3 ms·

I am aware of one experiment that has shown that basic income can work: http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income I don't t

I am aware of one experiment that has shown that basic income can work: http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income http://mondediplo.com/2013/05/04income I don't think that's the real issue stopping basic income. I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere --- specifically, the money would necessarily come from the high earners in society. And they would have to agree to basic income since in our current form of democracy the high-earners have a disproportionate influence on the law. However, the world's economy has been changing, such that it might actually behoove high earners to donate a portion of their earnings to basic income. Specifically, as automation decreases the need for human labor, then profits go up and employment goes down. This has actually been the trend since the 1970's. And if employment goes down too much, then there won't be enough spending money in the population's hands to fuel further earnings and economic growth. There is an excellent, short book by a couple of MIT economists that analyzes the economics of modern automation and makes the case for guaranteed income. "Race Against The Machine," by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee.

rndmize 13y ago
On that note, there's another book that's probably similar (haven't read the one you mentioned) called "The Lights In the Tunnel" (the author has a set your own price download for those only casually interested). http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/
ahomescu1 13y ago
> I don't think that's the real issue stopping basic income. I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere --- specifically, the money would necessarily come from the high earners in society. And they would have to agree to basic income since in our current form of democracy the high-earners have a disproportionate influence on the law. Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing. However, relying on printing money to cover government expenses has been a bad idea pretty much everywhere (there are a lot of examples of hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe, Argentina and Germany). Among many nasty effects, it destroys any savings people have.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  "I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere" A lot of the money comes from not running the bureaucracy required for a complex means tested benefits system. If you took the existing UK budget for social protection, which does not include the existing health or social housing budget, and divided it equally among the population, it comes to about £58 per week, which is more money than you get right now on job seekers allowance if you are under 25 in the UK.
- mikegagnon 13y ago
  > "Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing." If the government printed money and gave it directly to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). Money is only useful in so much that it represents a fraction of the total money supply. It represents a kind of point system for the distribution of wealth. I might own one trillionth of the total money supply, whereas a more wealthy person might one one millionth of the money supply. Thus, when you print money it reduces everyone's wealth (except for the new money holder). So let's say today there is $1 trillion in the money supply, and I (the government) print another trillion and give it directly to the impoverished. The value of every dollar has just been halved. So every millionaire has essentially become a half millionaire. So yes, if you printed $1 trillion and gave it to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). However, in today's banking system newly created money disproportionately ends up in the hands of the wealthier. In this way, creating money (today) is a tax on the impoverished and the lower earners in society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

rndmize 13y ago

On that note, there's another book that's probably similar (haven't read the one you mentioned) called "The Lights In the Tunnel" (the author has a set your own price download for those only casually interested). http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/ http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/

ahomescu1 13y ago

> I don't think that's the real issue stopping basic income. I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere --- specifically, the money would necessarily come from the high earners in society. And they would have to agree to basic income since in our current form of democracy the high-earners have a disproportionate influence on the law. Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing. However, relying on printing money to cover government expenses has been a bad idea pretty much everywhere (there are a lot of examples of hyperinflation, like Zimbabwe, Argentina and Germany). Among many nasty effects, it destroys any savings people have.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
"I think the real issue is that the money has to come from somewhere" A lot of the money comes from not running the bureaucracy required for a complex means tested benefits system. If you took the existing UK budget for social protection, which does not include the existing health or social housing budget, and divided it equally among the population, it comes to about £58 per week, which is more money than you get right now on job seekers allowance if you are under 25 in the UK.
mikegagnon 13y ago
> "Money doesn't come only from taxes, it can also come from printing." If the government printed money and gave it directly to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). Money is only useful in so much that it represents a fraction of the total money supply. It represents a kind of point system for the distribution of wealth. I might own one trillionth of the total money supply, whereas a more wealthy person might one one millionth of the money supply. Thus, when you print money it reduces everyone's wealth (except for the new money holder). So let's say today there is $1 trillion in the money supply, and I (the government) print another trillion and give it directly to the impoverished. The value of every dollar has just been halved. So every millionaire has essentially become a half millionaire. So yes, if you printed $1 trillion and gave it to the impoverished it would be equivalent to a tax on everyone else (and the wealthy would experience the largest absolute wealth loss). However, in today's banking system newly created money disproportionately ends up in the hands of the wealthier. In this way, creating money (today) is a tax on the impoverished and the lower earners in society. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation