Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Newsweek reports on Basic Income (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Newsweek reports on Basic Income
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No, it's not a different tax structure. It is destroying the value of what one person has and giving value to a different person who didn't work for it.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Nothing about this proposal changes any characteristics of things that impart value. Food would still be just as nutritious. Clothes would still be wearable. Cars would still be drivable. Asserting more people to but things and making more things to be bought doesn't have the value of those things, it just means that there's more net value to go around and more reward to be gained for creating it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No, it's not a different tax structure. It is destroying the value of what one person has and giving value to a different person who didn't work for it.

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Nothing about this proposal changes any characteristics of things that impart value. Food would still be just as nutritious. Clothes would still be wearable. Cars would still be drivable. Asserting more people to but things and making more things to be bought doesn't have the value of those things, it just means that there's more net value to go around and more reward to be gained for creating it.
The supply of goods and services doesn't magically increase the moment all this cash is handed out to everyone. Nice try.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, it starts as businesses get wind that It's coming and hear up production so as not to lose out to their competition. But even if they didn't, most of the production is already there, just ending up being written off as losses in clearance sales, food bank donations, and the like.

There may be a few industries that, if this magically happened overnight instead of being publicly debated, passed into law and scheduled to start at a certain future date might run a little short for a month or two till they being their arguing up to fill and start more factories out what have you, but trade and imports would easily fill that gap, since most of the world has even more productive slack than we do at the moment and would enjoy the benefit of more employment opportunities as well.

[ December 20, 2014, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, it starts as as businesses get wind that It's coming
You think businesses in America change production models based on rumor, innuendo and guessing? [LOL]

They often wait until AFTER economic conditions change because that is the safest course.

quote:
But even if they didn't, most of the production is already there
Any proof for this wild assertion?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca: How is this plan different than an across-the-board reduction on taxes (driving some tax rates into the negatives)?

I'm not saying I support this plan yet; the conservative in me is uncomfortable with big new changes.

I'm just saying that your objections are missing the point a bit; it's not communism, it's not socialism, and it's not creating incentives against working (although, it is removing some incentives to work a job you hate).

But before we get to any of that, your characterization of this plan simply isn't accurate. We can't actually talk about the thing until we agree on what we're talking about.

So I ask: how is this different than an across-the-board tax cut?

[ December 20, 2014, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very simple. A tax cut lets people keep money they already have and doesn't lead to massive inflation. This proposal prints off massive amounts of new money and gives it to people that didn't earn it or have it.

[ December 20, 2014, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Very simple. A tax cut lets people keep money they already have and doesn't lead to massive inflation. This proposal prints off massive amounts of new money and gives it to people that didn't earn it or have it.

But that money doesn't need to be printed - it already exists. This system could replace the $1.88 trillion we already circulate as part of welfare and social security, which works out to about $16,000 or so per household. And if the program were phased out for households with large incomes (one option among many), it would be maybe $20,000 per household, but either way - it's money that already exists in the system.

Imagine wiping out food stamp programs, reducing/removing government programs (no need for stuff like drug testing) while promoting individuals to responsibly use their allocation. Anybody who blows their income on useless junk would truly fit the archetype of "the deserving poor", having to face the music for their bad decisions. Those who use it well would not want for food security essentials.

This really has a lot to appeal to both parties.

[ December 20, 2014, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if that were true, which I doubt, my guess is many would just squander the money on stuff besides necessities and then demand more assistance, which often happens now. Being all liquid cash payments with no controls to mitigate that at all, it would make that problem infinitely worse.

Unless of course you are willing to let people starve if they blew their 15-20k on booze and drugs, but if you are then that lets us negate all assistance in the first place.

[ December 20, 2014, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is this guaranteed minimum income in addition to or in lieu of traditional social programs and entitlements like social security?

It seems to me the cost would be significant - logically one would expect there to be tax increases to fund such a program. Is capital flight a concern given a globalized economy with high mobility?

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Is this guaranteed minimum income in addition to or in lieu of traditional social programs and entitlements like social security?

It seems to me the cost would be significant - logically one would expect there to be tax increases to fund such a program. Is capital flight a concern given a globalized economy with high mobility?

