Post: #1

The first time I learned about the idea "free money for all" I immediately shot it down as the latest socialist or progressive fad. Back then I was surprised to see Milton Friedman, economically not exactly on the left, had proposed a similar idea.

The idea seems to gain traction lately. Last year there was a referendum in Switzerland; there are basic incomes in Alaska & Iran (which have worked for decades); there are basic income for certain groups in European countries (the elderly or children); etc., etc. In general, it's already more common than most of us think, and it seems to work. Last week I read Erik Brynjolfsson's "Second Machine Age" and, he also argues a basic income as a good countermeasure to protect the middle class; job-destruction as a consequence of automation & robotics is going so fast, it's hard to stop.

How could it work? Well, a basic income would substitute the welfare state. You will end all welfare schemes and end all sorts of administrative secondary agencies making the welfare so inefficient & ineffective to a) prevent poverty & b) reintegrate poor people back to median income jobs.

You could dump economically dubious ideas such as minimum wage, job protection laws (big problem in Europe), help entrepreneurs start up, support small families, help flexworkers, etc.

Anyway, I'm curious what you guys think?

Post: #2

dupe

Post: #3

As an alternative to the wealth of welfare schemes you mention, it has promise. It's worth trying in a smaller country or a US state to see how it goes initially, and then enact it elsewhere if it succeeds.

The biggest drawback is that it requires rolling back the dubious economic ideas you mentioned - there's a good chance most or all of those would stay, while you now have this new huge liability.

It's also hard to build up a partisan constituency for it. The left will say, "welfare for people that are already rich? Why???" The right will say, "more welfare??? Hell no." I could see the right being more amenable to it if it was packaged with a swift, concurrent elimination of other welfare programs. The left is supported by government unions, who stand to lose members from such changes. Still, it's hard to say how it would pan out politically.

Here's the dupe: /thread-28755.html

Post: #4

Rand Paul has talked about this arguing basically that if there is to be welfare spending that it's better to have it take this form. The people who are supposed to benefit the most from state directed welfare programs tend to benefit the least from them. Unions, intellectuals, activist groups, non-profits etc all seek to gorge themselves from the trough leaving much less money for the needy. This way you cut out the middle man & provide support directly to the people.

Can't imagine the left would ever go for it, too many vested interests stand to lose their various meal tickets.

Post: #5

I presume that Social Security would also be extinguished for the ponzi scheme it is? Good luck doing that when the old kooks will vote out ANY politician who even mutters anything about reform or (gasp) getting rid of it completely. Same goes for Medicaid (a scam) and welfare (a bigger scam).

Post: #6

I think a large part of the left will be in favour of it. I'm more dubieus about the right what will all the socialism platitudes.

While special interests usually get their way, I think GBI will be one of the few political ideas that could succeed through popular vote.

Post: #7

No, we at the top would rather keep our huge share of the value added by our capital investments and the labor of Bangladeshi coolies, Chinese sweatshop workers, and Filipino call center workers.

If anyone at the bottom or middle complains, we will continue to surveil everyone and introduce increasingly repressive measures to suppress rebellion.

When we can replace you all with robots, we'll just starve and kill you all. Actually, excite you to kill each other through our media.

.

Post: #8

It's a very likely scenario, providing the economic system doesn't utterly collapse.

Automation plus the fact that we're living out the "Peak Everything" days plus the fact that cities are becoming less viable all points towards a guaranteed basic income and economic decentralisation.

Of course, there are several entire classes of people that don't want this to happen, so expect the old system to be removed kicking and screaming.

Post: #9

I would support this if it were counter-balanced by the removal of all other forms of welfare, including child support. However, it is always proposed to just be piled on top of existing things

Post: #10

I don't think GBI will come tomorrow, but I think it will come.

In the end, welfare state is too big, expensive & incompetent, even its proponents agree.

Plus: a GBI would do away with all sorts of market & price distorting policies, this will offer a lot to left and right. Rent subsidies, tax breaks, regulations which leads to retarded labour markets such as in France -- they could all be abolished.

Alimony? way of the dodo, no longer needed.

Want a leap year or re-educate? Go right ahead.

Underemployed? Sayanora shit job!

Internship without pay? No mom/dad needed

Want to start small business? You're guaranteed GBI

Food stamps gone.

Etcetera

Post: #11

Why bother to work? And wouldn't this raise the price of food stratospherically?

Post: #12

(10-19-2014 04:07 PM)kbell Wrote:  Why bother to work? And wouldn't this raise the price of food stratospherically?

