4 ms·

BI could have an impact because it could relieve the pressure on job centers (SF, NYC, LA, etc...) as people wouldn't be forced to move to look for work (and I

by pyoung 11y ago

BI could have an impact because it could relieve the pressure on job centers (SF, NYC, LA, etc...) as people wouldn't be forced to move to look for work (and I imagine plenty of folks would leave those areas as well, because they are no longer as dependent on their job as they once were). At least in the US, there are a ton of midwest and rustbelt towns that have really cheap cost of living and plenty of land, but due to lack of jobs, are in really poor shape. BI could allow for people to relocate there, and the new influx of people (and income) could lead to revitalization.

branchless 11y ago
Agreed BI would save on admin costs for benefits. But it's not going to solve the greater problem of economic rent extraction through land. If we have more money they will take it off us via land. Saving on job centre costs makes us more efficient. Efficiency flows to the rentier. You'll be right back where you started with BI. Up BI and they'll up rent. And again. In your example once you have your revitalisation and all the people pay taxes to build more roads and hospitals guess who's waiting for you with a big hat to shovel all the gains in? The land speculator. Up go the rents, up to the level where people have enough to live but no more. And back to square one. Surely they deserve the gains, after all they are investing their hard won money? No! Fiat money takes no resources to create and the bankers will have your shirt. Private banks create money from nothing and "lend" it out if you promise to give them a cut of your labour as "interest" for 30 years. Bank of England official blog: http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-and-why-this-matters/ http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-interm...

4 ms·

BI could have an impact because it could relieve the pressure on job centers (SF, NYC, LA, etc...) as people wouldn't be forced to move to look for work (and I

by pyoung 11y ago

branchless 11y ago
Agreed BI would save on admin costs for benefits. But it's not going to solve the greater problem of economic rent extraction through land. If we have more money they will take it off us via land. Saving on job centre costs makes us more efficient. Efficiency flows to the rentier. You'll be right back where you started with BI. Up BI and they'll up rent. And again. In your example once you have your revitalisation and all the people pay taxes to build more roads and hospitals guess who's waiting for you with a big hat to shovel all the gains in? The land speculator. Up go the rents, up to the level where people have enough to live but no more. And back to square one. Surely they deserve the gains, after all they are investing their hard won money? No! Fiat money takes no resources to create and the bankers will have your shirt. Private banks create money from nothing and "lend" it out if you promise to give them a cut of your labour as "interest" for 30 years. Bank of England official blog: http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-intermediaries-of-loanable-funds-and-why-this-matters/ http://bankunderground.co.uk/2015/06/30/banks-are-not-interm...