A Key Question: How Do We Make the Economy Work for the Poor?

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, AFRICA, ECONOMICS, 18 Feb 2013

Howard Richards – TRANSCEND Media Service

This book is about a concept and a fact.     The concept is “unbounded organization.”[i]  The fact is the Community Works Programme of the Republic of South Africa.[ii]  The intended audience of the book is the educated public.  This first chapter is an essay in persuasion.  It is an attempt to persuade potential readers that learning what this book has to say will be worth the time and the effort they will need to invest to read it.

We want to make a case for the claim that “unbounded organization” is a useful concept, indeed a key concept.  A key opens doors.   We use the word “key” to suggest that the concept of unbounded organization can be said to “open doors.” It helps to answer questions and to resolve problems regarding not just one but several theoretical problems in the social sciences.   Similarly the practical question posed in the title of this chapter, “How do we make the economy work for the poor?” can be regarded as a question whose satisfactory answer would “open” answers to other crucial practical questions such as, “How can violent conflicts be transformed into peaceful cooperation?” [iii]  “How can social problems associated with poverty and inequality be alleviated?”[iv]  and “How can the world become sufficiently governable to make it possible to enforce the environmental laws needed to make human life sustainable.”[v]   We think it is almost self-evident that a satisfactory answer to the question, “How do we make the economy work for the poor?” would be a key that would open closed doors that block solutions to other crucial practical problems.  Nevertheless, redundant though they may be in our own minds and perhaps in the minds of others, we will in later chapters make explicit arguments linking poverty alleviation to solutions to other major problems.

After reading this first chapter the reader should possess an inkling of what we mean by “unbounded organization” and “an unbounded approach.”  She or he should have a rough notion of where we stand on some issues in the philosophy of the social sciences.  She or he should have an inkling of why somebody might think, and why we do think, that the problem of making the economy work for the poor will be forever intractable as long as the approaches to solving it are “bounded” –in a sense of “bounded” to be sketched in this chapter and later shaded and augmented.  This theoretical claim will be illustrated and supported later in the book by empirical evidence from a large programme designed to serve a million participants by 2014.[vi]   We shall interpret South Africa’s Community Works Programme (CWP) as an unbounded approach that does make the economy work for the poor.   After completing a reading of this first chapter the reader should be in a position to judge whether her or his time and effort would be well spent attempting to master the more detailed arguments of the rest of the book.

We now proceed to offer a way to talk about “the economy.  Then we will make a brief comment on who and what we are talking about when we refer to “the poor,” and begin to say why we believe it is useful to speak of unbounded organization to contribute to making the former “work” for the latter.

The Economy

Taking a leaf from the book of Max Weber we will start with an ideal-type of pure capitalism.[vii]   When he was studying modern western societies Weber employed as a tool for analysis a simple concept of rational economic man (dubbed by some people homo economicus).   He knew perfectly well that the ideal type was not a mirror reflecting the feelings, thoughts, and actions of flesh and blood people.  His procedure was to start with a simplified ideal type that provided important insights into human action at a given time and place.[viii]   Then he could study human action that did not conform to the ideal type by comparison with the ideal type.[ix]   We will use a stripped-down bare-bones model of pure capitalism.  It will be an ideal type not of an individual actor but of a social system.

We introduce our stripped-down bare-bones model of the economy with a simplified version of a diagram drawn by Karl Marx.[x]

Gogo Karlina Mvhendana is 91 years old and lives in Belfast, South Africa.  She has been blind since 2004 and has no one to take care of her.  CWP participants built her a one-room home with donations from people in the area.  They helped her get groceries and also linked her to an eye specialist in nearby Hazyview.  After a cataract operation she has regained sight in one eye.  “God has sent the CWP to assist me. I am so happy.  I sometimes feel that I can walk to the river and go for a swim,” she says.

M         >       C        >   ……..P …………    >        C´        >         M´

The diagram represents that the capitalist begins with M, Money.

With the money M the capitalist purchases the commodities C necessary for production, most notably the peculiar commodity that is the labour power of the workers.

