4 ms·

Well, policymakers could re-asses at that point in time if they decided to take an action like this. If you really believe that things will remain disrupted fo

Well, policymakers could re-asses at that point in time if they decided to take an action like this. If you really believe that things will remain disrupted for a long time, it seems like you could see this as a great opportunity for a basic income experiment, huh?

champagneben 7y ago
One of the interesting questions would be how much a basic income would affect people's willingness to work, and we would not be getting that out of this experiment. In fact, I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment, except for its effects in similar very dramatic circumstances.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Still a useful data point. It would be nice to add this sort of action to the same toolbox which already contains quantitative easing.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment I uhhhh. People's ability to work and live is important. That's what we get out of it. People not starving or living in poverty is, surprisingly enough, pretty important to the economy and the ability to sell luxury goods. Regarding 'useful data': https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-trial-had-a-huge-effect-on-people-s-health https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-... And articles from the institute that performed the study: https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_income_recipients_were_food_insecure_survey https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom... https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends_nixing_basic_income_after_study_shows_trial_s_benefits https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...
- 6510 7y ago
  How would the data from any experiment reach you? (there have been lots of experiments) And not to offend you but what point is there in informing people? I would like to see an 1 euro/month basic income. Then we get a good idea what it costs to distribute. Then we should gradually increase it by an equally insignificant amount so that we can gradually observe who should but doesn't get it and how much fraud we have to deal with. With 100 euro extra we can at least silence the folk who for the last 100 years barricaded the discussion by saying they would continue to work themselves but others... others will do this and that. Popular variations: Wimmen will stop obeying their husband. Men will use the extra money to buy alcohol. Kids wont seek jobs. etc I think Keynes 15 hour work week provides a good hint. Wealthy people actually work more. I think the silver bullet basic income is silly for other reasons. Our economic model is to optimize for wealth extraction. Give people 50, 500 or 1000 extra and rent will go up by exactly the same amount. I'd still be willing to pay for the distribution experiment. But does it actually matter what I think?
wraithKingPrime 7y ago
It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Pretty much everybody has either rent or a mortgage. Therefore giving someone $1000 towards their rent/mortgage is basically equivalent to just giving them $1000, except that it's a ton of extra administrative complexity and it also screws over a few people who somehow don't qualify but still need help. Whereas if you make the assistance "we pay the amount of your mortgage" instead of "we pay $1000" then you're giving much more of the money to affluent people, who presumably need it less.
  - GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
    That's not what he said. He didn't say, "give everyone $1000 towards their rent or mortgage". He said, temporarily suspend all rent and mortgage payments. As in, nobody pays any of it. Recurring expenses are what's going to destroy the economy so thoroughly that the great depression will look like a minor downtown. If nobody gets kicked out because they can't pay rent, or their mortgage, or the lease on their business, things might actually be able to resume once there's a handle on this.
    - eudoxus 7y ago
      I understand how that would work for Mortgage payments as they are controlled/facilitated by banks, and the government has the ability to coordinate with banks (in an ideal case). But how might the federal government enforce suspension of rent payments? Rent just goes to landlords (regular people) and is part of their gross income filed on their taxes. If you don't have to pay your rent, wouldn't we just be moving the buck from renters to landlords in terms of finnancial needs?
      - magduf 7y ago
        The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.

champagneben 7y ago

One of the interesting questions would be how much a basic income would affect people's willingness to work, and we would not be getting that out of this experiment. In fact, I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment, except for its effects in similar very dramatic circumstances.

leggomylibro 7y ago
Still a useful data point. It would be nice to add this sort of action to the same toolbox which already contains quantitative easing.
fao_ 7y ago
> I can't imagine anything useful we'd be getting out of that experiment I uhhhh. People's ability to work and live is important. That's what we get out of it. People not starving or living in poverty is, surprisingly enough, pretty important to the economy and the ability to sell luxury goods. Regarding 'useful data': https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-trial-had-a-huge-effect-on-people-s-health https://www.inverse.com/article/53466-basic-income-canada-s-... And articles from the institute that performed the study: https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_income_recipients_were_food_insecure_survey https://www.basicincomecanada.org/nearly_half_of_basic_incom... https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends_nixing_basic_income_after_study_shows_trial_s_benefits https://www.basicincomecanada.org/ontario_government_defends...
6510 7y ago
How would the data from any experiment reach you? (there have been lots of experiments) And not to offend you but what point is there in informing people? I would like to see an 1 euro/month basic income. Then we get a good idea what it costs to distribute. Then we should gradually increase it by an equally insignificant amount so that we can gradually observe who should but doesn't get it and how much fraud we have to deal with. With 100 euro extra we can at least silence the folk who for the last 100 years barricaded the discussion by saying they would continue to work themselves but others... others will do this and that. Popular variations: Wimmen will stop obeying their husband. Men will use the extra money to buy alcohol. Kids wont seek jobs. etc I think Keynes 15 hour work week provides a good hint. Wealthy people actually work more. I think the silver bullet basic income is silly for other reasons. Our economic model is to optimize for wealth extraction. Give people 50, 500 or 1000 extra and rent will go up by exactly the same amount. I'd still be willing to pay for the distribution experiment. But does it actually matter what I think?

wraithKingPrime 7y ago

It's borderline irrelevant. I'd want to see things like rent/mortgage payments alleviated or suspended for the duration.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Pretty much everybody has either rent or a mortgage. Therefore giving someone $1000 towards their rent/mortgage is basically equivalent to just giving them $1000, except that it's a ton of extra administrative complexity and it also screws over a few people who somehow don't qualify but still need help. Whereas if you make the assistance "we pay the amount of your mortgage" instead of "we pay $1000" then you're giving much more of the money to affluent people, who presumably need it less.
- GeorgeWBasic 7y ago
  That's not what he said. He didn't say, "give everyone $1000 towards their rent or mortgage". He said, temporarily suspend all rent and mortgage payments. As in, nobody pays any of it. Recurring expenses are what's going to destroy the economy so thoroughly that the great depression will look like a minor downtown. If nobody gets kicked out because they can't pay rent, or their mortgage, or the lease on their business, things might actually be able to resume once there's a handle on this.
  - eudoxus 7y ago
    I understand how that would work for Mortgage payments as they are controlled/facilitated by banks, and the government has the ability to coordinate with banks (in an ideal case). But how might the federal government enforce suspension of rent payments? Rent just goes to landlords (regular people) and is part of their gross income filed on their taxes. If you don't have to pay your rent, wouldn't we just be moving the buck from renters to landlords in terms of finnancial needs?
    - magduf 7y ago
      The landlords are using the rent to pay the mortgage on the property. If the banks suspend mortgage payments, then the landlords don't need to collect rent any more. If the landlords desperately need that rent just to do basic maintenance and repairs, and don't have enough saved to deal with a possible problem that might happen in the next month, then they don't deserve to own the property.