7 ms·

Nation-states are too large to effectively test things like basic income. Those pushing basic income and expecting it to fix many problems aren't paying attent

Nation-states are too large to effectively test things like basic income. Those pushing basic income and expecting it to fix many problems aren't paying attention to the fact that that's how every policy got started, as a cure-all massive policy proposal. Over the years, like object-oriented programming, we realize that in practice it isn't as ideal as we thought, and indeed we've now abstracted and complicated our systems even more. We need a more scientific, incremental form of governance and policy-making, one that is evolutionary and takes natural organic approaches. Basic income is the exact opposite of that - a massive (the most massive) policy ever constructed which presupposes way too much. If you want to and can test it at the state level great. States should be the "laboratories of democracy". But we need some realism about it, because far too many discussions about it are not.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 11y ago
I don't see anything wrong with cure-all massive policy proposals. Some of them have worked in the past. For example, separating from the British Empire, freeing the slaves, and ending alcohol prohibition. (That last one has an obvious mirror in starting alcohol prohibition, but my point is just that they can work, not that they all do.) And yes, these all brought problems with them, but they were massive improvements. I also don't see how this is "how every policy got started." There are plenty of policies that are incremental, evolutionary, and all that. Obviously, big policy changes need to be approached very cautiously, since the potential for problems is huge. But that means you analyze and consider them carefully, not just say "nope, too big" and shut it down.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  Jacobin had a somewhat interesting piece on Alexander Hamilton vs. Thomas Jefferson a while back (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the...), and the magnitude of policy proposals.
- stvswn 11y ago
  I don't think this proposal qualifies as "too big to manage." But I disagree with your examples. Freeing the slaves was necessary and proper, but far from immune to the original argument. We screwed it up, big time (I don't mean to start a debate over this one, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that Reconstruction failed in some regards) -- in other words, we can simultaneously argue that sometimes massive policy proposals are correct but they almost always come up short of intention. "Ending slavery" couldn't be accomplished otherwise, but that doesn't meant that it was executed well. Ending Prohibition was the opposite of a "massive policy," as are some other popular deregulations (airlines, electromagnetic spectrum, encryption to name a few). This is the federal government deciding to stop doing something. It's not the case that anyone is arguing "the federal gov't never makes a good decision." Popular government-led programs are usually local or laissez-faire in nature. Public school systems, for instance. Or food stamps, which are relatively simple to execute. Or Social Security. The latter two have the feature that it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money. So national income is a good example of "welfare that isn't centrally planned," and in that regard I believe it has a chance at success. The reason I think it's possible is because you wouldn't need a panel of bureaucrats deciding how to distribute all of the welfare -- you'd simply need to distribute the debit cards or whatever.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Ending Prohibition was the opposite of a "massive policy," as are some other popular deregulations (airlines, electromagnetic spectrum, encryption to name a few). This is the federal government deciding to stop doing something. It's not the case that anyone is arguing "the federal gov't never makes a good decision." Both establishing and ending prohibition were decisions made by the states collectively as overseers of the federal government, not decisions by the federal government; that's how the Constitutional Amendment process works. > Popular government-led programs are usually local or laissez-faire in nature. Social Security and Medicare seem notable counterexamples, neither is local, and neither is laissez-faire. > Or food stamps, which are relatively simple to execute. Or Social Security. The latter two have the feature that it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money. In both cases, I would say they aren't laissez-faire because of the fairly complex regulations determining who gets how much money; and, for food stamps, it also is not true that "it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money", as there are regulations as to what can and cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  Thing is, those examples are quite final: nobody is compelled to continue contributing effort & wealth to maintain them. "Separating from the British Empire"? to wit: get out & stay out. "Freeing slaves"? end legal enablement of slavery. "End alcohol prohibition"? stop enforcing prohibition. Those are VERY different from "basic income", where a government must actively & continuously compel the productive to give up the fruits of their labors for re-distribution to whoever is legally defined as "needy" et al. Were it akin to the Biblical practice of "gleaning" (farmers don't go back to ensure absolutely everything was harvested, leaving that to the needy to scavenge), ok: (US-centric answer) basically open up BLM-managed government-owned property for temporary housing & harvesting, shooing people off yearly or so to ensure no permanent claims & abuse. But such "gleaning" solutions are immediately shot down by BI proponents, preferring solutions which demand nothing of recipients and thereby demand complete care provided by the productive. Massive policy proposals which stop an activity are successful. Those demanding ongoing taxation etc aren't, as they're prone to growing complications & abuse.
  - bcheung 11y ago
    It doesn't sound like you read Paine's proposal. You're talking more about a collectivism along the lines of Socialism or Communism. That isn't what Paine is proposing. Under Paine's system people keep 100% of the fruits of their labor. Compulsion is not needed in order to have basic income. Basic income can be done in a way that is 100% compatible with private property rights and capitalism. Paine was not proposing that we tax income and use that for basic income.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      I was responding to the examples of allegedly successful "massive policy proposals", all of which were precisely not collectivism.
