4 ms·

> All the austrian economics fans talking about better price signals as an argument for less regulation - all of them should consider using the same argument fo

by mjn 14y ago

> All the austrian economics fans talking about better price signals as an argument for less regulation - all of them should consider using the same argument for giving an unconditional safety net to the poor. Interestingly, one of the founders of Austrian economics, F.A. Hayek, actually did argue for a minimum income: http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/hayek79_minimumincome.html http://www.kmjn.org/snippets/hayek79_minimumincome.html

scarmig 14y ago
Libertarians often are big pushers of a minimum income, actually. It's far more direct and efficient as a means of improving the welfare of the least productive, and it's the least prone to special interests pushing for tax cuts because of how much their good helps kids/the poor/whatever. With a sufficient basic income, you could effectively get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public subsidies in all types of places they're unnecessary or harmful. And you remove the disincentive effect on productivity that most welfare schemes have. Most academic libertarians, in my experience, aren't of the sort that thinks private property rights is the sole criterion and sole justification for everything; their opposition to government activities is based a lot more on how it distorts price signals, public choice issues, and issues of implementation. The basic guaranteed income sidesteps all of those.
- cinquemb 14y ago
  >With a sufficient basic income, you could effectively get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public subsidies in all types of places they're unnecessary or harmful. And you remove the disincentive effect on productivity that most welfare schemes have. This might be a stretch, but this could be seen as the part mentioned in the article: “The idea of unconditional income comes from the failure of conditional programmes. As soon as there are conditions, there is erosion. Conditionality means intermediaries, which means power, which means corruption.” But then again, what will all the companies that benefit handsomely from these conditional programes do (outside of lobbying with the money they are currently given by government)?

by mjn 14y ago

scarmig 14y ago

Libertarians often are big pushers of a minimum income, actually. It's far more direct and efficient as a means of improving the welfare of the least productive, and it's the least prone to special interests pushing for tax cuts because of how much their good helps kids/the poor/whatever. With a sufficient basic income, you could effectively get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public subsidies in all types of places they're unnecessary or harmful. And you remove the disincentive effect on productivity that most welfare schemes have. Most academic libertarians, in my experience, aren't of the sort that thinks private property rights is the sole criterion and sole justification for everything; their opposition to government activities is based a lot more on how it distorts price signals, public choice issues, and issues of implementation. The basic guaranteed income sidesteps all of those.

cinquemb 14y ago
>With a sufficient basic income, you could effectively get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, public subsidies in all types of places they're unnecessary or harmful. And you remove the disincentive effect on productivity that most welfare schemes have. This might be a stretch, but this could be seen as the part mentioned in the article: “The idea of unconditional income comes from the failure of conditional programmes. As soon as there are conditions, there is erosion. Conditionality means intermediaries, which means power, which means corruption.” But then again, what will all the companies that benefit handsomely from these conditional programes do (outside of lobbying with the money they are currently given by government)?