This could, in theory, completely replace $1.88 trillion in welfare & social security. The article in the OP does some basic math calculating how much that amounts to for households under a few different assumptions. It is plausible that taxes would go down, not up, as a result of the elimination of the various government programs necessary to run "more complicated" SS/welfare programs. Read the article.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Even if that were true, which I doubt, my guess is many would just squander the money on stuff besides necessities and then demand more assistance, which often happens now. Being all liquid cash payments with no controls to mitigate that at all, it would make that problem infinitely worse.

Unless of course you are willing to let people starve if they blew their 15-20k on booze and drugs, but if you are then that lets us negate all assistance in the first place.

Well, right now, guys like me (whom you obviously disagree with) regard a lot of poverty as independent from the decisions of the poor, which is the impetus behind a lot of liberal angst on the subject. Polling data tends to back this up (i.e. how liberals or conservatives attribute responsibility for one's being poor differently).

This sort of program, if implemented, would effectively nullify my own such feelings, making it quite plainly a poor person's fault for mismanaging their money. I might still empathize, but I'll be damned if I would want to throw my tax money at people who demonstrably squander it. It would, in a sense, make obviously and plainly true something that conservatives already believe.

I can't speak for all liberals (I don't even identify myself as such), but I think it would immediately have a chilling effect on efforts for further handouts.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is also the question of whether a distribution should be "per household" or "per citizen/resident". The article seems to imply the former, but I think the latter would be smarter. IF it's "per household", I could imagine a lot of naked fraud schemes whereby couples who ought to be living together would opt to live apart "to double their basic income". It would have a chilling effect on marriage for the poor.
IF it were "per individual over the age of 18" that would be smarter - link it to their social security numbers, and that's that. Fraud would still happen, but I would speculate it to be probably not more than we currently deal with.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Even if that were true, which I doubt, my guess is many would just squander the money on stuff besides necessities and then demand more assistance, which often happens now. Being all liquid cash payments with no controls to mitigate that at all, it would make that problem infinitely worse.

Unless of course you are willing to let people starve if they blew their 15-20k on booze and drugs, but if you are then that lets us negate all assistance in the first place.

Well, right now, guys like me (whom you obviously disagree with) regard a lot of poverty as independent from the decisions of the poor, which is the impetus behind a lot of liberal angst on the subject. Polling data tends to back this up (i.e. how liberals or conservatives attribute responsibility for one's being poor differently).

This sort of program, if implemented, would effectively nullify my own such feelings, making it quite plainly a poor person's fault for mismanaging their money. I might still empathize, but I'll be damned if I would want to throw my tax money at people who demonstrably squander it. It would, in a sense, make obviously and plainly true something that conservatives already believe.

I can't speak for all liberals (I don't even identify myself as such), but I think it would immediately have a chilling effect on efforts for further handouts.

Would you let someone starve if they received all this free cash, blew it on irresponsible things and demanded more, or would you want the government to still take care of them at taxpayer's expense?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
No, it starts as as businesses get wind that It's coming
You think businesses in America change production models based on rumor, innuendo and guessing?

What uncertainty? If Congress debates and passes the measure, it would be certainty, not uncertainty, just like businesses shape production and marketing efforts based on expectations of how many people start taking Social Security payments over time.
quote:


They often wait until AFTER economic conditions change because that is the safest course.

Passing a law that creates New expectation if future income is a change in economic conditions that companies can respond to with certainty.

quote:
quote:
But even if they didn't, most of the production is already there
Any proof for this wild assertion?
Capacity utilization is still low. Unemployment is non-zero. Heckler, just go to any store and look compare the number of shelves that have clearance items on them vs the number of shelves that are empty because there are shortages of needed goods.

Even more importantly, private debt is at insane levels due to the shortage of federal output of money. Private credit outstanding is at least triple federal debt (which is to say, non-federal savings) So people have already been buying almost everything they would be buying with this program in place, they've just been running themselves deeper and deeper into debt to create the money though banks because the federal government isn't issuing enough to keep our economy afloat. Long before we saw any significant chance for inflation, we'd see huge amounts of consumer debt paid off and a large move from people floating themselves on credit cards and payday loans to building savings and paying out of pocket for their needs.