- dilemma 11y ago
  What you mention are decisions, not policies. The latter is a decision to end a catastrophic policy, which itself contradicts your claim that such policies can work.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The existence of a catastrophic policy does not contradict a claim that such things can work.
scarmig 11y ago
One issue: if we're talking about the USA, the ideal place to test new policies is probably state-level, or even MSA-level. But many policies, arguably including the basic income, might have integral components that require powers that are federal level. E.g., immigration controls for basic income. Even something that states could conceivably implement using their powers might be made ineffectual by federal policies. For instance, a lot of what states can do are constrained by federal policy. In the case of a basic income, a lot of its value is undermined by how federal redistribution programs currently work, to the extent that even though it might be valuable as a greenfield project, doing it while federal programs exist as they do will end up being a costly boondoggle. (I'm not saying that's a point in favor of a basic income--having to throw out decrepit-but-functional legacy policies for it to work would be a big point against it--but it's a reason why people might try to push it on the federal level instead of the state level.)
- zanny 11y ago
  This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. It is also the same problem as to why corporations incorporate in Delaware. When you have money your locational mobility in the USA is astronomical between the states. This means that the most business friendly states will in aggregate attract the most business, attract the growth, and attract the money no matter how unethical or immoral the laws of the state they congregate in are. It is reductionist capitalism because everything trends towards having the least, or in the case of many enterprises having a broken market where they get no regulation but new competition can be destroyed with regulatory barriers. When you want to move business internationally, the barriers are much higher than moving within the US, especially between neighboring states. That strongly impedes individual states abilities to actually experiment with policy, because unless they conform to the established trend of business interest pandering they are liable to lose those companies that have adopted their population centers as major sources of employment. Though that problem really never stops. The problem of inter-state policy in the US is a global problem. International companies could care less about borders, and we are seeing in realtime the gradual reduction of global policy towards appeasing corporate overlords demands (see the TPP) so they do not discard their home country like a worn pair of trousers. I mean, consider the feasibility of going to the extreme and trying to startup actual communism in any of the largely socialist European nations. It would be immediate and catastrophic wealth flight to other nations because economics will transcend borders while politics will not. Even if the majority of people want something, the ruling class will be intimately aware that they actually hold no real power in society, because they are beholden to the drivers of economics rather than their own people to keep their economies growing.
phil248 11y ago
What is an example of a "cure-all massive policy"? When I think through the list of common welfare state components, none of them appear to be intended as cure-alls, but rather solutions to specific problems.
jonathankoren 11y ago
That's a very US-centric view. Finland disagrees.[0] Now you can say, "Well Finland has the population of Colorado, so whatev'", but that's just silly. The entire, "Well this is just too big," argument has no merit. It's just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo. It's an argument from helplessness. What's too big? Who says? Why can't we kick the can down to a county or town, or a ward, or a street? It's not a hard project to implement you cut an identical check to every tax payer. The tax collection agency already has everyone's name and address, and has the infrastructure to cut checks, as does the welfare agency. It's really really simple. Anything beyond arguing what the check size should be, is a distraction. [0] http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/8422295 http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/...
- aaron-lebo 11y ago
  Why is that an argument from "helplessness"? It does matter that Finland has the population of Colorado because that has historically led to very different societies. You can't just ingore that. Finland's entire population is smaller than some demographics in the US. You are correct, it is US-centric and I apologize for that. Backtracking now, a smaller nation-state such as Finland is a good place to test this.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > Now you can say, "Well Finland has the population of Colorado, so whatev'", but that's just silly. The entire, "Well this is just too big," argument has no merit. It's just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo We're on Hacker News, a website maintained by an investment firm focused on startups, created by a man (Paul Graham) who has written at length about why startups are better-positioned to tackle certain problems, address certain markets, or try radical management tactics internally, specifically due to their size[0], and the lack of overhead that larger companies use to manage their size. I think it's a little silly to dismiss the claim that size matters as having "no merit" and "arguing for the status quo [just] for the sake of the status quo". [0] e.g, http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html
  - 11y ago
agumonkey 11y ago
Reminds me of Google asking for a piece of lawless land to test their cars. Pocket test niches could be a nice thing to have in a nation.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>Those pushing basic income and expecting it to fix many problems aren't paying attention to the fact that that's how every policy got started, as a cure-all massive policy proposal. Over the years, like object-oriented programming, we realize that in practice it isn't as ideal as we thought, and indeed we've now abstracted and complicated our systems even more. Yes, that's why rural electrification failed, completely and utterly /s.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 11y ago

