W.E.S. Rose (PT2)

"Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced."
 —James Baldwin

Part 1 was the introduction to the Asset-based Welfare (ABW) policy approach, and benefits of establishing a reformed welfare system focused around asset acquisitions and UBI. As previously expressed, load my elephant up with what I want it to consume with ease. Attempting to develop a UBI system that works, can be scaled, and can be the stepping stone to fully accomplish and implement ABW. For a program like this the anchor must be a collaboration of and from: investments, donations, charity, & government assistance. So I assembled a model portfolio I call the W.E.S. Rose Portfolio to serve as the anchor. The anchor must be resilience, self-sustaining, and provide income (dividends). The investments must be in securities that are vital to a sector or the economy as a whole. As of now, the portfolio have 8 holdings hovering around a CMV of $6000 with an average dividend rate 2.92%. In this scenario, the UBI distributions will have to come from the dividend income, and be divided and distributed to program participants. The most effective way to do it would be for the distributions to start off quarterly, then when able, increase to monthly. To also encourage self-sustainability, participants should "buy in" and take on a position of shareholder / stakeholder. The goal is to make financial assurance: affordable, easily acquired, and flexible. ABW can be used in assistance to acquire the basic asset combination for an individual to become self-sustaining, self-sufficient, and self-retired. The overall program can be used as an Asset-based Welfare Assistance Program, having the foundation placed on UBI and cultivated by financial advising and coaching. As the program run time increases, more assets are acquired, stabilized and maintained; while concurrently, adjusting and lowering taxpayer funded welfare programs. Equally important, the administratively burdensome and costly process of asset tests would be eliminated. Asset stimulated development of other assets, including human capital. At the end of the day, our most important asset is people, and we cannot let this current system of capitalism squander these assets and allow so many to be subjugated into poverty.

“Have a vision. Be demanding.”

—Colin Powell

The principle underlying an asset-based approach to welfare is that, rather than relying on state-managed social transfers to counter the risks of poverty, individuals accept greater responsibility for their own welfare needs by investing in financial products and property assets which increase in value over time. Housing markets have been at the core of these policies, as home purchase is normally considered the most appropriate investment vehicle for government supported saving. Malpass (2008, p. 2) suggests that the more dominant the private housing market has become the more it has been perceived as a potential cornerstone of the new welfare state. But, as attractive as asset-based welfare centered around home ownership might appear to governments, a number of obstacles stand in the way of its development. Governments do not appear to have good-faith that individuals are rational economic agents that would choose to save in the face of expectations of future welfare shortfalls. I only say that because of the monitoring, censoring, and blatant injustices of authority figures. Rowlingson (2002), for example, argues that people face constraints in thinking and planning ahead and saving for the future. These may lie in difficulties or unwillingness to think long term into the future or to imagine one’s place in it. I mentioned in the previous post on the benefits of assets, if you have not read the post please do. The article went on to say, for some, conceptions of the life cycle lead them to consider particular types of planning at particular ages, while for others the ability to plan ahead is affected by the amount and security of resources that they command. Home purchase has thus become increasingly delayed requiring long-term strategies and savings plans. And, most of all, large sections of the populations in all countries are financially excluded from acquiring housing assets at all so that a property-based system of welfare will not be fully inclusive of national populations. So much individual wealth is held in housing assets that housing market crashes threaten not only the aggregate asset value of the nation but also the viability of the welfare and pension system. So not only are all newcomers locked out, the most vulnerable within are at the mercy of the volatility. I have mentioned all of this to say, a home is an amazing asset to have but we can not build a sustainable foundation for a reimagined welfare system with it having too much of a vital part of the equation. For practical execution, the welfare should stabilize the housing at current or basic level before acquiring a property.

I read a paper on neoliberalism, governmentality, and consumerism. Neoliberalism, most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics, emphasizes the value of free market competition (which is different from the mainstream media’s definition/ portrayal). Governmentality is the study of power that emphasizes the governing of people’s conduct through positive means rather than the sovereign power to formulate the law. Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever increasing amounts. To be honest, I was looking for more journals on ABW. I continued to read the writing, thinking it directly related to the topic, but instead it provided insight on policy, regulation, and governance. Barnett et al, 2008, cited the ideas that power works not only through the restriction of liberty or freedom, but positively, by enabling certain sorts of action by subjects, and policy interventions are increasingly redefined in terms of a shared logic of responsibility, in which the greater freedom ascribed to individuals as consumers in markets for goods and services needs to be balanced by efforts to instill in them greater concern to look out for their own good and various collective good as well. The description on neoliberalism given in the paper pretty much sums up W.E.S. Rose: a corporate social responsibility initiative, attempting to instill individuals a greater concern to look out for their own good and collective goods. The authors also acknowledged “responsibilization” and that it is not only the work of government, but also other key actors referred to as capital (charities, NGOs, and campaign groups). The journal appears to be a great reference for blending ethical consumption and governmentality to produce an ABW policy/ program that consumers are able to accept while avoiding some key setbacks associated with neoliberalism economics. In policy debates around global poverty, it is often the default assumption that changing consumption requires finding ways to make consumers change the way they exercise choice; which to me, means choice manipulation. However, (Barnett et al,) expressed the intention is focused on retailers and suppliers; and just as importantly, to represent consumers' choice as political preference in lobbying of policy makers, regulators, and corporations.

The first asset to acquire being: WES:RS, specifically, the Rose Ticket. The buy-in will qualify the original asset (i.e. participate) to receive disbursements of funds on a quarterly basis, establishing a blueprint to start planning a financial footing. The ticket will provide steady cash flow to an individual, the program manager (PM) will coach the participants on budgeting and bettering spending habits. The PM will also assist with debt management and elimination. If allowed, the PM could provide assurances until the participant can provide those assurances themselves; for example cash objective. Basically, they are the need to pay for outstanding obligations (such as mortgage/rent, car payment, credit card debts, etc.) and the information on these amounts are readily available. This “shield” will provide an economic buffer not completely reliant on taxpayer state/fed welfare; upon which an economic floor can be built. On that floor, the PM can assist in strengthening , fortifying, and expanding it. The logical task to do would be to remove negative debts from the original asset, while building and/or establishing beneficial credit relationships.

There may be a strong case for asset transfers to supplement income transfers; WES:RS providing a means to transfer large lump sums (which provide significant positive effects on low-income individuals) and as well as monthly disbursements. In a form of summation, we should look to asset base approach in a broader process of income security reform. ABW can be used in assistance to acquire the basic asset combination for an individual to become self-sustaining, self-sufficient, and self-retired. WES:RS will build security by providing assurances against certain outstanding obligations. The program will run with the participant acquiring more assets, which they can leverage as collateral for additional assurances. The other side of the program would be the WES:RS acting as a third party asset inventory, releasing various types of assets from escrow, under determined circumstances, to the participant. Once the participate has that asset(s), the ownership will be wholly theirs'.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope… and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

—Robert F. Kennedy