This does point to exactly who had a problem with the program, and any program that puts more federal money into circulations - the parasitic profits of the financial services industry are built on taking advantage of a cash starved market. If the federal government doesn't create money for people to spend and bonds do people can save, wall street takes vast profits and imposes it's own taxes on the entire market, then reinvests the profits into finding ways to drive more people further into debt to it. It actively spreads economic lies that protect it's power and profits and trick people into voting for public spending cuts and bad policies that further impoverish people and increase its power.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
There is also the question of whether a distribution should be "per household" or "per citizen/resident". The article seems to imply the former, but I think the latter would be smarter. IF it's "per household", I could imagine a lot of naked fraud schemes whereby couples who ought to be living together would opt to live apart "to double their basic income". It would have a chilling effect on marriage for the poor.
IF it were "per individual over the age of 18" that would be smarter - link it to their social security numbers, and that's that. Fraud would still happen, but I would speculate it to be probably not more than we currently deal with.

I'd prefer per individual (with half rates for dependent children). The argument against individual disbursements is effectively that many puerile might move into one household and take advantage of economies of scale to enjoy a larger net income between them.

Honestly, I don't even think that the possibility is a problem - it would be good to reward people that find more efficient ways to meet their needs, both in terms of real estate and energy.

[ December 20, 2014, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Very simple. A tax cut lets people keep money they already have and doesn't lead to massive inflation. This proposal prints off massive amounts of new money and gives it to people that didn't earn it or have it.

Unless it's very well targeted most tax cuts drive inflation because they put disproportionately more money in the hands of people at the top of the income spectrum whose spending drives inflation, because they get everything they want either way, the only question is how much they bid up process for everyone in the process. They also don't give any significant spending power to people at the bottom of the ladder whose purchases drive more production but don't have the power to set baseline prices.

Money has to be printed and distributed before people can earn it. The entire point of putting it into everyone's hands equally is to create the very conditions needed for people to work to earn it from each other in the first place. Without a constant, distributed infusion if new money into the market, those with the most money inevitably monopolize the current supply, creating a debt facto plutocracy, as our financial services industry is rapidly becoming.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Would you let someone starve if they received all this free cash, blew it on irresponsible things and demanded more, or would you want the government to still take care of them at taxpayer's expense?

Starve - no, I would not "let them starve" when there are soup kitchens and various other forms of help through charitable entities. I would point them to the nearest one, or to an appropriate group if they have a substance abuse problem. But there would not be a further government program to deal with starving poor people - the basic income is it.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So all government welfare infrastructure would go away and you think there'd be enough 100% private ones left over to handle people who blew their income?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those people wold be small enough in number that each local community would be able to easily decide for it self how it wanted to work with them instead of relying on any federal program. Perhaps privately, perhaps through local government. You're presenting a false dichotomy by ignoring levels of governance aside from the federal.

[ December 20, 2014, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry I don't believe you are correct, and I see no data that shows we should consider this radical change.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A good reason to do pilot studies. What sort of data would be worth something to convince you?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
What they're proposing is really just a different tax structure. It's not a huge overhaul of the system; they're not proposing communal ownership of property or huge federal oversight (well, maybe they are, but not linked to this point).

JoshuaD, it's exactly what they are proposing. This is a window dressing on communal ownership (ie full blown communism) nothing more, which is why of course the arguments that are being made that it works, and it has worked everywhere its tried are completely specious.

The whole "philosophy" rests on the idea that everyone is entitled to consume as a simple reward for the job of existing (ie to each according to his needs) and that there is an "adequate surplus" of goods out there being produced to satisfy those needs. Since people recognize it when you take their goods and redistribute them as a bad thing, you just make up free money and hand it out to create the soothing illusion that something of value is being handed over as a reward, but in reality, since nothing was produced in trade for the currency all that exchange accomplishes is redistribution (from each according to his means).

It's a card trick, an illusion, nothing more. If people see through it, then its communism all over, and that hasn't worked anywhere its been tried. Even if they don's see through it, it's still pushing a worthless commodity (free unlimited currency endless created) into a market in excess amounts. Those with resources will move to bartering rather than handing them out for cash, and our benevolent masters will respond the same way they always to - fixing prices to ensure that every agrees to sell at "fair" prices, and we get back to the bread lines.

