6 ms·

A basic minimum income is the right answer, but not for the purpose of increasing demand. People demanding to increase demand is utterly silly. We have succeede

A basic minimum income is the right answer, but not for the purpose of increasing demand. People demanding to increase demand is utterly silly. We have succeeded as a civilization: we are providing far more than we could ask for. In the big picture, what does increasing demand really do for us? But there's definitely a need to reduce poverty. And there's a need to allow ourselves to stop working as hard as we do. A basic minimum income would help accomplish these things. Where do we get the money from? It doesn't really matter, there's plenty of it sloshing around. As Charlie Munger said: “This has basically never happened before in my whole life. I can remember 1½ percent rates. It certainly surprised all the economists. It surprised the people who created the life insurance industry in Japan, who basically all went broke because they guaranteed to pay a 3% interest rate. I think everybody’s been surprised by it, including all the people who are in the economics profession who kind of pretend they knew it all along. But I think practically everybody was flabbergasted. I was flabbergasted when they went low; when they went negative in Europe – I’m really flabbergasted. How many in this room would have predicted negative interest rates in Europe? Raise your hands. [No hands go up]. That’s exactly the way I feel. How can I be an expert in something I never even thought about that seems so unlikely. It’s new territory…. I think something so strange and so important is likely to have consequences. I think it’s highly likely that the people who confidently think they know the consequences – none of whom predicted this – now they know what’s going to happen next? Again, the witch doctors. You ask me what’s going to happen? Hell, I don’t know what’s going to happen. I regard it all as very weird. If interest rates go to zero and all the governments in the world print money like crazy and prices go down – of course I’m confused. Anybody who is intelligent who is not confused doesn’t understand the situation very well. If you find it puzzling, your brain is working correctly.”

refurb 11y ago
We have succeeded as a civilization: we are providing far more than we could ask for. Really? There is nothing you could improve in the human condition that would make life better?
- kuschku 11y ago
  For those people with an excess of capital, with current knowledge of science, no. For the people with no excess of capital, though, we can improve the situation.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Of course there is. The point is, we've reached the stage of our advancement when, on aggregate, we produce more than we actually need. Our current issues are with distribution of what is being produced.
  - refurb 11y ago
    Not sure that I would agree there. What if the "excess" production funds a cure for cancer? What if that cure requires additional resources? The world isn't static.
    - EvanPlaice 11y ago
      I'll try by best not to sound like a raging sociopath here. In pure economic terms, curing cancer has little benefit to society. Cancer is not any one specific disease. It's a class of diseases, of which there are thousands (or more) of variants. We may stumble on some amazingly technologically advanced cure to some forms of cancer but the more rare the form, the less likely there will ever be a treatment. Most people get upset when you talk about humans as assets because we're indoctrinated at a very young age to value human life above all else. If you can, in fact, speak about humans in economic terms of supply/demand. We have an overabundance of people, and nothing useful to give them jobs to do. It's like the current oil market. Oil was highly valued due to the inelasticity of supply. Now that there is a glut of over supply and inelasticity greatly reduced, the value has dropped dramatically. The supply of humans capable of doing useful work used to be somewhat constrained. Now, we have more people than can be reasonably assigned to do useful work without essentially paying them to warm a chair. Yet, like the oil market nothing is stopping people from having more kids and increasing the supply. The government even directly subsidizes people for the number of children they have due the persistent belief that GDP is directly dependent on population. People can increase their value proposition by earning many degrees and racking up huge amounts of debt but, unless you're going to work in the industries that are thriving, it's a buyers market for employers. Business owners have their choice pick of the herd. They can keep wages as low as possible and skim more cream off the top because there's a line out the door of people waiting the replace a worker who quits. Who knows, maybe this is just the supply limit (ie in environmental science terms) as it applies to the human population. Poverty and misery is the expected result of making too many people before we can come up with enough useful reasons to sustain them.
roymurdock 11y ago
The economics of this inertia is easy to understand, and there are readily available remedies. The world faces a deficiency of aggregate demand, brought on by a combination of growing inequality and a mindless wave of fiscal austerity...The only cure for the world's malaise is an increase in aggregate demand. Far-reaching redistribution of income would help, as would deep reform of our financial system -- not just to prevent it from imposing harm on the rest of us, but also to get banks and other financial institutions to do what they are supposed to do: match long-term savings to long-term investment needs. Simplified primer by Joseph stiglitz. http://huffpost.com/us/entry/world-economy-2016_b_8908560.html?utm_hp_ref=world http://huffpost.com/us/entry/world-economy-2016_b_8908560.ht...
splintercell 11y ago
> Where do we get the money from? It doesn't really matter, there's plenty of it sloshing around.< That's like saying "Restaurants have food, and there are homeless people in the city, so why can't we distribute the food from the restaurant to hungry homeless people in the city?". If you were to distribute foods from the restaurant to the hungry people in the city, then these restaurants won't produce that food, because they are not a charity, they are in the business. Similarly, if you don't figure out where this money would come from, you will soon stop seeing all this money you want to give away.
- mirimir 11y ago
  I used to manage a restaurant. All unmarketable but edible waste went to homeless shelters. Remaining inedible but unspoiled food went to pig farmers. Remaining spoiled food went to composting facilities. Our target market loved all of those policies.
  - splintercell 11y ago
    I know someone would talk about the wasted food in a restaurant when I am talking about the non-wasted food.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Wasted food includes what didn't sell. And honestly, it didn't occur to me that you were suggesting that restaurants would be expected to donate marketable food. Markets, restaurants, etc often lock waste containers, to prevent theft.