GBI is low. For nice things you need to work.

Total costs/benefits of GBI are in all likelihood lower (&benefits higher bc markets can function better) than current systems. Thus I don't suspect bigger market distortions but less.

Post: #13

Basic Income or forms of it will have to come about due to technological structural unemployment - highly exacerbated due to globalization, since in the future 3 factories will be able to produce 100% of Iphones, shoes or cars.

The problem lies in the very fact that the current leading parties are pushing it. The income will be based on usury, meaning that the very same people will be mostly profiting from it and it WILL NOT be unconditional.

If you are mainly dependent upon the state, then the very same all powerful state can desire anything from you - forced vaccinations, forced labor, forced military conscription, forced relocation, forced psychic medication, calorie-card (and thus mandated food supply - part of it is good, but their idea of a "healthy" diet is shit - just less of it) etc.

So - yes - this will likely come about, but it will be just facilitating a greater Big Brother State.

_____________

Alternatives? Sure, but has less chance of realization than a snowflake in hell.

Best form would be social credit with demurrage:

http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013...demurrage/
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012...al-credit/

Simple explanation: Instead of raising money for the state via debt and eternal usury a country can simply issue money directly to each individual given a certain amount - let's say 1000$ / month. Then the country can simply tax that amount to procure revenue.

Currently every country uselessly raises money from the super-rich and then spends it - it could instead raise more of it tax-free by giving it to people and then taxing it away from it and then spending it. Actually this was already done in similar fashion in Canada in the 1930s where the government sent struggling farmers and small business owners cheques to keep them running.

Since most of the money will flow back to the economy creating jobs and prosperity via back-loop it is very beneficial. In addition we can quicken the velocity of money-turnover via demurrage - imposing a monthly tax on all funds given for free (-5% or even -10% for every month where you don't use your free funds). This is something that all people should get regardless of income or wealth. If you want a higher income or greater luxury, then you will have to work within the economic system - which of course will be easier, since so many people will be having and spending the greatly increased disposable income - 80% of the money issued will flow back to the economy. And if the upper 5% don't use then it will be taxed away.

   

But this would run counter to many goals of the current plutocratic leadership - mainly end of state-usury, no austerity etc.

The current next goals on the agenda will be austerity (poverty), end of travel, lower living standards (due to economic and fake global warming concerns) etc.
Basic Income fits perfectly into the system since it makes you into wonderful slaves - maybe they will create jobs like these in the future - funny, but not so funny vision of the future:




Also - note early role of the Fappening hardcore star - Jessica Brown Findley - TV role was a bit prophetic in that regard.

Whether we have to ride a bike to "generate clean energy" as a future "useful job" or something else to earn our Basic Income - well all of it is slavery in the end, since the conditions will come about only later.

Post: #14

In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State:

http://www.amazon.com/In-Our-Hands-Repla...0844742236

Quote:America's population is wealthier than any in history. Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually. The solution is to give the money to the people.

This is the Plan, a radical new approach to social policy that defies any partisan label. Murray suggests eliminating all welfare transfer programs at the federal, state, and local levels and substituting an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone age twenty-one or older. In Our Hands describes the financial feasibility of the Plan and its effects on retirement, health care, poverty, marriage and family, work, neighborhoods and civil society.

^Not a new idea.

However, in order to make it work, you would have to cancel all forms of welfare/transfer payments, and even then the GBI would still be pretty low in order not to break the budget.

Not sure how likely it is to happen, but who knows...stranger things have happened.

Post: #15

(10-19-2014 04:23 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  In Our Hands : A Plan To Replace The Welfare State:

http://www.amazon.com/In-Our-Hands-Repla...0844742236

Quote:America's population is wealthier than any in history. Every year, the American government redistributes more than a trillion dollars of that wealth to provide for retirement, health care, and the alleviation of poverty. We still have millions of people without comfortable retirements, without adequate health care, and living in poverty. Only a government can spend so much money so ineffectually. The solution is to give the money to the people.

This is the Plan, a radical new approach to social policy that defies any partisan label. Murray suggests eliminating all welfare transfer programs at the federal, state, and local levels and substituting an annual $10,000 cash grant to everyone age twenty-one or older. In Our Hands describes the financial feasibility of the Plan and its effects on retirement, health care, poverty, marriage and family, work, neighborhoods and civil society.

^Not a new idea.

However, in order to make it work, you would have to cancel all forms of welfare/transfer payments, and even then the GBI would still be pretty low in order not to break the budget.

