3 ms·

I think this is one of the most important ideas being explored right now and could not only save families but also become a giant incubator for new research. (

I think this is one of the most important ideas being explored right now and could not only save families but also become a giant incubator for new research. (It may also require moving to a new form of government, such as a Direct Democracy, to implement.) It's an idea whose time has come.

mseebach 15y ago
The proportion of Danish citizens on some kind of transfer income: 60% (includes student stipends all the way to pensions) The value of new research undertaken by people on transfer income: very small, if any at all. The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
- _delirium 15y ago
  The second part doesn't seem correct; a huge amount of new development in Denmark is done by people on transfer income. For example, a number of research results that later were commercialized have come out of Masters theses (there's even a whole arrangement where you can do a thesis in collaboration with a company), and a number of companies were funded initially by some kind of government benefits, sometimes officially and sometimes unofficially (since you lose benefits once you're officially "working for a startup"). Even when the money doesn't go directly to the startup, it provides a backstop so people feel more free to take risks starting a company. I guess it'd be interesting to read a study quantifying it, but I'd be surprised if it were really true that not much research comes out of people on transfer incomes, especially if you include the people who used transfer incomes to bootstrap the early stages of a startup.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    So, student subsidies are the odd one out here, because they're not money you're given to survive, they're given in exchange for a specific activity. They do, however, count as transfer income, and the source I have for 60% didn't break it down. Yes, unemployment benefits can provide a backstop that enables entrepreneurship, but Denmark has more generous benefits than most other countries, yet the levels of entrepreneurship don't follow. Any other direct subsidy towards entrepreneurship (although often misguided) aren't transfer income in the sense being suggested by the GP. The people who can just sit around and come up with exciting new research or who can become successful entrepreneurs are generally also the kind of people who can get a job if they want or need one.
    - oelewapperke 15y ago
      Student subsidies are less than 1% of all social security spending in Denmark. Also, most of even that 1% it is wasted. The majority of people fail, even with this more than generous government support.
- david927 15y ago
  The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Make that one wolf and 99 pissed-off sheep. The thing is, it's not up to us to decide if it's a good idea: it's up to the people who would benefit -- which is the vast majority. You can have concentrated wealth or you can have democratic principles, but you can't long maintain both.

mseebach 15y ago

The proportion of Danish citizens on some kind of transfer income: 60% (includes student stipends all the way to pensions) The value of new research undertaken by people on transfer income: very small, if any at all. The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

_delirium 15y ago
The second part doesn't seem correct; a huge amount of new development in Denmark is done by people on transfer income. For example, a number of research results that later were commercialized have come out of Masters theses (there's even a whole arrangement where you can do a thesis in collaboration with a company), and a number of companies were funded initially by some kind of government benefits, sometimes officially and sometimes unofficially (since you lose benefits once you're officially "working for a startup"). Even when the money doesn't go directly to the startup, it provides a backstop so people feel more free to take risks starting a company. I guess it'd be interesting to read a study quantifying it, but I'd be surprised if it were really true that not much research comes out of people on transfer incomes, especially if you include the people who used transfer incomes to bootstrap the early stages of a startup.
- mseebach 15y ago
  So, student subsidies are the odd one out here, because they're not money you're given to survive, they're given in exchange for a specific activity. They do, however, count as transfer income, and the source I have for 60% didn't break it down. Yes, unemployment benefits can provide a backstop that enables entrepreneurship, but Denmark has more generous benefits than most other countries, yet the levels of entrepreneurship don't follow. Any other direct subsidy towards entrepreneurship (although often misguided) aren't transfer income in the sense being suggested by the GP. The people who can just sit around and come up with exciting new research or who can become successful entrepreneurs are generally also the kind of people who can get a job if they want or need one.
  - oelewapperke 15y ago
    Student subsidies are less than 1% of all social security spending in Denmark. Also, most of even that 1% it is wasted. The majority of people fail, even with this more than generous government support.
david927 15y ago
The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Make that one wolf and 99 pissed-off sheep. The thing is, it's not up to us to decide if it's a good idea: it's up to the people who would benefit -- which is the vast majority. You can have concentrated wealth or you can have democratic principles, but you can't long maintain both.