This has long being an agenda for American political progressivism. That income disparity in America need to be equalize.  Not so much a specific political agenda in The Gambia. 

Break it into 2: Economics and Politics

1) Economics - there is no known theory how a government in a free-market capitalist nation can accomplish this goal (to equalize income of citizens). Certainly government can introduce many policies that encourage economic growth/expansion and that hopefully will benefit all hence income mobility. Meaning those in the lower end can find opportunities to climb the income ladder. But also do many other things that improve/enhance the human capacity to become demand/supply variables.

2) Politics - in every free market based capitalist democracy, but also true in controlled economies, the poor are usually the majority of the population. Therefore a good political slogan. First politicians even if they come in office  poor, they gets rich relatively shorter period of time than average citizen. They usually abandon their original neighborhood for a more affluent areas to dine and wine with the fortunate. They neither distribute their riches nor many are good at charity - look up their tax returns. These characteristics of an American politicians needs explanation.

So how can they achieve this goal? Is it even a good goal - because it implies halting income of higher end and raising those at lower end? There is no expansion high - but redistribution. They will say no to that - but there is not way if the higher level is stop at some point for the lower to reach them. Theoretically grow ratio can do it but in practice the lower end are less productive to amass such growth in real life.

Taxation is the usually tool of proponents. That's to tax the top and spend it on the lower. First problem there is no growth/expansion in that - simply redistributing. Second problem governments are never efficient/effective at almost anything - waste & fraud ensues. In addition even if you share those proceeds among the poor, they will likely spend on good and services produce by the rich - hence the rich are likely not only stay rich but still maintained the same income gap. 

Recently Hillary Clinton claimed she and spouse, former president Clinton were broke when they left the White House. Not sure what the message intend to mean but if she was trying to portrait they were/are poor - America has lot to celebrate but that's another to add on the celebration.

Income Mobility is the right cause to fight for! That's sought policies and programs that expands the economy hence everyone has an opportunity to grow while not necessarily trying to cap-off the upper limit. In fact morally wrong for someone (i don't care who) to decide what should be the upper limit. Worst yet to sell the plight of the weak/poor as a making of the rich/fortunate - absurd to say the least!

I can only hope someday politics becomes a clean and honest vocation to serve (give back to one's people) than the current deceptive and self enrichment profession/career at the expense of the poor/weak.

Regards

Burama FL Jammeh

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html

To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