(Marx’s German word translated as C “commodities” is Waren, a cognate of the English “wares” i.e. things made to be bought and sold.  The word “wares” was famously employed by the innocent Simple Simon who said to the pieman “Let me taste your wares,” unaware that in a mercantile economy the possession of money is a prerequisite to eating—a point later developed in greater detail by Amartya Sen in his study of famines.[xi])

Next in the diagram the owner of the commodities purchased sets in motion the process of production:           ……P…….

At the end of Production the same owner has become the owner of other wares. Now they have become commodities with a greater value, designated as C´

Finally comes the sale of C´ resulting in M´.   The quantity of Money M´ earned by the sale of the commodities produced is greater than M, the quantity of Money initially invested.

In theory this ideal-typic representation[xii] of a capitalist economy implies[xiii] staggering consequences.[xiv]   In practice staggering consequences follow to the extent that this simplified diagram accurately reflects how the economy works.   We do not expect the reader to grasp the consequences all at once.  We expect them to sink in gradually.   Now we will briefly mention some.[xv]

 Phumi Bombo is a teacher at the Gobelha primary school in Umthwalume in the South African province of KwaZulu-Natal.  “Every year we bury up to ten learners, all from accidents.  Since we’ve had teacher assistants from CWP there is yet to be a fatal accident that involves a child from our school.  The change is visible and the learners are taken care of.  When I am late or cannot come to school for whatever reason, I do so with the knowledge and confidence that I have left my learners with somebody who is capable of holding the reigns until I can take over.

In this stripped-down bare-bones model of the economy, money is advanced for the purpose of making something to sell at a profit.[xvi]  If money-seeking-profit is not advanced, nothing happens.[xvii]  The aim of the game is to make the difference M’ minus M as large as possible.  For that to happen the difference C’  minus C must be as large as possible; in other words the aim is to maximize the difference between the selling price of the goods and the cost of making them.   Costs must be kept down.   Wages are a cost; therefore (in this model) the wage bill must be kept down, both by limiting hires and by limiting salaries.   If costs rise to the point where the spread C’  minus C shrinks toward zero,  causing  the spread M’ minus M to shrink toward zero, then no money-seeking-profit will be advanced.   In that case there will be no employment and no production, and consequently (since nothing will be produced) no consumption.

Marx’s Presuppositions

Let us take temporary leave of the consequences of seeing the economy as a process of capital accumulation in order to look at what is presupposed when it is seen that way.   Looking again at Marx’s diagram, notice that both the left-hand side (the beginning) and the right-hand side (the end) consist of sales.  In the beginning the capitalist buys the labour-power and other inputs needed to set in motion the production process.   In the end the capitalist sells the products.   The legal and ethical rules that constitute exchange in markets are presupposed.[xviii]  Marx had earlier outlined those legal and ethical rules in a famous paragraph in Volume One of Capital:

“The sphere of circulation, or of exchange of commodities, within which labour power is bought and sold, is in fact a true Eden of the natural rights of man.  There reign only freedom, equality, property, and Bentham.   Freedom!  Because the buyer and seller of a commodity, say labour power for example, are not moved by anything but their own wills.  They make a contract, as free persons, equal in rights.  The contract is the form in which they give to a joint legal expression to their common will   Equality! Because they relate to each other as owners of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent.  Property!  Because each disposes only of his own.   Bentham! Because each is concerned only with his own self-interest.[xix]   The only force that brings them together and defines their relationship is their selfishness, their own advantage, their private interests.   And just because each is concerned only with himself, and neither has concern for the other, due to the pre-established harmony of things, or under the guidance of a most cunning providence, all work for the sake of each other’s advantage, for the common good, for the general interest.”[xx]

Adam Smith

What has Marx done here?  He has repeated some principal doctrines of Adam Smith, transposing them into irony.  Freedom, equality, contract, property, and self-interest constitute what Smith calls “natural liberty” in The Wealth of Nations.[xxi]  For Marx the same norms acknowledged by Smith and by classical economics generally are the rules that constitute and govern the exchange of commodities.  They frame the process of capital accumulation both at its beginning (acquiring the inputs of production) and at its end (selling the outputs of production).   If we ask then, “What is this thing called ‘the economy’ (which we want to transform to make it work for the poor)?” we will find that Marx and Smith (and following Smith today’s liberals and neo-liberals) define the economy by the same constitutive norms (freedom, equality, contract, property, and self-interest) –provided that we restrict our analysis to the exchange of commodities in what Marx calls “the sphere of circulation.”