The only variance at all, is a slight one, that the very productive may still be able to be capitalists on the top of the cycle. But if they do then it turns out even worse, because the separation between them and the dolist casts gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and you see the nasty cycle of rich v. poor magnified. You either end up with oligarchs or blood baths.

But hey, yeah, it's all fun, and it's "worked" everywhere it's been tried [so long as by tried we mean in someone's senior thesis.]
quote:
Originally posted by PRST:

Seems to work very well in Alaska.

Not at all. What works in Alaska is the same thing that works in the middle east and in parts of northern Europe. Being a net commodities exporter creates the surplus distributed cash. That's not money created out of nothing, it's resource exploited and diminished. Doesn't work without actual resources injected from an external source.
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:

I might agree with this Randian concept if most people were actually involved in production and development and some people began to benefit from the superior productivity of others. But the fact is that very little production of any kind happens in America any more, and most jobs are in either the service sector, financial sector, or specialist sectors. The service sector, while involving work, doesn`t involve creation of value, and the financial sector, in my opinion, is a complete systemic leech that is also responsible for outrageous abuses of the public.

All true. But all you're establishing is that people are increasing useless to the world economy. We could move to the Star Trek economy, but then we need to accept a different philosophy.

We shouldn't accept these false economic arguments just because the economic reality is that people and their labor may not have a place in tomorrow's economy.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Nothing about this proposal changes any characteristics of things that impart value.

Everything about it does. Where you measure value in CURRENCY destroying the value of the currency does exactly that.
quote:
Food would still be just as nutritious. Clothes would still be wearable. Cars would still be drivable.
True all, but people wouldn't be willing to accept currency for any of them, hope you have someone more productive than Cat Macros to trade for your meal.
quote:
Asserting more people to but things and making more things to be bought doesn't have the value of those things, it just means that there's more net value to go around and more reward to be gained for creating it.
Lol. Really, seriously lol.

There is no real world place where creating money and handing it out in mass is going to lead to more production rather than rising prices, which leads to price controls, which leads to bread lines.
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:

So I ask: how is this different than an across-the-board tax cut?

It's always a matter of scale and confidence. Do you believe if the government has taken less of your check that they created new money? If the government keeps a careful balance between tax receipts and spending, is it the same thing as a government that declares it will no longer collect taxes but keeps spending at the same level?

Currency only works as a trade medium because we believe it has a relatively constant value. This plan annihilates that belief.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
But that money doesn't need to be printed - it already exists. This system could replace the $1.88 trillion we already circulate as part of welfare and social security, which works out to about $16,000 or so per household.

And in doing so, how many households of current government workers are you putting out of jobs? You do understand that the $1.88 trillion is supporting an awful lot of jobs (in the mix of direct aid and government waste). I've also read that it's a number that includes substantial amounts of medicare payments, if that's true it's even more disastrous as a re-allocated pot.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And in doing so, how many households of current government workers are you putting out of jobs? You do understand that the $1.88 trillion is supporting an awful lot of jobs (in the mix of direct aid and government waste).

Are you suggesting we should preserve jobs we don't need, just to have them? That's an interesting position to take. Are you sure that's something you'd like to defend?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, that's quite the collection of misrepresentations, incorrect assumptions and strawmen, Seriati.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
And in doing so, how many households of current government workers are you putting out of jobs? You do understand that the $1.88 trillion is supporting an awful lot of jobs (in the mix of direct aid and government waste).

Are you suggesting we should preserve jobs we don't need, just to have them? That's an interesting position to take. Are you sure that's something you'd like to defend?
We could have people dig for gold too, like they used to, and call those government jobs. Why don't we just give jobs such as this to all people looking for work and say we've solved unemployment? The fact is that a huge percentage of jobs in America are irrelevant in terms of creation of value. We're already living in an Atlas Shrugged scenario where the productivity of some is supporting many. I believe this plan would actually serve to alleviate that to a degree.