I don't see anything wrong with cure-all massive policy proposals. Some of them have worked in the past. For example, separating from the British Empire, freeing the slaves, and ending alcohol prohibition. (That last one has an obvious mirror in starting alcohol prohibition, but my point is just that they can work, not that they all do.) And yes, these all brought problems with them, but they were massive improvements. I also don't see how this is "how every policy got started." There are plenty of policies that are incremental, evolutionary, and all that. Obviously, big policy changes need to be approached very cautiously, since the potential for problems is huge. But that means you analyze and consider them carefully, not just say "nope, too big" and shut it down.

RodericDay 11y ago
Jacobin had a somewhat interesting piece on Alexander Hamilton vs. Thomas Jefferson a while back (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/ https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the...), and the magnitude of policy proposals.
stvswn 11y ago
I don't think this proposal qualifies as "too big to manage." But I disagree with your examples. Freeing the slaves was necessary and proper, but far from immune to the original argument. We screwed it up, big time (I don't mean to start a debate over this one, I think it's fairly uncontroversial that Reconstruction failed in some regards) -- in other words, we can simultaneously argue that sometimes massive policy proposals are correct but they almost always come up short of intention. "Ending slavery" couldn't be accomplished otherwise, but that doesn't meant that it was executed well. Ending Prohibition was the opposite of a "massive policy," as are some other popular deregulations (airlines, electromagnetic spectrum, encryption to name a few). This is the federal government deciding to stop doing something. It's not the case that anyone is arguing "the federal gov't never makes a good decision." Popular government-led programs are usually local or laissez-faire in nature. Public school systems, for instance. Or food stamps, which are relatively simple to execute. Or Social Security. The latter two have the feature that it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money. So national income is a good example of "welfare that isn't centrally planned," and in that regard I believe it has a chance at success. The reason I think it's possible is because you wouldn't need a panel of bureaucrats deciding how to distribute all of the welfare -- you'd simply need to distribute the debit cards or whatever.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Ending Prohibition was the opposite of a "massive policy," as are some other popular deregulations (airlines, electromagnetic spectrum, encryption to name a few). This is the federal government deciding to stop doing something. It's not the case that anyone is arguing "the federal gov't never makes a good decision." Both establishing and ending prohibition were decisions made by the states collectively as overseers of the federal government, not decisions by the federal government; that's how the Constitutional Amendment process works. > Popular government-led programs are usually local or laissez-faire in nature. Social Security and Medicare seem notable counterexamples, neither is local, and neither is laissez-faire. > Or food stamps, which are relatively simple to execute. Or Social Security. The latter two have the feature that it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money. In both cases, I would say they aren't laissez-faire because of the fairly complex regulations determining who gets how much money; and, for food stamps, it also is not true that "it's the individual's choice of how to spend the money", as there are regulations as to what can and cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits.
ctdonath 11y ago
Thing is, those examples are quite final: nobody is compelled to continue contributing effort & wealth to maintain them. "Separating from the British Empire"? to wit: get out & stay out. "Freeing slaves"? end legal enablement of slavery. "End alcohol prohibition"? stop enforcing prohibition. Those are VERY different from "basic income", where a government must actively & continuously compel the productive to give up the fruits of their labors for re-distribution to whoever is legally defined as "needy" et al. Were it akin to the Biblical practice of "gleaning" (farmers don't go back to ensure absolutely everything was harvested, leaving that to the needy to scavenge), ok: (US-centric answer) basically open up BLM-managed government-owned property for temporary housing & harvesting, shooing people off yearly or so to ensure no permanent claims & abuse. But such "gleaning" solutions are immediately shot down by BI proponents, preferring solutions which demand nothing of recipients and thereby demand complete care provided by the productive. Massive policy proposals which stop an activity are successful. Those demanding ongoing taxation etc aren't, as they're prone to growing complications & abuse.
- bcheung 11y ago
  It doesn't sound like you read Paine's proposal. You're talking more about a collectivism along the lines of Socialism or Communism. That isn't what Paine is proposing. Under Paine's system people keep 100% of the fruits of their labor. Compulsion is not needed in order to have basic income. Basic income can be done in a way that is 100% compatible with private property rights and capitalism. Paine was not proposing that we tax income and use that for basic income.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    I was responding to the examples of allegedly successful "massive policy proposals", all of which were precisely not collectivism.
dilemma 11y ago
What you mention are decisions, not policies. The latter is a decision to end a catastrophic policy, which itself contradicts your claim that such policies can work.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The existence of a catastrophic policy does not contradict a claim that such things can work.