Marx has also in the passage quoted (no doubt deliberately and consciously) repeated in an ironic mode a central doctrine of Adam Smith’s Theory of the Moral Sentiments.  It is the doctrine that divine providence has decreed that it shall be the nature of human beings each to pursue his or her self-interest.[xxii]

Marx agrees with Smith, in the sense that when the two look at commodity exchange in a market economy they see the same practices governed by the same norms; Smith also agrees with Marx, in the sense that Smith also finds that a consequence of market exchange is, by and large, the misery of the wage-earner.[xxiii]   That wages will be low follows from a central and pervasive feature of Smith’s conceptual apparatus.   Prices in general, including wages (i.e. the price of labour) fluctuate around and tend to converge to what Smith calls the natural price.[xxiv]  The natural price is the cost of production.   Competition in free markets tends to lower the prices sellers can charge buyers down toward the cost of production of the item sold.   In the case of skilled and highly educated workers, the cost of production of a worker includes the cost of acquiring skills and education.  In the case of 18^th and early 19^th century European ordinary workers (the kind of worker most observed and most discussed by the classical economists Smith, Ricardo, and Marx) the principal component of the cost of production of a worker was the cost of food.  Smith wrote, “…the demand for men, like that for any commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men; quickens it when it advances too slowly and stops it when it advances too fast.  It is this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all the different countries of the world….”[xxv]   Lack of market demand for labour “stops” its production because children die, or are never born, and sometimes adults die, because wages do not suffice to buy sufficient food.  David Ricardo makes the same point with more explicit language:  “Labour, like all other things which are purchased and sold, and which may be increased or diminished in quantity, has its natural and its market price. The natural price of labour is that price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.”[xxvi]

            In addressing the question how to make the economy work for the poor we have been discussing what is meant by the words “the economy.”  Now we will turn our attention briefly to what is meant by “the poor” but only long enough to do a short thought -exercise, and only with a single limited aim.   The aim is to underline the desirability of holistic approaches to poverty alleviation that deal with its social dimensions as well as its economic dimensions.

            Here is the thought-exercise:

            Imagine.  Imagine we are having a beer in a tuck shop[xxvii] in Alex.[xxviii]  Now imagine that we are at exactly the same location on the surface of the earth four hundred years earlier.   We notice that now (in our new now, the one four hundred years prior to the time we conventionally call now) the human population is quite small; it seems lost and insignificant in the vast immensity of the natural landscape.  Money plays a small role in our lives if we use it at all.  Although food consumption in terms of calories per day is comparable to what it will be for the poor people four hundred years later, the future-people (not just any future-people but specifically the poor ones in the tuck shop in Alex) will have lost many food-producing and food-gathering skills; they will spend more hours a day on the whole trying to eke out a living by hook or by crook and will enjoy less leisure.[xxix]  The future-people will have lost their traditional culture and identity.[xxx]  They will no longer live securely in extended families and clans where “children of the same homestead will share even the head of a locust.” [xxxi]   They will see wealth but will not touch it.    Humiliation will be the daily diet of their souls.[xxxii]   Drinking, fighting, and promiscuity will be their desserts.  The future people will live far from the lands of their ancestors, for they will have left their ancestral lands to move to the city to look for work, and many of them will not have found it.  That is a strange concept, “looking for work and not finding it.”  We cannot understand it.   How can one not find work when all of nature invites us to do something useful for ourselves and our kin?   We cannot grasp the concept, but no doubt the future-people who will have personal experience of it in daily life will know what it means.

            Of course all of this is mere imagination.  It is no substitute for the practitioner’s careful study of the particular actually existing culture of the milieu where she or he works.   It is no substitute for discerning a culture’s zone of proximal development, for discerning it can go next, starting from where it is now.[xxxiii]   This imaginary thought exercise is meant to orient real-life efforts to end poverty [xxxiv] toward what we believe to be a special strength of the CWP approach, moving beyond an already broad focus on employment, acquiring assets, and access to goods and services toward an even broader focus on social integration.[xxxv]

How We Can Make the Economy Work for the Poor

Nongenisolo Madlokazi lives in the rural village of Upper Mnyameni in Keiskammahoek in Eastern Cape.  She is the elected CWP supervisor for her village.  Of seven people in her household, only one is working.  “The CWP has helped to chase away the hunger.  In my house there was no furniture and now I have furniture and there is food in the house. It has also warmed my heart because I have got respect in the village because of this project.”

