basic Income for All'

Cornflakes and Goats

One of the problems with trying to help is we often hash it up. It is frightening reading how many of the atrocities of the past were thought of with liberal intentions. Colonialism for example was justified us a 'Civilising Project'. A superiority complex believing that other people needed help, approached without any respect or curiosity to learn from the civilisations being civilised. We don't want to just give money, so we hand out goats, or water pumps, or clothing we wouldn't wear ourselves. We give someone who hates the things free cornflakes for breakfast. We let them eat cake.

I don't think the answer is to not help. In the same way as I think you earn the right to give feedback, I think you earn the right to help. Both start with a relationship. Both start with time and effort to get to know someone. I am an opinionated person, but I am working hard to reign back in any unsolicited criticism. I am working hard to listen without trying to pull apart an argument, until I have seen how the argument has been put together. Till I have attempted to empathise with the emotional base for the facts. To give the benefit of doubt. I think 'charity' should be the same.

I don't agree with the idea that 'Charity starts at home' which means we should just look after local concerns. The walls between our bubbles are too tall. Our problems end up being relative to the people immediately surrounding us and we lose perspective. If we extend the idea of home to being Global Citizens. If we extend the idea of home to being relationships we have built, then I can get on board.

We should put away our cornflakes and goats, and build relationships. If not, and we are desperate to help, I think GiveDirectly has the right idea. At least that form of help empowers people to make their own decisions.

'The deep evidences base for unconditional cash transfers provides plenty of reasons to be intrigued by basic income. We know people who receive cash transfers don't blow it on drinks or stop working but rather increase their earnings, their assets, and their psychological well-being'

- GiveDirectly.org