3 ms·

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.h... Arnold Kling's opined on this p

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/05/arnold_kling_on_1.h... Arnold Kling's opined on this point (the particular distortion of the US political process) in his interview with Russ Roberts on the EconTalk podcast: Kling: Well, let me make another point before I get back to that. Which is a point I also make in the book. Which is that, it isn't that the political process kind of just makes random errors. I think it actually makes very systematic errors. What it does is it always seems to work in the direction of subsidizing demand for something and restricting supply for that same thing.

twblalock 10y ago
It's not just the US that is like this. Every country is. Put another way: Things are the way they are for powerful reasons (which may or may not be justifiable). You can't just ignore these reasons when you create policy, otherwise those reasons will cause things to revert to the way they were before. Proponents of basic income will have to overcome many peoples' moral intuitions about who deserves help, and who should have to work for a living. If these moral intuitions remain the same, basic income won't be basic for long -- people will vote to give more money to the disabled, less money to felons, and so on. Should people receive basic income while incarcerated due to a criminal conviction? Someone will come along who suggests that members of certain racial groups should receive more money in the basic income program as a form of affirmative action, to compensate for past wrongs. Maybe people who choose to work should get more money under basic income, as an incentive for others to choose to work. Should people who inherit a lot of money have their basic income reduced? I think it's pretty clear that the first time someone makes a change of the kind I listed above, the cat will be out of the bag, and basic income won't be "basic" income anymore. Then the argument that basic income should treat everyone the same will become useless to defend against further changes. You can't really preserve the purity of a policy design when the voters want to change it. There is also the danger of everyone voting to increase their income, to the extent that the program runs out of money. I think these moral intuitions can be changed, but only through a gradual phase-in of benefits over time. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the past century or so, and it's what led to the welfare systems we have today.
- jpindar 10y ago
  And then the threat of losing your income becomes just another way for the government to control people's behavior.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

twblalock 10y ago

It's not just the US that is like this. Every country is. Put another way: Things are the way they are for powerful reasons (which may or may not be justifiable). You can't just ignore these reasons when you create policy, otherwise those reasons will cause things to revert to the way they were before. Proponents of basic income will have to overcome many peoples' moral intuitions about who deserves help, and who should have to work for a living. If these moral intuitions remain the same, basic income won't be basic for long -- people will vote to give more money to the disabled, less money to felons, and so on. Should people receive basic income while incarcerated due to a criminal conviction? Someone will come along who suggests that members of certain racial groups should receive more money in the basic income program as a form of affirmative action, to compensate for past wrongs. Maybe people who choose to work should get more money under basic income, as an incentive for others to choose to work. Should people who inherit a lot of money have their basic income reduced? I think it's pretty clear that the first time someone makes a change of the kind I listed above, the cat will be out of the bag, and basic income won't be "basic" income anymore. Then the argument that basic income should treat everyone the same will become useless to defend against further changes. You can't really preserve the purity of a policy design when the voters want to change it. There is also the danger of everyone voting to increase their income, to the extent that the program runs out of money. I think these moral intuitions can be changed, but only through a gradual phase-in of benefits over time. Of course, that's exactly what has been happening over the past century or so, and it's what led to the welfare systems we have today.

jpindar 10y ago
And then the threat of losing your income becomes just another way for the government to control people's behavior.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]