4 ms·

You're assuming the economy is running at full capacity.

tcbawo 11y ago
It would be interesting if basic income were tied to some combination of the Gini index and inflation rate. It would serve as a nice automatic offset to deflation, then fade away as the economy took off and wages increased.
- ItsDeathball 11y ago
  What I'd like to see - and never see suggested in these discussions - is starting with a revenue-neutral carbon tax to fund a BIG. Since the tax would internalize the externalities of pollution and climate change, the government could cut subsidies and tax breaks for energy production and efficiency, and throw those savings into BIG as well. Anyone willing to be a below-average greenhouse gas emitter comes out on top, while anyone who owns a private jet is doing well enough not to care.
  - cmacpher 11y ago
    totally on board with something like this. I never understand why people say market forces will solve global warming, pollution and the future of energy. Pollution is THE textbook case for an externality. By definition it cant be fixed by the free market.
  - cam_l 11y ago
    a revenue-neutral carbon tax to fund a welfare state.. Love the idea, but we had one of these for a couple of years, and at $23/t there was at least an order of magnitude less money in it than needed for a GBI. And per capita, we are among the highest carbon emitters on earth.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  Tying BI to observed inflation seems dangerous. Targeted inflation seems advisable. The former because a BI set higher than conditions can support seems likely to cause inflation, which would reduce (real) BI.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
It's not so much an assumption, it's more just looking at our 5.5% unemployment rate (aka "the natural rate") and 3.5-4% NGDP growth. Even if we aren't, this article provides no mechanism by which a BI would get us to full capacity or increase output at all. All it provides is a mechanism which would take us away from full capacity (If your boss is an unreasonable jerk, you can tell him to “take this job and shove it”...).
- WalterSear 11y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=real+unemployment+rate+us+2015 https://www.google.com/search?q=real+unemployment+rate+us+20...
- cam_l 11y ago
  I find it interesting that most people coming down against GBI do so under the assumption that coercion is the strongest incentive to work. I think it much more probable to look at GBI as separating the monopolistic part of the work market (if I don't work I will starve) from the competitive portion. Surely more competition in the employment market is a good thing? Even then, I still think it is the third order effects of GBI (the ones we don't know about, or are to complex to model) that are most likely to cause massive societal upheaval. But then, maybe massive societal upheaval is what proponents of GBI are most excited about.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    ...monopolistic part of the work market (if I don't work I will starve)... That's not what "monopolistic" means. "Monopolistic" means one supplier. Is the argument for BI really "we have no idea what will happen but it'll sure be massive and we believe without evidence that it will be good?"
    - cam_l 11y ago
      Missed the forest for the pedantries. In an employment market, I am the supplier, my boss is the consumer. I hold a monopoly over my supply. All of my competitors offer my employer a slightly different product. The market is a monopolistic competitive market. On the other hand, my boss holds a temporary monopoly on my income, whether I eat or not. With a GBI, these monopolistic parts of the market may be removed. My boss does not have to choose between me and another employee offering slightly different products, we can both be hired for the distinct bits of work we are can provide, and for an agreed price we value the work at, not an amount we need to satisfy our need to live. ie.it opens the employment market up to purer competition. Is the argument for BI really... Let me be clear, I don't think this is a good thing, but that is the sense I get from pro-GBI advocates. The scary thing is it most probably would be massive, in time, and there is little good evidence on the knock-on effects. I get why anti-GBI advocates are scared, they stand to lose money, but pro-GBI advocates should be scared too. So I guess what surprises me is they both should be arguing for trials, surely?

It would be interesting if basic income were tied to some combination of the Gini index and inflation rate. It would serve as a nice automatic offset to deflation, then fade away as the economy took off and wages increased.

ItsDeathball 11y ago
What I'd like to see - and never see suggested in these discussions - is starting with a revenue-neutral carbon tax to fund a BIG. Since the tax would internalize the externalities of pollution and climate change, the government could cut subsidies and tax breaks for energy production and efficiency, and throw those savings into BIG as well. Anyone willing to be a below-average greenhouse gas emitter comes out on top, while anyone who owns a private jet is doing well enough not to care.
- cmacpher 11y ago
  totally on board with something like this. I never understand why people say market forces will solve global warming, pollution and the future of energy. Pollution is THE textbook case for an externality. By definition it cant be fixed by the free market.
- cam_l 11y ago
  a revenue-neutral carbon tax to fund a welfare state.. Love the idea, but we had one of these for a couple of years, and at $23/t there was at least an order of magnitude less money in it than needed for a GBI. And per capita, we are among the highest carbon emitters on earth.
dllthomas 11y ago
Tying BI to observed inflation seems dangerous. Targeted inflation seems advisable. The former because a BI set higher than conditions can support seems likely to cause inflation, which would reduce (real) BI.

yummyfajitas 11y ago

It's not so much an assumption, it's more just looking at our 5.5% unemployment rate (aka "the natural rate") and 3.5-4% NGDP growth. Even if we aren't, this article provides no mechanism by which a BI would get us to full capacity or increase output at all. All it provides is a mechanism which would take us away from full capacity (If your boss is an unreasonable jerk, you can tell him to “take this job and shove it”...).

WalterSear 11y ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=real+unemployment+rate+us+2015 https://www.google.com/search?q=real+unemployment+rate+us+20...
cam_l 11y ago
I find it interesting that most people coming down against GBI do so under the assumption that coercion is the strongest incentive to work. I think it much more probable to look at GBI as separating the monopolistic part of the work market (if I don't work I will starve) from the competitive portion. Surely more competition in the employment market is a good thing? Even then, I still think it is the third order effects of GBI (the ones we don't know about, or are to complex to model) that are most likely to cause massive societal upheaval. But then, maybe massive societal upheaval is what proponents of GBI are most excited about.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  ...monopolistic part of the work market (if I don't work I will starve)... That's not what "monopolistic" means. "Monopolistic" means one supplier. Is the argument for BI really "we have no idea what will happen but it'll sure be massive and we believe without evidence that it will be good?"
  - cam_l 11y ago
    Missed the forest for the pedantries. In an employment market, I am the supplier, my boss is the consumer. I hold a monopoly over my supply. All of my competitors offer my employer a slightly different product. The market is a monopolistic competitive market. On the other hand, my boss holds a temporary monopoly on my income, whether I eat or not. With a GBI, these monopolistic parts of the market may be removed. My boss does not have to choose between me and another employee offering slightly different products, we can both be hired for the distinct bits of work we are can provide, and for an agreed price we value the work at, not an amount we need to satisfy our need to live. ie.it opens the employment market up to purer competition. Is the argument for BI really... Let me be clear, I don't think this is a good thing, but that is the sense I get from pro-GBI advocates. The scary thing is it most probably would be massive, in time, and there is little good evidence on the knock-on effects. I get why anti-GBI advocates are scared, they stand to lose money, but pro-GBI advocates should be scared too. So I guess what surprises me is they both should be arguing for trials, surely?