Not sure how likely it is to happen, but who knows...stranger things have happened.

Indeed.

I also suspect the increased masses of unemployables & long-term un(der)employed as a consequence of accelerated automation & robotics will make people much more open to a GBI. You might be indifferent to automation of McJobs (like Japan already does), but accounting, law, administration, medicine, etc. will all see sharp drops in labour pool necessity.

Post: #16

A cash grant to everyone for $10k? Does anyone really expect the poor (those who can't be adequately provided for through existing social programs) to spend that money wisely?

Like in that one episode of Chappelle's Show, there would be 50,000 record labels created in a single night. Here's what basic income in the US would look like:

Post: #17

A Guaranteed Basic Income will practically become a necessity during our lifetimes. As Zelcorpion mentioned structural unemployment is going to balloon due to ever increasing automatization, which people tend to seriously underestimate in scope. A lot of the jobs being lost are being replaced due to newer technologies, but they are very high skill knowledge-intensive jobs so it's high unlikely that all the redundant blue-collar (and many white-collar) workers will be able to make that transition, it won't be like the shift from farming to manufacturing ala the Industrial Revolution. To have such a large percentage of people stuck in long-term structural unemployment will simply become untenable both at the ballot box and amongst the elites.

From what I gather the GBI is already a popular idea amongst politics/sociology professors (all of whom are on the left), no doubt it will continue to spread. In some form or another it will become commonplace in advanced economies at some point during this century. Just from a political point of view it seems unlikely that it wouldn't be means-tested though.

Post: #18

(10-20-2014 04:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  A cash grant to everyone for $10k? Does anyone really expect the poor (those who can't be adequately provided for through existing social programs) to spend that money wisely?

One way to possibly counter that could be to have a set percentage of the GBI as food stamps. If the GBI is 1000 USD then let's say 300-400 USD or so could be food stamps.

Of course this would imply increased control a la Big Brother though, which is a hugely important objection.

In any case I've never understood why welfare in Europe isn't more in the form of food stamps and the like. Isn't that a good way to decrease the risk of the welfare money being spent on drugs, alcohol and junk food etc?

Even with GBI it wouldn't be desirable to get rid of *all* other welfare as it probably wouldn't cover people with special needs or most surgeries, just to give a few examples.

Post: #19

(10-20-2014 04:57 AM)Blick Mang Wrote:  A cash grant to everyone for $10k? Does anyone really expect the poor (those who can't be adequately provided for through existing social programs) to spend that money wisely?

Like in that one episode of Chappelle's Show, there would be 50,000 record labels created in a single night. Here's what basic income in the US would look like:

Funny vid.

That was my first idea as well, but the current system works similarly & people still don't do this. And so what if 1-5% blow GBI on silly nonsense, that's their freedom.

Charles murray argued for 10k neg income tax with 3k reserved for medical insurance

Post: #20

You should be a little careful when people begin talking about basic income. Most of the time it's just marxists making the rounds again under a new name. I've looked into most of the organizations and proposals for basic income and so far, everyone of them advocate 'flat tax' at 50% or similar numbers. That is not basic income, it's just plain communism.

I did some calculations to see how much basic income could be given out if you only used taxation on natural resources like oil, mineral ore and similar, in addition to tax on unimproved land (called 'land rent'), because these two could be seen as belonging to the people in a way, which makes taxing it less morally reprehensible. The monthly basic income for that income would be $250 for the country I checked. Obviously this would vary depending on natural resources.

I am generally against basic income for the reason that surviving is life and you could argue that life is worthless if you don't have to survive in some form. Hierarchy is everywhere in nature. No one will be free on basic income, just well fed zoo animals.

If basic income is instituted, then why not basic sexlife? Why is it only monetary income which is envied? Why not athletic ability, good looks or mate pre-selection? Sex is first in the Maslow hierarchy of needs too.

Post: #21

(10-20-2014 06:36 AM)berserk Wrote:  You should be a little careful when people begin talking about basic income. Most of the time it's just marxists making the rounds again under a new name. I've looked into most of the organizations and proposals for basic income and so far, everyone of them advocate 'flat tax' at 50% or similar numbers. That is not basic income, it's just plain communism.

I did some calculations to see how much basic income could be given out if you only used taxation on natural resources like oil, mineral ore and similar, in addition to tax on unimproved land (called 'land rent'), because these two could be seen as belonging to the people in a way, which makes taxing it less morally reprehensible. The monthly basic income for that income would be $250 for the country I checked. Obviously this would vary depending on natural resources.