Seneca, I'd like to address your good point, though, that if these payments were the last call for certain people and they blew the money, what would happen to them? On the surface it's a serious concern...until you wonder what would happen if people did that now. After all, as we speak someone can go to work, get his paycheck, and go right to the bank, cash it, and spend it all on bubble gum. What's to stop him? Of course if he doesn't buy food or pay rent he'll be evicted and starve, and this would likely cause him to lose his job and therefore his income and be in an even worse position than what you suggest. The only difference between your scenario and this one is that in your scenario the guy can waste all his money but at least the pay checks keep coming. If he wants to live on the streets and eat at a soup kitchen that's his business, in a sense. If he still gets the check no matter what there is the issue of him no longer providing labor for society; but what we're suggesting is that his labor simply isn't needed anyhow. If this is true, then not only is he saved a life of drudgery doing work of no value, but he also is given a kind of security he doesn't enjoy now to the same extent.

It doesn't take that many people to run an economy. How many? That's really a good question. But we already know that it takes less than what we have, and that's a serious problem that will only get worse with time. I'd really prefer to find a solution before the problem sets in fully and there are riots.

By the way, I need to mention that a plan like this one would require a few conditions to make it functional, not the least of which is a mechanic to discourage extensive births for the purpose income generation from children. My idea on this in the past has been to only give a fraction of the payment to dependent children, and for this only to begin perhaps at the age of 12 or 14 or something. As long as having children is still a significant net expense it will limit the birth rate to acceptable levels.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Children themselves are enough of a deterrent. Especially since thn number of children people have declined as they gain more security and wealth and gain a corresponding level of value from making the effort to plan.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, we absolutely eliminate price fixing in the form of a minimum wage and replace it with a buffer stock program that puts any person who wants a job to fill time work for a fixed wage/benefit package (including health care and child care if those continue to bed to be provided by employers or out of pocket)

The work could be long over due infrastructure work our arts/historical work, per the wpa or program one, our jobs that would have been unpaid internships, training, non profit volunteer work, etc, with some controlscontrols to ensure that any private companies that can get temporary work from our can't use it to displace permanent hires.

It would serve both the purpose that our current minimum wage and unemployment systems in a much more market based manner. Moving people working as an inflation control, instead of forcing a large segment of the population to be involuntarily unemployed our underemployed like we do now.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Currency only works as a trade medium because we believe it has a relatively constant value. This plan annihilates that belief.
Of all the in the post, which I'm not even going to try to work on from my phone, This is the most absurdly untrue. Church doesn't have any value, it just serves to communicate price. No one expects our to have relatively constant value, and in fact make many, many purchasing decisions based on expectations that prices will change in the short and long term. Markets work because everyone values everything differently, including money - purchases occur when a person values a good on sale more than having the amount of money required to meet the price asked for it, while the seller at the same time values that amount of revenue more than they value the good. All valuation is always relative to the person assigning value.

What's more we're creating wealth at accelerating rates. Keeping the baseline money supply fixed by balancing in and outflow of it from its source means that the relative supply is shrinking rapidly, even as the material tendency of unchecked markets to tend toward monopoly means that fewer and fewer people control the limited supply that exists. A fixed money supply creates strong deflationary expectations, encourages hoarding, and puts progressively more power in the hands of those who have the largest hoards.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
Not at all. What works in Alaska is the same thing that works in the middle east and in parts of northern Europe. Being a net commodities exporter creates the surplus distributed cash. That's not money created out of nothing, it's resource exploited and diminished. Doesn't work without actual resources injected from an external source.

This gets right to the heart of the ongoing economics dispute here: we are not on a gold standard anymore. Our money does NOT correspond to any specific form of wealth, and it hasn't since Nixon. All of these theories;
that currency not seen as a representation of tangible wealth will inflate to worthlessness;
that money must be collected by the government before it can be spent;
that currency itself is in any way a limited resource;

ALL of these theories were proven false when the Nixon shock severed any connection to a gold standard. Fiat currency is just that: established by fiat, put in demand through taxation, its value set by market forces (but VERY stable compared to any commodity or other form of asset). Whether you believe it will work or not is irrelevant; it HAS worked for forty years. How discredited does an economic theory have to be before we don't have to debate it any longer? Money is created from nothing every day, and destroyed, and the money supply ebbs and flows based on private demand and government spending. The most prosperous nation in history has created new money nearly every budget cycle for a century, and currency in circulation has tripled in the last decade alone(process that for a minute). Everything you are claiming will be a disaster has in fact already happened, and happens on an ongoing basis. Its simply absurd to evaluate new proposals on theories which are already obsolete.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So of course let's take that to this extreme and print off giant amounts of currency as has been suggested and hand it out. That's never failed before has it?