      It would follow that when in history there have been economies that have reliably worked for the poor (and that if there are to be in the future economies that reliably work for the poor) there must have been (and in a happy future there must be) intervening generative causes that are not comprehended in our stripped-down bare-bones model of capitalism.   We propose to call them “unbounded.”  We can make the economy work for the poor with unbounded organization.

   Putting the same matter slightly differently, it is our view that the reasoning of the classical economists was valid.[xli]  It is as valid today as it ever was.   Whenever history turns out differently from what is to be expected within the bounds of the natural liberty that framed their analysis, it is because the facts[xlii] they observed, and therefore the premises from which they reasoned, do not obtain.

    Thus our initial answer to the question how to make the economy work for the poor is a negative one.  “The economy” in what can be regarded as the ideal-typic primary sense of the term is not going to work for the poor.  As Amartya Sen has wisely written capitalism can generate mean streets and stunted lives unless it is restrained and complemented by other institutions– in many cases by nonmarket institutions.[xliii]

   We think the best way to proceed to explain our proposal to employ unbounded organization to make the economy work for the poor will be to begin by giving a good example of what we mean.   We beg the reader to tolerate the suspense of waiting for general conceptual clarification of the bounded/unbounded distinction; and to tolerate the suspense of waiting to learn more in general terms about why we think that in general unbounded organization is a useful concept in making the economy work for the poor; while we develop one particular example of an idea that breaks the bounds of the constitutive rules of commodity exchange –the idea of separating the right to live from the necessity to sell.

The Right to Live

            We have been talking about how to talk about the economy.  We have been using and putting in perspective the language of business.  Now we shall shift to the somewhat different language of human rights.[xliv]   We will soon bring together these two rather different realms of discourse with a proposition about the kind of economy needed to honour commitments to human rights:  It must be an economy where it is not necessary to sell something (labour-power or something else) in order to enjoy the right to live.

            There is an international consensus solemnly expressed in a series of multilateral treaties signed by the authorized representatives of almost all nations [xlv]affirming that every human being has civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.[xlvi]  Underlying all these rights is the right to live.

            In order to live every human being must satisfy certain basic necessities, such as food, water, housing, and health care services.

            Since the earliest beginnings of the human species its diverse cultures have prescribed that human beings in one form or another have duties to contribute to sustaining the lives of others.[xlvii]   Commonly social norms provide that humans have a duty to work.   Those excused from working have generally been an upper class, not a lower class.    But it cannot be a duty to sell.  A sale always requires the voluntary agreement of a buyer.  Because there cannot be a social norm obliging buyers to buy, there cannot be a social norm obliging sellers to sell.

            In mercantile societies like our own people usually satisfy their basic necessities by buying what they need with money.  They get the money by selling.  Often what they sell is their labour-power.

            In the individualistic vocabulary typical of our kind of society, it is said that “people should stand on their own two feet.”  They should not rely on “someone else” to meet their basic needs.  A moment’s reflection shows that a culture where such sayings are common is out of touch with reality.  “Standing on your own feet” means “getting your own money.”  “Getting your own money” means selling something.   But a sale can never be performed alone.    It always requires the participation of at least one other person or organization, namely the buyer.

Concerning the Philosophy of the Social Sciences

            Notice what we are doing.  We are relativizing commodity exchange.  We are relativizing the institutional frame[xlviii] of economics.  We are, so to speak, stepping out of our culture, moving backward, and seeing it from a distance as one culture among several or among many;  as we might in our imagination move to a position in outer space where we could see the planet earth as one among several[xlix] planets,  or move still farther out to see our own galaxy as one of many galaxies.[l]