I am generally against basic income for the reason that surviving is life and you could argue that life is worthless if you don't have to survive in some form. Hierarchy is everywhere in nature. No one will be free on basic income, just well fed zoo animals.

If basic income is instituted, then why not basic sexlife? Why is it only monetary income which is envied? Why not athletic ability, good looks or mate pre-selection? Sex is first in the Maslow hierarchy of needs too.

You're right, it appeals to Marxists. Yet, I judge an idea on its merit. For the future it might be a good alternative to the welfare state. If done right, society might be better off.

Myself, I like the idea of a much smaller state where people are given a decent opportunity to escape misfortune and/or poverty. It would be like squaring the libertarian circle.

Still, when something sounds to good to be true, it usually is.

Post: #22

(10-20-2014 06:36 AM)berserk Wrote:  If basic income is instituted, then why not basic sexlife? Why is it only monetary income which is envied? Why not athletic ability, good looks or mate pre-selection? Sex is first in the Maslow hierarchy of needs too.

Just to play devil's advocate (because I am not sold on the idea of a GBI either, although I find it interesting), the argument is that since there is essentially no way to "opt out" of modern Western society like there used to be, the government has an obligation to provide the opportunity for each citizen to have at least a basic standard of living. In a traditional, healthy economy there is really no need for this, since any able-bodied person can easily find work to support themselves. However, assuming that increasing automation puts more and more people out of work, the math simply no longer works out. Finding a job becomes a game of musical chairs, and there are always going to be losers. In a situation like this, these people become superfluous to the productive economy. We have a surplus of goods and a shortage of purchasing power by which people can consume those goods. So the GBI is simply a mechanism for distributing purchasing power in an advanced economy separate from wages.

Prior to the mid 20th century it was much easier and more realistic for people to seek out frontiers and/or remote areas of the country in which they could live relatively self-sufficient lives apart from society and government. But now that's become all-but-impossible, and even if you manage to live a self-sufficient lifestyle you will still be forced to comply with numerous burdensome government regulations and must pay taxes to the government in U.S. dollars or face imprisonment and/or asset seizure, meaning your participation in the economy is compulsory, since you must procure U.S. dollars by some means, usually by selling your labor (a job). But if there are many more people than there are jobs (an advanced automated economy, the direction we're headed) this economic model simply no longer functions.

Personally I think the idea of a GBI is inevitable given technological trends, however, paradoxically I think its sheer inevitability is the reason it will never happen. From the perspective of the elite, if you know that in the medium-term future there is simply no alternative to providing billions of people a GBI to keep them alive, does that not make those people functionally useless? Is it not a better idea to simply liquidate the surplus population of human beings, who are no longer needed, rather than waste resources supporting billions of people to lounge around and turn into fat slobs? There is a certain cold logic to it.

So eventually the choice becomes a GBI or massive global depopulation. Now, given the proclivities and track record of the people running the show, which do you think is more likely?

Post: #23

I still don't understand how this would not raise the price of food up and basic living expense. If everybody can afford it, why not raise the cost? And people will find ways of abusing it. I really don't like that everybody will be on the government dole, which means they have power over everybody even more so than now. They could force you to vote a certain way, speak online a certain way, eat a certain way, and take medications a certain way. If you fail to comply, you GBI is cut down.

Post: #24

If everybody gets paid basic income, who is going to clean toilets and do other shitty jobs? If you are guaranteed minimum income, why not just sit on your ass and smoke weed? Or maybe daygame on the beach all day like the food stamp surfer dude from California?

How many supporters of GBI have actually lived in socialist countries? I grew up in one. A lot of service businesses we take for granted in capitalist countries exist only because it's the only way for those who work there to make ends meet: Seamless, Uber, all those main street shops, you name it. If you offer decent basic income a lot of services that exist and are affordable today will disappear or become unaffordable. Forget about going to restaurants and bars or even fast food places regularly. Many services available to most people now will become for the rich only.

Who is going to decide what good basic income is? If somebody decides that everybody has to make enough to afford their own place (+ one bedroom per child) plus free health care for life, how high should the tax rate be in the US to afford all that? What is going to stop people from voting for politicians who will increase the minimum income to a point where it doesn't make sense to work for most people?

The only way I see this idea working is if we create robots who will replace us in most jobs, but I don't think it will happen in the near future.

Post: #25

Technological change has always increased total number of jobs. I don't see why it'd be different this time. Granted, the jobs may be totally different.