Google images of the Wiemaur Republic.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So of course let's take that to this extreme and print off giant amounts of currency as has been suggested and hand it out. That's never failed before has it?
No one is suggesting that. Taking printing money to the extreme is as problematic as not printing any money.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you, Seneca, that a proposal like this shouldn't be an excuse to go ballistic and end fiscal balance. Therefore you're quite right that some analysis would have to be done to ensure that the money supply remains relatively stable. We already have plenty of problems with the government overspending and creating new money to pay for it (at the people's expense), so it would be good to not only bring this to a stop but also to guarantee that any new system created didn't make this practice even worse than it is.

Ideally the proposed system would use already earmarked monies and would require no additional funding. But even if it did require somewhat more than is immediately available from welfare, social security and a few other to-be-obsolete programs, I think that the immediate slight spending increase would be very quickly offset by reductions in other areas, such as reduced medical costs from people taking better care of themselves, and less bureaucracy.

And this is to say nothing of the possible economic stimulus of giving people the possibility of using this money to supplement their income, which would lead to increased consumption, and therefore end up partially paying for itself through tax money.

But you're right that grand experiments are risky and scary in a way, especially when monetary mismanagement at certain historic times ran alongside fascist government. That's why I think it's important to keep increasing oversight of government, law enforcement, the Fed, and other such organizations, to make sure changes made in the future are done on the up and up.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with you, Seneca, that a proposal like this shouldn't be an excuse to go ballistic and end fiscal balance. Therefore you're quite right that some analysis would have to be done to ensure that the money supply remains relatively stable
THe money supply should only stay stable if the population is stable, and the amount of goods and services in circulation is stable. If both those things are growing, then a stable money supply is destructive.

quote:
We already have plenty of problems with the government overspending and creating new money to pay for it (at the people's expense)
Actually we have exactly the opposite. THe government hasn't been creating nearly enough dollars, over the last couple of decades, to keep up with the economy. This is a large part of the reason for the massive build up of private debt.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So of course let's take that to this extreme and print off giant amounts of currency as has been suggested and hand it out. That's never failed before has it?

Google images of the Wiemaur Republic.

Where the problems were created by imposed shortages. Trade embargoes, banned industrial development, and high demand for foreign currency to pay imposed debts. Those shortages caused the inflationary spiral, something that creating more money came after, as an attempt to keep up with prices.

If we were facing high levels of inflation rather than teetering in the edge of deflation, you'd have a point, and the proper resolver would be to bleed of money through explicit taxes our interest rates, (which are effectively taxes just by another name).

But were dealing with surplus labour and capacity and how to fill it, not any kind of shortage.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So of course let's take that to this extreme and print off giant amounts of currency as has been suggested and hand it out. That's never failed before has it?

Google images of the Wiemaur Republic.

Where the problems were created by imposed shortages. Trade embargoes, banned industrial development, and high demand for foreign currency to pay imposed debts. Those shortages caused the inflationary spiral, something that creating more money came after, as an attempt to keep up with prices.

If we were facing high levels of inflation rather than teetering in the edge of deflation, you'd have a point, and the proper resolver would be to bleed of money through explicit taxes our interest rates, (which are effectively taxes just by another name).

But were dealing with surplus labour and capacity and how to fill it, not any kind of shortage.

Remind us how deep in debt we are and which foreign nations hold that debt that require regular payments on it?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In foreign currencies? None. Plenty of other countries have dollar denominated savings deposits with us, as a result of trade, but they're all in dollars, not in foreign denominations.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I asked you which countries hold our debt and how often we have to make payments.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An irrelevant question because debt wasn't the problem, the need to obtain foreign currency was. A country's debt in it's own currency is just savings accounts that it as a service to holders of its money.

Any country that needs somewhere to park dollars due to trade with us holds our savings deposits. We "pay" those debts by transferring their balances from the Fed to the private bank if those choice on demand, including any earned interest.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Debt WAS the problem, as were the regular payments that had to be made on it or else they'd incur penalties. In our case the larger our debt grows and the more unable we are to service it over time the more our credit rating is downgraded and the worse it gets, like a spiral. Instituting this absurd and massive basic income would put the nail in that coffin.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1