            We see this book as part of a transition from bounded social sciences whose categories are derived from liberal institutions,[li] to an unbounded social science whose categories are unlimited.    We draw inspiration from the cultural/historical approach to psychology pioneered by Lev Vygotsky.[lii]  We find ourselves sympathetic with the views of the anthropologist James Boggs. [liii]  Boggs notes that the highly controversial concept of “culture” has for many years been a flagship of anthropology as a discipline.  It plays a role similar to the theory of evolution in the biological sciences,  since culture can be thought of as the ability to transmit innovations better adapted to the  environment from one generation to another through upbringing, thus giving the human species an evolutionary advantage over species that can only innovate by mutation and natural selection.     In the twenty first century “culture” can be regarded as an overarching theoretical framework for the social sciences replacing the previously hegemonic liberal doctrine of human order inherited from the Enlightenment.   In our terminology, bounded psychology, bounded economics, bounded politics, and so on, are no longer tenable.   The cat is out of the bag.  The constitutive rules of commodity exchange are neither necessary nor sufficient nor universal nor always desirable.[liv]

Keynes’ Concept of Liquidity Preference

          Returning to why full economic and social rights can only be honoured in a society where the right to live is separated from the necessity to sell something, we find another reason why selling cannot possibly be a duty in our way of viewing John Maynard Keynes’ concept of liquidity preference.   It is one thing to say everyone should do useful work; it is quite another thing to say everyone must find a buyer who will pay them money for doing it.

            The liquidity preference is a preference for holding cash (or assets similar to cash) instead of spending the cash to buy something.   Keynes gives a list of eight “psychological” reasons why people often prefer having money to spending it.   They are:

1. To build up a reserve against unforeseen contingencies.
2. To build up a reserve for foreseen future needs, such as old age, paying for the education of children.
3. To build up funds to enjoy consumption at a later date.
4. To enjoy a gradually increasing expenditure, i.e. instead of taking all one’s enjoyment now as soon as one has the money.
5. To enjoy a sense of independence.
6. To secure a flexible sum of money for carrying out business projects.
7. To bequeath a fortune.
8. To satisfy pure miserliness. [lvi]

Keynes drew up another list of motives for not spending money that applies not to individuals but to central and local government and to business corporations.[lvii]

            The fact that people have what Keynes calls liquidity preferences implies that some goods and services remain unsold (the ones that would have been sold if people had had no liquidity preferences and therefore had spent their money buying them). [lviii]

            Consider a way to look at three time periods.

            At Time One the population as a whole has a certain income X.   It is the proceeds from everything they have sold.

            At Time Two the population as a whole does not spend all of X.  Because of liquidity preferences it spends some smaller amount X – Y.

            Therefore, at Time Two the income of the population cannot possibly by X again.  Once again their income is the proceeds from everything they have sold.   But since the total spent is X – Y, the total income derived from sales cannot be more than X – Y.

            Therefore purchasing power at Time Three derived from sales at Time Two must be less than X.

Sizwe Nojkile is a participant at the Kagiso CWP.  “As for me if I was not a participant in this project I would be in jail for stealing, in particular cell phones.  CWP has helped me a lot because come month end, I know I have some money in my bank account that I have worked for, not a handout,” he says.

            To see this and many other things still more clearly it is useful to stand in the light of an accounting identity we consider central to Keynes’ thought:

                                     Total Sales = Total Purchases

An individual may have more sales than purchases (and accumulate cash) or more purchases than sales (accumulating debt) but if one sums up over a whole society (Keynes often writes “community” instead of “society”) first all of the sales and then all of the purchases, the two totals must be equal.[lix]  This is true because what is a sale from the seller’s point of view is a purchase from the buyer’s point of view.   It is the same transaction.

            As soon as we notice this accounting identity we smell a rat.   If the rat could talk it would tell us that a community that relies too much on the logic of commodity exchange to meet the needs of its people is headed for trouble.   Switching the terminology slightly (saying “receivables” instead of “sales” and “payables” instead of “purchases”)  we suddenly see a gaping pit where before we saw only normality:    Every business aims to have — indeed to survive long it must have– receivables greater than payables.   But

                               Total Receivables = Total Payables

because what is a receivable from the seller’s viewpoint is a payable from the buyer’s viewpoint.   It is the same outstanding obligation.  A community composed entirely of successful businesses, where every business regularly takes in more than it pays out, is an impossibility.

            At this point the reader may well already have a sense of where we are going.   We are going to a plural economy with diverse logics where what is not accomplished by one logic can be accomplished by another.