scarmig 11y ago

One issue: if we're talking about the USA, the ideal place to test new policies is probably state-level, or even MSA-level. But many policies, arguably including the basic income, might have integral components that require powers that are federal level. E.g., immigration controls for basic income. Even something that states could conceivably implement using their powers might be made ineffectual by federal policies. For instance, a lot of what states can do are constrained by federal policy. In the case of a basic income, a lot of its value is undermined by how federal redistribution programs currently work, to the extent that even though it might be valuable as a greenfield project, doing it while federal programs exist as they do will end up being a costly boondoggle. (I'm not saying that's a point in favor of a basic income--having to throw out decrepit-but-functional legacy policies for it to work would be a big point against it--but it's a reason why people might try to push it on the federal level instead of the state level.)

zanny 11y ago
This is why states cannot practice universal healthcare even when their citizens overwhelmingly recognize its value. It is also the same problem as to why corporations incorporate in Delaware. When you have money your locational mobility in the USA is astronomical between the states. This means that the most business friendly states will in aggregate attract the most business, attract the growth, and attract the money no matter how unethical or immoral the laws of the state they congregate in are. It is reductionist capitalism because everything trends towards having the least, or in the case of many enterprises having a broken market where they get no regulation but new competition can be destroyed with regulatory barriers. When you want to move business internationally, the barriers are much higher than moving within the US, especially between neighboring states. That strongly impedes individual states abilities to actually experiment with policy, because unless they conform to the established trend of business interest pandering they are liable to lose those companies that have adopted their population centers as major sources of employment. Though that problem really never stops. The problem of inter-state policy in the US is a global problem. International companies could care less about borders, and we are seeing in realtime the gradual reduction of global policy towards appeasing corporate overlords demands (see the TPP) so they do not discard their home country like a worn pair of trousers. I mean, consider the feasibility of going to the extreme and trying to startup actual communism in any of the largely socialist European nations. It would be immediate and catastrophic wealth flight to other nations because economics will transcend borders while politics will not. Even if the majority of people want something, the ruling class will be intimately aware that they actually hold no real power in society, because they are beholden to the drivers of economics rather than their own people to keep their economies growing.

phil248 11y ago

What is an example of a "cure-all massive policy"? When I think through the list of common welfare state components, none of them appear to be intended as cure-alls, but rather solutions to specific problems.

jonathankoren 11y ago

That's a very US-centric view. Finland disagrees.[0] Now you can say, "Well Finland has the population of Colorado, so whatev'", but that's just silly. The entire, "Well this is just too big," argument has no merit. It's just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo. It's an argument from helplessness. What's too big? Who says? Why can't we kick the can down to a county or town, or a ward, or a street? It's not a hard project to implement you cut an identical check to every tax payer. The tax collection agency already has everyone's name and address, and has the infrastructure to cut checks, as does the welfare agency. It's really really simple. Anything beyond arguing what the check size should be, is a distraction. [0] http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/8422295 http://yle.fi/uutiset/kela_to_prepare_basic_income_proposal/...

aaron-lebo 11y ago
Why is that an argument from "helplessness"? It does matter that Finland has the population of Colorado because that has historically led to very different societies. You can't just ingore that. Finland's entire population is smaller than some demographics in the US. You are correct, it is US-centric and I apologize for that. Backtracking now, a smaller nation-state such as Finland is a good place to test this.
chimeracoder 11y ago
> Now you can say, "Well Finland has the population of Colorado, so whatev'", but that's just silly. The entire, "Well this is just too big," argument has no merit. It's just arguing for the status quo for the sake of the status quo We're on Hacker News, a website maintained by an investment firm focused on startups, created by a man (Paul Graham) who has written at length about why startups are better-positioned to tackle certain problems, address certain markets, or try radical management tactics internally, specifically due to their size[0], and the lack of overhead that larger companies use to manage their size. I think it's a little silly to dismiss the claim that size matters as having "no merit" and "arguing for the status quo [just] for the sake of the status quo". [0] e.g, http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html
- 11y ago

agumonkey 11y ago

Reminds me of Google asking for a piece of lawless land to test their cars. Pocket test niches could be a nice thing to have in a nation.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>Those pushing basic income and expecting it to fix many problems aren't paying attention to the fact that that's how every policy got started, as a cure-all massive policy proposal. Over the years, like object-oriented programming, we realize that in practice it isn't as ideal as we thought, and indeed we've now abstracted and complicated our systems even more. Yes, that's why rural electrification failed, completely and utterly /s.