refurb 11y ago

We have succeeded as a civilization: we are providing far more than we could ask for. Really? There is nothing you could improve in the human condition that would make life better?

kuschku 11y ago
For those people with an excess of capital, with current knowledge of science, no. For the people with no excess of capital, though, we can improve the situation.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Of course there is. The point is, we've reached the stage of our advancement when, on aggregate, we produce more than we actually need. Our current issues are with distribution of what is being produced.
- refurb 11y ago
  Not sure that I would agree there. What if the "excess" production funds a cure for cancer? What if that cure requires additional resources? The world isn't static.
  - EvanPlaice 11y ago
    I'll try by best not to sound like a raging sociopath here. In pure economic terms, curing cancer has little benefit to society. Cancer is not any one specific disease. It's a class of diseases, of which there are thousands (or more) of variants. We may stumble on some amazingly technologically advanced cure to some forms of cancer but the more rare the form, the less likely there will ever be a treatment. Most people get upset when you talk about humans as assets because we're indoctrinated at a very young age to value human life above all else. If you can, in fact, speak about humans in economic terms of supply/demand. We have an overabundance of people, and nothing useful to give them jobs to do. It's like the current oil market. Oil was highly valued due to the inelasticity of supply. Now that there is a glut of over supply and inelasticity greatly reduced, the value has dropped dramatically. The supply of humans capable of doing useful work used to be somewhat constrained. Now, we have more people than can be reasonably assigned to do useful work without essentially paying them to warm a chair. Yet, like the oil market nothing is stopping people from having more kids and increasing the supply. The government even directly subsidizes people for the number of children they have due the persistent belief that GDP is directly dependent on population. People can increase their value proposition by earning many degrees and racking up huge amounts of debt but, unless you're going to work in the industries that are thriving, it's a buyers market for employers. Business owners have their choice pick of the herd. They can keep wages as low as possible and skim more cream off the top because there's a line out the door of people waiting the replace a worker who quits. Who knows, maybe this is just the supply limit (ie in environmental science terms) as it applies to the human population. Poverty and misery is the expected result of making too many people before we can come up with enough useful reasons to sustain them.

roymurdock 11y ago

The economics of this inertia is easy to understand, and there are readily available remedies. The world faces a deficiency of aggregate demand, brought on by a combination of growing inequality and a mindless wave of fiscal austerity...The only cure for the world's malaise is an increase in aggregate demand. Far-reaching redistribution of income would help, as would deep reform of our financial system -- not just to prevent it from imposing harm on the rest of us, but also to get banks and other financial institutions to do what they are supposed to do: match long-term savings to long-term investment needs. Simplified primer by Joseph stiglitz. http://huffpost.com/us/entry/world-economy-2016_b_8908560.html?utm_hp_ref=world http://huffpost.com/us/entry/world-economy-2016_b_8908560.ht...

splintercell 11y ago

> Where do we get the money from? It doesn't really matter, there's plenty of it sloshing around.< That's like saying "Restaurants have food, and there are homeless people in the city, so why can't we distribute the food from the restaurant to hungry homeless people in the city?". If you were to distribute foods from the restaurant to the hungry people in the city, then these restaurants won't produce that food, because they are not a charity, they are in the business. Similarly, if you don't figure out where this money would come from, you will soon stop seeing all this money you want to give away.

mirimir 11y ago
I used to manage a restaurant. All unmarketable but edible waste went to homeless shelters. Remaining inedible but unspoiled food went to pig farmers. Remaining spoiled food went to composting facilities. Our target market loved all of those policies.
- splintercell 11y ago
  I know someone would talk about the wasted food in a restaurant when I am talking about the non-wasted food.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Wasted food includes what didn't sell. And honestly, it didn't occur to me that you were suggesting that restaurants would be expected to donate marketable food. Markets, restaurants, etc often lock waste containers, to prevent theft.