              But again we do not expect the reader to grasp the significance of these points all at once.   They will take time to sink in.   They imply that no amount of education, no amount of skills-training, no amount of encouraging the poor to go entrepreneurial and set up their own enterprises, no amount of advice on how to tap into new markets, in short nothing that makes the poor more capable of producing and marketing goods and services will suffice to end poverty.   Let Keynes speak:  “The celebrated optimism of traditional economic theory, which has led to economists being looked upon as Candides, who, having left this world for the cultivation of their gardens, teach that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, provided of course we let well alone, is also to be traced, I think, to their having neglected to take account of the drag on prosperity that can be exercised by an insufficiency of effective demand.”[lx]

An Abundance of Sellers, a Scarcity of Buyers

            For us Keynes provides a valuable theoretical lens for interpreting what we see every day on the streets.  Actually we see in Keynes’ contributions only a glimpse of the fundamental problem, as the tip of an iceberg is a glimpse of a much larger mass of ice under the water.   The fundamental fact (the mass of ice under the water) limiting what can be accomplished within the bounds of the logic of commodity exchange is that the constitutive rules of our type of society (unlike those of a society organized by kinship or by some other form of reciprocal obligation) leave each individual free to buy or not buy, sell or not sell.   We see no reason to believe that in a society like ours every seller who needs to sell something in order to live will find a buyer.[lxi]  We need to separate the right to live from the duty to sell because even with all the good will in the world not all those who need to sell something to make a living are finding buyers.  On the streets we see those who are doing their best to survive legally and legitimately in a world where money is needed to survive and getting money requires finding someone to buy what one has to sell; and we also see those who have given up on legitimacy in a mercantile world, who resort to begging, confidence games, and thievery; or who evade reality with drugs, drink and/or insane fantasies.   Those who strive to be legitimate often find few customers who have money and need or want what they are trying to sell.  This applies as much to high-end shops trying to sell luxuries to the rich as to the craftspeople and hawkers covering sidewalks frequented by the poor with homemade trinkets or cheap goods from China.

            Science and common sense both lead us to believe that although the logic of buying and selling may work for the majority, it does not work for everybody.  We believe that to honour in practice the human rights solemnly declared on paper we need other dynamics (other motivating forces) and other logics (other criteria for making decisions.)    Of course we have not yet considered the views of those who disagree with us and see these matters quite differently, for example those who deduce from Keynes that every year  there must be enough investment spending and/or government spending to compensate for that year’s shortfall of consumer spending.[lxii]  For that reason and others we cannot claim to have proven anything.   Hopefully we are communicating to the reader a point of view sufficiently interesting and sufficiently connected to vital questions humanity needs to answer to merit the reader’s further attention.

Working Without Selling

            But how can you work without selling?   Or without selling your labour to an employer who in turn sells the product?   Who will pay you?  Where will the money to pay you come from?   Who determines whether your work is truly useful?    How can the value of your work be measured?  Who supervises your work?  Is there not a danger that without the discipline of competitive pressure governing private sector employment, the so-called work without selling will become a charade, a disguised handout?   A slush fund politicians use to build a vote bank?  What is to prevent the programme that employs you from crowding out opportunities for the private sector by spending public funds to do things private enterprise would otherwise do  — in the end creating no net increase in employment but only a number of public jobs no higher than the number of private jobs crowded out?   Will the wage paid by the programme not become a floor so that employers will be unable to find anyone willing to work for less?  Will not wages in general rise?   And if wages rise will not some businesses fail because they are unable to pay them?   And will not the competitiveness of South Africa in the global marketplace be undermined if wages here rise higher than wages elsewhere?

            Whatever the answers to these questions might be, it is clear that separating the right to live from the necessity of selling is possible.   South Africa’s Community Work Programme is a fact.[lxiii]  Its participants are not only not required to sell;  they are not allowed to sell anything they produce on CWP time or with CWP assets.   Their work is entirely community service.  CWP is well on its way to reaching its goal of providing useful regular paid work for a million participants in 2014.  It is a fact too big to ignore.  It exists.   If it exists it must be possible.

ENDNOTES:

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 18 Feb 2013.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: A Key Question: How Do We Make the Economy Work for the Poor?, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Comments are closed.