5 ms·

The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee in a system where (i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receiv

The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee in a system where (i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receive the income (ii) the amount is insufficient to live on (iii) there are insufficient jobs overall in the economy for all that want them (iv) it isn't permanent then all you actually have is a tax credit system with a different withdrawal mechanism. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-finnished-babadac2d29b https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi... The pathologies of income schemes that cause all of them to be degraded and cancelled build up over time as people adjust to the new scheme and work out who is failing to reciprocate. Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers. https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basically-theft-a95eeedb5aad https://medium.com/modern-money-matters/is-basic-income-basi... They then agitate to have the income removed from those seen as cheating the system. What we need are guaranteed jobs at a guaranteed living wage, paid for by the state working for the public good. Then private businesses finally have to compete for labour and that maintains the wage share. People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying off and left to rot.

eganist 9y ago
Given that the discussion is a research proposal to test basic income as a concept, rather than focus your comment on dismissing the concept of basic income (which it's worth noting is totally fine to do but isn't relevant to the thread), why not propose changes to refine the study so that it may more effectively assess whether basic income is viable?
- IanDrake 9y ago
  You would need a small nation state to run the experiment with its own currency and limited natural resources (as in, it can't just sell oil and distribute profits like Alaska). It would also have to be very librial about borders and illegal immigrants to simulate the US. I would suggest the minimum size of this nation should be around 15+ million people.
rory096 9y ago
It should be noted that the parent is basing his conclusions on Modern Monetary Theory[0], a heretodox economic theory in which fiscal policy is unconstrained, deficits aren't relevant, and a country is always able to spend. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
- ubi_now 9y ago
  No, this is way off. MMT doesn't model fiscal policy as unconstrained in real terms, only nominal terms. And given the legal authority, of course a sovereign issuer is always able to spend. In this case spending is merely typing digits into a computer. This fact doesn't imply deficits/debt "aren't relevant", but rather deficits/debt work very differently for the currency issuer as opposed to the currency user.
Matumio 9y ago
The mandatory Milton Friedman quote: At one of our dinners, Milton recalled travelling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
chillwaves 9y ago
> Overall basic income is theft from workers Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of increasingly advanced tools and a necessary recognition of limited natural resources and duty to share a small portion to every human being on the basis of birth into our society, aka social contract.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest of that sentence: "Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers." When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style life, leaving any cash-requiring activities (like paying taxes) to my $UBI/mo check. That I am a productive person does not mean my productivity will necessarily be taxable; I grew up in a live-off-the-land family, and would be happy to return to that lifestyle if you're going to just take a big chunk of my income just to give to others. There are enough jobs (yes, there are). Wealth is not durable (you eat a hamburger, $1 of economic wealth turns to *). Encouraging idleness by funding it is an unsustainable economic strategy, because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.
  - mbrameld 9y ago
    >because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle. You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive. However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable. Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns, although not in the form of trading time for money.
    - Tactic 9y ago
      I believe you but that is anecdotal. I know people that not only want to remain idle if their basic needs are taken care of but currently do, and have been doing it for decades. Like most human traits, there is a wide degree of variance. As such there is no doubt in my mind UBI would allow a greater number of idlers because it would be more easily available. Just as it would allow more people to trade a job they don't like for a constructive activity they do.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying off and left to rot." No, they need fulfillment in their life. Do you think flipping burgers at McDonald's provides that? UBI allows people to not have to work long hours at shitty jobs. That is something that should be praised, not derided as "theft".

eganist 9y ago

Given that the discussion is a research proposal to test basic income as a concept, rather than focus your comment on dismissing the concept of basic income (which it's worth noting is totally fine to do but isn't relevant to the thread), why not propose changes to refine the study so that it may more effectively assess whether basic income is viable?

IanDrake 9y ago
You would need a small nation state to run the experiment with its own currency and limited natural resources (as in, it can't just sell oil and distribute profits like Alaska). It would also have to be very librial about borders and illegal immigrants to simulate the US. I would suggest the minimum size of this nation should be around 15+ million people.

rory096 9y ago

It should be noted that the parent is basing his conclusions on Modern Monetary Theory[0], a heretodox economic theory in which fiscal policy is unconstrained, deficits aren't relevant, and a country is always able to spend. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

ubi_now 9y ago
No, this is way off. MMT doesn't model fiscal policy as unconstrained in real terms, only nominal terms. And given the legal authority, of course a sovereign issuer is always able to spend. In this case spending is merely typing digits into a computer. This fact doesn't imply deficits/debt "aren't relevant", but rather deficits/debt work very differently for the currency issuer as opposed to the currency user.

Matumio 9y ago

The mandatory Milton Friedman quote: At one of our dinners, Milton recalled travelling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”

chillwaves 9y ago

> Overall basic income is theft from workers Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of increasingly advanced tools and a necessary recognition of limited natural resources and duty to share a small portion to every human being on the basis of birth into our society, aka social contract.

ctdonath 9y ago
Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest of that sentence: "Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers." When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style life, leaving any cash-requiring activities (like paying taxes) to my $UBI/mo check. That I am a productive person does not mean my productivity will necessarily be taxable; I grew up in a live-off-the-land family, and would be happy to return to that lifestyle if you're going to just take a big chunk of my income just to give to others. There are enough jobs (yes, there are). Wealth is not durable (you eat a hamburger, $1 of economic wealth turns to *). Encouraging idleness by funding it is an unsustainable economic strategy, because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.
- mbrameld 9y ago
  >because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle. You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive. However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable. Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns, although not in the form of trading time for money.
  - Tactic 9y ago
    I believe you but that is anecdotal. I know people that not only want to remain idle if their basic needs are taken care of but currently do, and have been doing it for decades. Like most human traits, there is a wide degree of variance. As such there is no doubt in my mind UBI would allow a greater number of idlers because it would be more easily available. Just as it would allow more people to trade a job they don't like for a constructive activity they do.

s73ver_ 9y ago

"People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying off and left to rot." No, they need fulfillment in their life. Do you think flipping burgers at McDonald's provides that? UBI allows people to not have to work long hours at shitty jobs. That is something that should be praised, not derided as "theft".