4 ms·

One could argue if we went to basic income, we wouldn't need these artificially inflated costs that come as a result of an uncontrollable capitalistic greed to

One could argue if we went to basic income, we wouldn't need these artificially inflated costs that come as a result of an uncontrollable capitalistic greed to feed shareholders and corporate executives exorbitant amounts of profits. Maybe the dollar could regain some strength. There is no law that says currency must inflate in perpetuity.

sithadmin 9y ago
Even if costs of basic consumer goods were padded with as much as you're suggesting, how would a basic income somehow eliminate profit-seeking behaviors from the market? What you're hinting at would require strong controls on margins, which could be implemented without implementation of a basic income.
- treehau5 9y ago
  Yes, and in a scenario where you can calculate the baseline pie of money of which profit-seeking actors can ration, you would almost be forced down this route to ensure a fair market, otherwise different markets will cannibalize each other. (Might make for a good book) Practically implemented, I imagine along with "basic income" there be "basic goods and services", which have said strongly controlled margins. The rest can remain the same. (I think basic income will never work under any scenario in this current economy, I just like to theorize. Reading some of your other comments on this I think we would agree on much)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spaginal 9y ago
Capitalism is the normal mode of human interaction and has been the greatest lifter of people out of poverty period, while providing free choice and momentum to the economy that continues it's growth. This isn't even an assumption at this point. We've seen it with our own eyes. Government interference in this has created quite a few market anomalies over time, but overall capitalism in a free market works, and works REALLY well. A basic income will never work for one fundamental reason, you have to place a solid number to it outside of any other factor in an economy, whether it's $30,000 or $50,000 a year, and everywhere we live is different and has different requirements according to the local economies. Furthermore, you would need a very large tax base to support it, or a never ending printing press that ignores debt. In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. This would in turn result in a much larger bureaucratic government with more costs and corruption, more state control of industries, housing and real estate, food production, energy production, less freedom in the consumer market due to increased price controls and regulations, and an eventual collapse of the economy when companies drop from the economy due to too much regulation and taxes, high barriers to entry, and government corruption. This idea has been exercised in one form or the other over the 20th century to eventual failure each time. Bread lines, needs assistance, food, free government housing, it's all a form of basic income at a fundamental level and it's always failed.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. I disagree with this. SSA and CMS oversee over $2 trillion in SS/Medicare/Medicaid spending (enough for a generous BI), with administrative expenses of only about $10 billion.
  - spaginal 9y ago
    $2 trillion is a drop in the bucket. $2 trillion spread out over every man, woman, and child in the United States would equal roughly $5000. If you only paid working age adults, maybe $10,000 a year. In some areas of the country this is one month of living expenses, in other areas it may be a couple months if living cheap. You would need to consume almost the entire GDP of this country and pay only a portion of the population to make this even a number worth doing with basic income. It doesn't work, and the negatives far outweigh the positives economically.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > $2 trillion spread out over every man, woman, and child in the United States would equal roughly $5000. Children of course wouldn't need to get the same basic income as adults. $2 trillion is enough for every adult (working-age or otherwise) to get $9k/year, plus $2k per kid. > In some areas of the country this is one month of living expenses, in other areas it may be a couple months if living cheap. $9,000 per individual ($20,000 per family) is quite livable in much of the country. You can rent a 2BR house in Macon, GA for $350 per month (close to town!). Under basic income, poor people wouldn't have to live on the outskirts of high-COL areas just to get to their low-paying service jobs downtown. They could move to the vast swathes of this country that are much cheaper. And if they did choose to live near those jobs, the basic income would serve as a supplement, not a total replacement.
      - jpindar 9y ago
        Also an individual or couple can rent a studio apartment for about $500 in many cities, and of course people can and do share larger apartments.

sithadmin 9y ago

Even if costs of basic consumer goods were padded with as much as you're suggesting, how would a basic income somehow eliminate profit-seeking behaviors from the market? What you're hinting at would require strong controls on margins, which could be implemented without implementation of a basic income.

treehau5 9y ago
Yes, and in a scenario where you can calculate the baseline pie of money of which profit-seeking actors can ration, you would almost be forced down this route to ensure a fair market, otherwise different markets will cannibalize each other. (Might make for a good book) Practically implemented, I imagine along with "basic income" there be "basic goods and services", which have said strongly controlled margins. The rest can remain the same. (I think basic income will never work under any scenario in this current economy, I just like to theorize. Reading some of your other comments on this I think we would agree on much)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

spaginal 9y ago

Capitalism is the normal mode of human interaction and has been the greatest lifter of people out of poverty period, while providing free choice and momentum to the economy that continues it's growth. This isn't even an assumption at this point. We've seen it with our own eyes. Government interference in this has created quite a few market anomalies over time, but overall capitalism in a free market works, and works REALLY well. A basic income will never work for one fundamental reason, you have to place a solid number to it outside of any other factor in an economy, whether it's $30,000 or $50,000 a year, and everywhere we live is different and has different requirements according to the local economies. Furthermore, you would need a very large tax base to support it, or a never ending printing press that ignores debt. In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. This would in turn result in a much larger bureaucratic government with more costs and corruption, more state control of industries, housing and real estate, food production, energy production, less freedom in the consumer market due to increased price controls and regulations, and an eventual collapse of the economy when companies drop from the economy due to too much regulation and taxes, high barriers to entry, and government corruption. This idea has been exercised in one form or the other over the 20th century to eventual failure each time. Bread lines, needs assistance, food, free government housing, it's all a form of basic income at a fundamental level and it's always failed.

rayiner 9y ago
> In order to make the system fair so that it actually will do the intended job that people want it to, you would need to exercise a strangling amount of control over the economy and people's lives. I disagree with this. SSA and CMS oversee over $2 trillion in SS/Medicare/Medicaid spending (enough for a generous BI), with administrative expenses of only about $10 billion.
- spaginal 9y ago
  $2 trillion is a drop in the bucket. $2 trillion spread out over every man, woman, and child in the United States would equal roughly $5000. If you only paid working age adults, maybe $10,000 a year. In some areas of the country this is one month of living expenses, in other areas it may be a couple months if living cheap. You would need to consume almost the entire GDP of this country and pay only a portion of the population to make this even a number worth doing with basic income. It doesn't work, and the negatives far outweigh the positives economically.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > $2 trillion spread out over every man, woman, and child in the United States would equal roughly $5000. Children of course wouldn't need to get the same basic income as adults. $2 trillion is enough for every adult (working-age or otherwise) to get $9k/year, plus $2k per kid. > In some areas of the country this is one month of living expenses, in other areas it may be a couple months if living cheap. $9,000 per individual ($20,000 per family) is quite livable in much of the country. You can rent a 2BR house in Macon, GA for $350 per month (close to town!). Under basic income, poor people wouldn't have to live on the outskirts of high-COL areas just to get to their low-paying service jobs downtown. They could move to the vast swathes of this country that are much cheaper. And if they did choose to live near those jobs, the basic income would serve as a supplement, not a total replacement.
    - jpindar 9y ago
      Also an individual or couple can rent a studio apartment for about $500 in many cities, and of course people can and do share larger apartments.